The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Rapunzel on December 03, 2013, 06:59:54 am
-
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02/rush-limbaugh-vs-the-pope/comment-page-136/
December 2nd, 2013
11:29 AM ET
Rush Limbaugh: Pope is preaching 'pure Marxism'
By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) – Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist?
That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism."
Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.
Limbaugh's segment, now online and entitled "It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)," takes direct aim at the pope's economic views, calling them "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong."
The Vatican issued the English translation of "Evangelii," which is known officially as an apostolic exhortation and unofficially as a pep talk to the worlds 1.5 billion Catholics.
Francis – the first pope ever to hail from Latin America, where he worked on behalf of the poor in his native Argentina – warned in "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny."
The Pope also blasted "trickle-down economics," saying the theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."
The Pope's critique of capitalism thrilled many liberal Catholics, who have long called on church leaders to spend more time and energy on protecting the poor from economic inequalities.
But Limbaugh, whose program is estimated to reach 15 million listeners, called the Pope's comments "sad" and "unbelievable."
"It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth."
In fact, Argentina was a battlefield between leftist socialists and right-wing security forces during much of Francis' early career in the country, where he was a Jesuit priest and later archbishop of Buenos Aires.
Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, said he admires the faith "profoundly." He admired Pope Francis as well, "up until this," Limbaugh said.
The talk show host also said that he has made numerous visits to the Vatican, which he said "wouldn't exist without tons of money."
"But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh added. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope."
Limbaugh took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate.
"This is almost a statement about who should control financial markets," Limbaugh said. "He says that the global economy needs government control."
"I'm not Catholic, but I know enough to know that this would have been unthinkable for a pope to believe or say just a few years ago," Limbaugh continued.
In fact, Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, now pope emeritus, could be just as strong a critic of capitalism.
In 2009, Benedict, in an official church document called an encyclical, said there was an urgent need for "a political, juridical and economic order" that would "manage the global economy."
As Limbaugh notes, Benedict's predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, was a noted foe of communism, after living under its oppressions in his native Poland. But even John Paul thought that unregulated capitalism could have negative consequences.
In "Evangelii," Francis called for more of a spiritual and ethical revolution than a regulatory one.
"I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: `Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs,'" said Francis, quoting the fifth-century St. John Chrysostom.
Liberal Catholics defended Pope Francis on Monday, calling on Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks.
"To call the Holy Father a proponent 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive," said Christopher Hale of the Washington-based Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. "Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching."
Limbaugh is not the only conservative commentator to take issue with the Pope's views on capitalism.
“I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”
It doesn't sound like the criticism is slowing Francis down, however. He's started ending a Vatican contingent, including the Papal Swiss Guards, into Rome to deliver food and charity.
-
:nometalk:
(http://brighton-hove.dbprimary.com/brighton-hove/primary/fairlight/arenas/dinosaurs/web/dinosaur_claws_by_praetori.jpg)
-
Is being Pope supposed to protect him from free speech in America, or something? :pondering:
-
Christianity, in it's purist form is socialism. Your brother is hungry, feed him. Your brother is cold, give him your coat. It didn't start with Jesus though, Cain's query about being his brother's keeper started that ball rolling.
Charity, at the end of gun or the lips of a Prince is not charity, it's robbery.
-
Not quite pure Marxism, as Marx spoke derisively of religion as an "opiate of the masses" and obviously a Roman Catholic would never get away with such language.
However, compare The Communist Manifesto with the passages in Francis's most recent statement. The rebukes of capitalism, the bemoaning of "income inequality," the blaming of all the world's problems on "trickle-down economics." Marx and Engels would be proud of the pontiff.
-
Let the world adopt global Marxism and we'll see just how much influence Catholicism, or any religion, will have in our society.
People gravitate to religion in free market economic systems because these are the primary institutions for taking care of the poor and the sick, and people support these institutions out of a desire to improve their communities and support fellowship. Once government takes over this role, people become jaded and just assume the government will handle whatever social ills come along. All one need do is look at the high correlation between progressivism, atheism and charitable giving to know that religion fares far better in a free market society.
The pope is no doubt trying to find his church's relevance in a world growing more global and secular by the day. But this message is the wrong way to go about it. It would be a crying shame if the Catholic Church stopped being the legitimate conscience of our world.
-
Christianity, in it's purist form is socialism. Your brother is hungry, feed him. Your brother is cold, give him your coat. It didn't start with Jesus though, Cain's query about being his brother's keeper started that ball rolling.
Charity, at the end of gun or the lips of a Prince is not charity, it's robbery.
Your first statement is ABSOLUTELY and patently FALSE! The last is perfectly true!
Nowhere in the Bible will anyone find any reference to "giving your money to the state so the the state can take care of the poor" . What you DO find there instead are plenty of moral imperatives urging us to personally, of our on free and will and without any form of coercion, do something! There is no force spoken of EVER and that, at least in my book, is a VERY far cry from Socialism!
As you have pointed out, anything done under any form of duress is something but certainly NOT charity!
-
I also think Rush is absolutely right on in what he says here!
-
I also think Rush is absolutely right on in what he says here!
I do as well. As a former Catholic I am cautious in what I say about the church that many other's still call their own. However, the Catholic church has been targeted for subversive thought and infiltrated by subversive actors for many, many decades now. So it never surprises me when I see this type of propaganda flowing from it. It is just another result of that "long march through the institutions" that we see the results of in the world around us each and every day.
-
Your first statement is ABSOLUTELY and patently FALSE! The last is perfectly true!
Nowhere in the Bible will anyone find any reference to "giving your money to the state so the the state can take care of the poor" . What you DO find there instead are plenty of moral imperatives urging us to personally, of our on free and will and without any form of coercion, do something! There is no force spoken of EVER and that, at least in my book, is a VERY far cry from Socialism!
As you have pointed out, anything done under any form of duress is something but certainly NOT charity!
You are entirely correct in that Christianity is NOT AT ALL the same as Marxism.
Christ's words are a directive to individuals who follow HIM, and absolutely nothing to do with government.
There is plenty in Scripture about working hard and not being slothful, which is what socialism is all about.
Not the same at all. Jesus never taught robbery.
-
Let the world adopt global Marxism and we'll see just how much influence Catholicism, or any religion, will have in our society.
People gravitate to religion in free market economic systems because these are the primary institutions for taking care of the poor and the sick, and people support these institutions out of a desire to improve their communities and support fellowship. Once government takes over this role, people become jaded and just assume the government will handle whatever social ills come along. All one need do is look at the high correlation between progressivism, atheism and charitable giving to know that religion fares far better in a free market society.
The pope is no doubt trying to find his church's relevance in a world growing more global and secular by the day. But this message is the wrong way to go about it. It would be a crying shame if the Catholic Church stopped being the legitimate conscience of our world.
Excellent observation, prof. Excellently stated.
-
Rush is right on the mark in his analysis if you base it on the media reports*. Jesus never once told his disciples to petition Herod to take care of the poor or heal the sick. He told us as Christians it was our individual duty.
*HOWEVER, the media has been misreporting what the Pope said.
However, a thorough reading of Evangelii Gaudium in the context of the Catechism promulgated by John Paul II fails to substantiate these accusations or celebrations. It’s true that Francis has scalding criticisms of dysfunctional capitalism as an end in itself. One has to consider that in the context of his front-row seat for the Argentinian version of it, where crony capitalism creates a huge distortion in the distribution of goods and the winners corrupt government to perpetuate those outcomes. Argentina hardly holds a monopoly on that development, though, and where gaps of inequality and poverty in these economies grow, criticism of those outcomes don’t make one a socialist. Indeed, Francis even includes a disclaimer against “an irresponsible populism,” even while blasting economies that “attempt to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded” in the same sentence.
For those familiar with Catholic teaching on economics, Pope Francis speaks in a consistent voice with his predecessors......
- See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/12/02/Media-Got-Pope-s-Remark-Capitalism-Wrong#sthash.yFkQgzI2.dpuf
-
Christianity, in it's purist form is socialism. Your brother is hungry, feed him. Your brother is cold, give him your coat. It didn't start with Jesus though, Cain's query about being his brother's keeper started that ball rolling.
What you described is not socialism, it is liberty. You freely give of your own choice to your brother.
Socialism is State Collectivism under clothed in the false excuse of taking care of those in need.
Socialism is the exact opposite of Christianity.
Christ taught us to take care of our brother ourselves.
Petitioning the government to do it for us is the antithesis of that. It is apathy. It is abdicating your personal responsibility to the government.
As we also know, as soon as you abdicate this to the government, the first victims are those who are the most in need. See Healthcare.gov/Obamacare as a case example of this. Not only that, it allows the government to dictate moral rules and it is a crime to go against said rules.
The only people who are fed via a socialist program are those who are politically connected. The rest just get crumbs off master government's table.
-
Your first statement is ABSOLUTELY and patently FALSE! The last is perfectly true!
Nowhere in the Bible will anyone find any reference to "giving your money to the state so the the state can take care of the poor" . What you DO find there instead are plenty of moral imperatives urging us to personally, of our on free and will and without any form of coercion, do something! There is no force spoken of EVER and that, at least in my book, is a VERY far cry from Socialism!
As you have pointed out, anything done under any form of duress is something but certainly NOT charity!
I didn't mention government at all. If you look at the earliest Christian groups, they were, for all intents and purposes, communes. I'm sure along with Simon the Zealot and Roger the Solemn, there was most likely a "Dan the Does Enough to Get By".
-
I didn't mention government at all. If you look at the earliest Christian groups, they were, for all intents and purposes, communes. I'm sure along with Simon the Zealot and Roger the Solemn, there was most likely a "Dan the Does Enough to Get By".
It's a matter of semantics. Communal living is basically socialism. Groups of early Christians lived communally.
-
I didn't mention government at all. If you look at the earliest Christian groups, they were, for all intents and purposes, communes. I'm sure along with Simon the Zealot and Roger the Solemn, there was most likely a "Dan the Does Enough to Get By".
You did when you mentioned 'Socialism', that is a political ideology.
There is a BIG difference between communes people freely join and Communism (socialism to the extreme). In one case, you freely join the collective. In the other case, there is no free entry or exit from the collective and those who rule the collective take and distribute as their whim.
The difference is important, it is Liberty.
-
You did when you mentioned 'Socialism', that is a political ideology.
There is a BIG difference between communes people freely join and Communism (socialism to the extreme). In one case, you freely join the collective. In the other case, there is no free entry or exit from the collective and those who rule the collective take and distribute as their whim.
The difference is important, it is Liberty.
I don't believe any political encyclopedia defines socialism with the requirement of armed oppression as it's basis. Realities on the ground may make it necessary.
-
I don't believe any political encyclopedia defines socialism with the requirement of armed oppression as it's basis. Realities on the ground may make it necessary.
It's still the government in control and not individual liberty.
You don't need "armed oppression" to deny personal liberty.
-
It's still the government in control and not individual liberty.
You don't need "armed oppression" to deny personal liberty.
Let's try it this way. Remove "armed enforcement" and explain the difference between Christianity and Socialism?
-
Let's try it this way. Remove "armed enforcement" and explain the difference between Christianity and Socialism?
It's already been explained multiple times, onc........
Christianity is voluntary, individual, motivated by love for others and obedience to Jesus Christ.
Socialism is big government taxation, involuntary redistribution of wealth by people who don't give a rip about anyone but themselves.
Once again, it is a profound misunderstanding of who Christ is, and what His followers are commanded to do that causes your continued confusion.
-
Remove "armed enforcement" and explain the difference between Christianity and Socialism?
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Acts 5:1-4 [emphasis added]
Sharing, even in the early Church period you refer to as communal, was voluntary. The existence of private property was clearly recognized. Under Socialism private property rights are not recognized and sharing is compulsive.
One other thing: I always take news reports about what this Pope said or that Pope said with a grain of salt as I know the way it's being reported will have a Leftist cast. Perhaps Pope Francis said what is being reported, perhaps what he said is being misreported. Whichever I doubt he was advocating coercion when he talks about sharing.
-
Let's try it this way. Remove "armed enforcement" and explain the difference between Christianity and Socialism?
Socialism is forced extraction of $$ from the people, funneled into one secular monolith, which forces the people to fight over who gets it back.
That's similar to Christianity.... how?
-
The first 10% tithing goes where?
-
Tithing is voluntary. Tithing does not necessarily have to go to one place. You can tithe your 10% to any number of charitable organizations if you wish.
-
Tithing is voluntary. Tithing does not necessarily have to go to one place. You can tithe your 10% to any number of charitable organizations if you wish.
Is a collection plate passed around your Sunday services?
-
Is a collection plate passed around your Sunday services?
The difference is you are free to give or not to give. Under socialism, what you have is taken. What you have is part of the collective and you have no right to freely give or not give.
The freely giving is the best expression of Christianity because it is of free choice, just like accepting Christ.
That is what makes Socialism the exact opposite of Christianity.
-
The difference is you are free to give or not to give. Under socialism, what you have is taken. What you have is part of the collective and you have no right to freely give or not give.
The freely giving is the best expression of Christianity because it is of free choice, just like accepting Christ.
That is what makes Socialism the exact opposite of Christianity.
Well, I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand the underlying precepts of both and can recognize a walking and talking duck.
I'll take my leave from this thread and see you all on the next unrelated topic.
-
I agree 100% with AbaraXas socialism is the exact opposite of Christianity.
-
Is a collection plate passed around your Sunday services?
Yes and you can pass it right on by without putting one penny in the plate if you so choose.
-
Yes and you can pass it right on by without putting one penny in the plate if you so choose.
Uh–huh... Try doing that with the IRS.
-
Well, I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand the underlying precepts of both and can recognize a walking and talking duck.
I'll take my leave from this thread and see you all on the next unrelated topic.
The discussion we've been having with you is very 'related' onc.
Christianity and Socialism are opposites.
And tithing is voluntary. Paying taxes is not.
-
I'm going to weigh in (slightly) on North's side here, despite my previous :nometalk: .
Christianity has some aspects of socialism. Look after your fellow man. Pick them up when they fall. Give them your cloak if they are cold, feed them if they hunger, let them draw water from your well if they thirst. Love your neighbor as yourself. It certainly looks socialist - if you squint a bit.
Of course, you do all those things for the love of God, not because the state insists you do so. So, there is that.
-
The Socialist Lord's Prayer
Our Father in government,
bureaucrat be your name.
Your taxman come,
your will be done,
in blue states, as it is in red.
Give us this day the rich's breadcrumbs,
and add to our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And accept all temptations
and call nothing evil.
-
I'm going to weigh in (slightly) on North's side here, despite my previous :nometalk: .
Christianity has some aspects of socialism. Look after your fellow man. Pick them up when they fall. Give them your cloak if they are cold, feed them if they hunger, let them draw water from your well if they thirst. Love your neighbor as yourself. It certainly looks socialist - if you squint a bit.
Of course, you do all those things for the love of God, not because the state insists you do so. So, there is that.
That still falls under the false premise that Socialism actually does all those things. It doesn't. It cloaks itself in the guise of helping your fellow man, but in reality, it only helps those politically connected. It enslaves your fellow man and ensure all are thirsty or cold or hungry, as long as they are equally so.
-
That still falls under the false premise that Socialism actually does all those things. It doesn't. It cloaks itself in the guise of helping your fellow man, but in reality, it only helps those politically connected. It enslaves your fellow man and ensure all are thirsty or cold or hungry, as long as they are equally so.
True - because people are human and look to the main chance every chance they get.
If you want to see perfect socialism, or indeed communism, in action, look no further than a well run monastery. I retreat to one from time to time to refresh my life. It is the epitome of communist living. All eat the same, sleep the same, own nothing. You could justly say that "Marx taught pure Catholicism."
-
Is a collection plate passed around your Sunday services?
No! As a matter of fact it is not! But even if it were putting anything in it is strictly voluntary!
-
Uh–huh... Try doing that with the IRS.
:amen: :amen: and :amen:
-
No! As a matter of fact it is not! But even if it were putting anything in it is strictly voluntary!
How'd you do it then? Note - not a challenge, just curiosity.
Our church does a collection. You pick up an envelope (after Mass) for the next week. That way no one sees what you put in the collection box and it stays totally anonymous. Some weeks you get a lot of coins. Other weeks, a lot of notes. Further weeks a hell of a lot of empty envelopes. You know the empty envelopes weeks - our Father gets a lot of invitations to dinner from people on their way out after Mass!
-
How'd you do it then? Note - not a challenge, just curiosity.
Our church does a collection. You pick up an envelope (after Mass) for the next week. That way no one sees what you put in the collection box and it stays totally anonymous. Some weeks you get a lot of coins. Other weeks, a lot of notes. Further weeks a hell of a lot of empty envelopes. You know the empty envelopes weeks - our Father gets a lot of invitations to dinner from people on their way out after Mass!
Tithing slips and in sealed envelopes passed directly to a member of the Bishopric. There is no collection box at all and all strictly voluntary.
-
Tithing slips and in sealed envelopes. All strictly voluntary.
Very similar. I do like the sealed envelope thing. One shouldn't be proud when tithing. Keep it anonymous and keep it hidden. There is no shame in being flat broke - happens to us all at some stage - but people feel shame regardless.
-
Let's try it this way. Remove "armed enforcement" and explain the difference between Christianity and Socialism?
If you are referring to a Christian commune then you may have an argument that there is little difference, but God wants his church to be an ACTs 13 Church and not keep his Gospel enclosed in its four walls. He wants the church to be Jesus to the World, starting with the community that surrounds the church. On the Sunday before Thanksgiving our church members (on a volunteer basis) brought in and donated 375 turkeys and 7 tons of food for the local food bank. We provide free oil changes to single Moms in the Summer, and our kids send several hundred Operation Christmas Child boxes out. That is being Jesus to the World and is as far away from Socialism as you can get.
-
Tithing slips and in sealed envelopes passed directly to a member of the Bishopric. There is no collection box at all and all strictly voluntary.
We are given postage paid giving envelopes with our program. If you choose to give you can either drop it in the bucket or mail your gift in during the week. There is never any pressure or sermons design to inflict guilt, like some other churches I attended. And our church is doing real well financially, so what they do, the way they do it seems to bring in enough to grow our church and support our missionaries.
-
If you are referring to a Christian commune then you may have an argument that there is little difference, but God wants his church to be an ACTs 13 Church and not keep his Gospel enclosed in its four walls. He wants the church to be Jesus to the World, starting with the community that surrounds the church. On the Sunday before Thanksgiving our church members (on a volunteer basis) brought in and donated 375 turkeys and 7 tons of food for the local food bank. We provide free oil changes to single Moms in the Summer, and our kids send several hundred Operation Christmas Child boxes out. That is being Jesus to the World and is as far away from Socialism as you can get.
Just want to derail a second. You, the church you attend, and it's younger members are a serious class act. :beer:
-
Is a collection plate passed around your Sunday services?
Once upon a time, the money was to provide modest means, for the pastor. Now it is for his mansion, his plane, etc.
-
What a change from Karol Wojtyla of Poland, who along with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher toppled Soviet communism...
How times have changed, and not for the better.
-
Once upon a time, the money was to provide modest means, for the pastor. Now it is for his mansion, his plane, etc.
Even if this little bit of hyperbole is true, what is it to you? If I CHOOSE to give money to a preacher, even if in your opinion his lifestyle is far too luxurious, it's my money, is it not?
Otoh, what choice do I have when it comes to underwriting the lifestyle of someone like Obama, or any politician?
The issue is less what is done with the money, it's whether the people who provide it are doing so voluntarily. If you choose not to contribute to people like the Preachers of LA then by all means don't. However, just try not "contributing" to Obama & Co.
-
What a change from Karol Wojtyla of Poland, who along with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher toppled Soviet communism...
How times have changed, and not for the better.
Hey! He's a Jesuit. What did you expect? Remember the Berrigan brothers? Loyola himself couldn't get in the Jesuits these days. :shrug:
-
The Pope also blasted "trickle-down economics," saying the theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."
Sadly, that statement indicates that the Pope, like most liberals, simply doesn't understand basic economics. The point of "trickle-down economics" is not that the wealthy will somehow adopt noblesse oblige and become the benefactors of the poor, but that the self-interested economic activity of the wealthy has far-reaching economic effects that end up benefiting everyone, including the poor. This is not something new under the Sun; it is essentially derivative of what Adam Smith had to say so many hundreds of years ago.
As for the broader statement about the "idolatry of money" - sure, I'd agree on that very abstract, general plane that the idolization of "money" isn't healthy or helpful, but neither is the idolatry of power, and socialists the world over, once they get some power, engage wholeheartedly in both idolatries.
-
Once upon a time, the money was to provide modest means, for the pastor. Now it is for his mansion, his plane, etc.
Even if this little bit of hyperbole is true, what is it to you? If I CHOOSE to give money to a preacher, even if in your opinion his lifestyle is far too luxurious, it's my money, is it not?
Otoh, what choice do I have when it comes to underwriting the lifestyle of someone like Obama, or any politician?
The issue is less what is done with the money, it's whether the people who provide it are doing so voluntarily. If you choose not to contribute to people like the Preachers of LA then by all means don't. However, just try not "contributing" to Obama & Co.
I have to second that; one of the benefits of individual liberty is the right to be about as stupid as you want to be with your money - not to say that contributing money to one's pastor is stupid - and so there isn't any particularly good reason to object to donations simply because they're being made to some guy/gal who is already stinkin' rich.
-
I'm going to weigh in (slightly) on North's side here, despite my previous :nometalk: .
Christianity has some aspects of socialism. Look after your fellow man. Pick them up when they fall. Give them your cloak if they are cold, feed them if they hunger, let them draw water from your well if they thirst. Love your neighbor as yourself. It certainly looks socialist - if you squint a bit.
Of course, you do all those things for the love of God, not because the state insists you do so. So, there is that.
The socialist threads in Christianity are, by and large, much like the socialist threads in the traditional American virtues of everyone pulling together with their neighbors because standing together with your family, friends, and neighbors is the right thing to do.
It strikes me that the biggest difference between Christianity (and the traditional American virtues) and socialism eo nomine is the fact that the former is voluntary while the latter is always compulsory, usually at the wrong end of a gun.
The Church used to try and enforce its tenets through, well, through force, and a fat lot of good that got everyone.
Effectively, socialism cannot even hope to work unless everyone is forcibly conscripted into its service; Christianity only really works if everyone is completely free to follow the dictates of their own conscience and their relationship with God.
-
Once upon a time, the money was to provide modest means, for the pastor. Now it is for his mansion, his plane, etc.
There are mega-churches that do have pastor's living in luxury. If that bothers you then by all means stay far away from them. But I would bet 95% of the churches you pass each day has a pastor living very modestly in a home no better than the homes in your neighborhood, and who is probably more charitable than your average neighbor - and who while the rest of us are relaxing in the evening watching TV or the football game or working in the shop, he is taking an evening phone call from a couple who is thinking about divorce, or a young man thinking about suicide, or a family who just lost a daughter in a car accident . Its to bad you want to lump them all together, and It's a shame that the bad pastors give such a lasting impression on people and turn many away from going back to another church for good.
-
Sorry, back for a moment.
I just couldn't resist, we are debating the infallibility of Limbaugh?
People are looking at the 20th Century version of socialist authoritarianism against the pure communal living and disregard for material wealth and political power of the New Testament. As many have said in other discussions, man is an imperfect vessel, that is drawn to sin AND cannot truly understand the word of God.
It may not fit your personal religious understanding but communal living, PURE SOCIALISM, is very much a part of the Christian way of life. As EC referred to, a monastic way of life, is quite socialist by it's nature.
-
There are mega-churches that do have pastor's living in luxury. If that bothers you then by all means stay far away from them. But I would bet 95% of the churches you pass each day has a pastor living very modestly in a home no better than the homes in your neighborhood, and who is probably more charitable than your average neighbor - and who while the rest of us are relaxing in the evening watching TV or the football game or working in the shop, he is taking an evening phone call from a couple who is thinking about divorce, or a young man thinking about suicide, or a family who just lost a daughter in a car accident . Its to bad you want to lump them all together, and It's a shame that the bad pastors give such a lasting impression on people and turn many away from going back to another church for good.
Thanks for that post, Navy.
It's a ridiculous stretch of logic and truth to lump all pastors into a big, greedy bunch because there are a few mega-church Elmer Gantry types who take advantage of people and get rich. There are bad people in every profession.
You are right in your assessment of the average pastor. Low or modest income, giving of self, sacrificing privacy and freedom, to shepherd the flock that God has called him/her to.
I think those who bash Christianity, and make gross (and untrue) generalizations, are looking for excuses to stay away from God's personal calling for them, and my guess is that there's a bit of guilt that makes them angry and eager to lash out at people of faith.
And one last time...............socialism is the ANTITHESIS of Christianity, regardless of the efforts to say it's the same thing.
IF you purposefully leave government out of the equation, you can make a connection, but it's not truthful. The voluntary nature of giving to the poor and sharing one's possessions in Christianity, and the forced nature of 'giving' and the theft involved in socialism to line the pockets of the powerful, is the bottom line in this discussion.
But some people are clearly (and deliberately?) blind to that very important bottom line, and that's a shame.
-
Absolutely spot on.
I think that someone continues to insist that voluntary is the same as involuntary, is someone who does not wish to believe the obvious.
-
Sorry, back for a moment.
I just couldn't resist, we are debating the infallibility of Limbaugh?
People are looking at the 20th Century version of socialist authoritarianism against the pure communal living and disregard for material wealth and political power of the New Testament. As many have said in other discussions, man is an imperfect vessel, that is drawn to sin AND cannot truly understand the word of God.
It may not fit your personal religious understanding but communal living, PURE SOCIALISM, is very much a part of the Christian way of life. As EC referred to, a monastic way of life, is quite socialist by it's nature.
We should DEFINITELY remember that early American life (colonial era) started out as purely socialistic communes and those failed miserably until Capitalism was introduced and saved them bringing forth the richest and most free society the world has ever seen. Now, after three century's of success, Obama and his boys want to take us back to that but we ain't goin! I hope!
-
We should DEFINITELY remember that early American life (colonial era) started out as purely socialistic communes and those failed miserably until Capitalism was introduced and saved them bringing forth the richest and most free society the world has ever seen. Now, after three century's of success, Obama and his boys want to take us back to that but we ain't goin! I hope!
Once again, the very important dimension of FREEDOM is critical to an honest discussion.
The Pilgrims were not looking at socialism per se, but rather Acts-based communal sharing (NOT socialism). But they realized that on a large scale, it didn't work, and introduced the concept of capitalism - work for what you yourself receive - and the experiment worked.
It's important to realize that one of the key concepts the separatists brought with them was the idea of religious liberty, and they realized quickly that liberty and even Christian based communal living didn't mix well.
Socialism, as a concept is not the same thing as voluntary, freely chosen community living.
So socialism is not involved in monasteries or convents either, because monks and nuns CHOOSE to share, and are not forced by any human government.
-
The American model of Christianity, or correctly British model, does not correspond to Christianity anywhere else on the planet. It's what fueled the various exodi from England, to the Netherlands, back to England for money then on to the unknown. It is unique in Christianity.
It's not the Christianity of South America, Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe. Where the English Christians were industrious, the Roman Catholics sought common misery.
-
The American model of Christianity, or correctly British model, does not correspond to Christianity anywhere else on the planet. It's what fueled the various exodi from England, to the Netherlands, back to England for money then on to the unknown. It is unique in Christianity.
It's not the Christianity of South America, Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe. Where the English Christians were industrious, the Roman Catholics sought common misery.
Any Christianity that does not teach industry is not following the commands of Scripture.
Once again, onc, follow what's in Scripture, and the commands of God in Christ provided there, and you will find the model of Christianity.
Don't look to those who fail to meet the standards God has provided (that would be ALL of us) as an excuse to blame Christianity for what you don't like.
Repeating.......... Christianity and socialism are diametrically opposed because one is based on God's love, and the other is based on a quest for power completely apart from God.
They are opposing principles, not complementary.
-
Any Christianity that does not teach industry is not following the commands of Scripture.
Once again, onc, follow what's in Scripture, and the commands of God in Christ provided there, and you will find the model of Christianity.
Don't look to those who fail to meet the standards God has provided (that would be ALL of us) as an excuse to blame Christianity for what you don't like.
Repeating.......... Christianity and socialism are diametrically opposed because one is based on God's love, and the other is based on a quest for power completely apart from God.
They are opposing principles, not complementary.
Just thought about this, although a tangent, goes to method. I've always hated arguing the side of the debate with which I disagree but speaking about the use of force, we live in a constitutional republic. The tax system is nominally "voluntary", in that you are expected to pay without the King's men coming to your door and shaking you until your shillings drop from your pockets.
Well, in theory, yeah. In reality, try NOT paying your taxes and see the full weight and power come down upon you. I'm not even talking about the current state of affairs. Think about the Whiskey Rebellion.
The government is always oppression, just a matter of degree. Socialism, only slight more palatable than communism, less palatable than democracy.
-
Just thought about this, although a tangent, goes to method. I've always hated arguing the side of the debate with which I disagree but speaking about the use of force, we live in a constitutional republic. The tax system is nominally "voluntary", in that you are expected to pay without the King's men coming to your door and shaking you until your shillings drop from your pockets.
Well, in theory, yeah. In reality, try NOT paying your taxes and see the full weight and power come down upon you. I'm not even talking about the current state of affairs. Think about the Whiskey Rebellion.
The government is always oppression, just a matter of degree. Socialism, only slight more palatable than communism, less palatable than democracy.
ANY form of government requires citizens thereof to give up some portion of their freedom and our founders were well aware of this fact. That is why they chose the Republican form and tried, via the Constitution, to protect individuals from the mob (direct Democracy).
They also sought to LIMIT government to maximum extent possible and thereby protect the freedoms of individual citizens to the maximum extent possible! Unfortunately most of the protections they provided have been turned on their head and, for the most part, no one protested. At least since 1865 anyway.
The tax system you mention come to us straight out of the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and was not possible until 1913 when what remained of our Constitution was ripped apart by the 16th and 17th amendments.
-
ANY form of government requires citizens thereof to give up some portion of their freedom and our founders were well aware of this fact. That is why they chose the Republican form and tried, via the Constitution, to protect individuals from the mob (direct Democracy).
They also sought to LIMIT government to maximum extent possible and thereby protect the freedoms of individual citizens to the maximum extent possible! Unfortunately most of the protections they provided have been turned on their head and, for the most part, no one protested. At least since 1865 anyway.
The tax system you mention come to us straight out of the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and was not possible until 1913 when what remained of our Constitution was ripped apart by the 16th and 17th amendments.
The tax system which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't the result of Marx and Engels. It was 1793. It was closer to a tariff or excise tax than an income tax.
-
The tax system which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't the result of Marx and Engels. It was 1793. It was closer to a tariff or excise tax than an income tax.
You are EXACTLY right! It was about farmers on the frontier who were largely cut off from any real means to transport their cash crops (grain) to market in their original form and thus forced to turned those crops into another, much more easily transportable, commodity (whiskey) being treated differently than everyone else was being treated tax wise! If the excise had been applied uniformly to ALL commodities across the board there likely would never have been a Whiskey Rebellion.
-
You are EXACTLY right! It was about farmers on the frontier who were largely cut off from any real means to transport their cash crops (grain) to market in their original form and thus forced to turned those crops into another, much more easily transportable, commodity (whiskey) being treated differently than everyone else was being treated tax wise! If the excise had been applied uniformly to ALL commodities across the board there likely would never have been a Whiskey Rebellion.
Excise and sales taxes are the fairest of all taxes, you only pay for what you use. Actually, I don't mind use taxes and licensing fees (to a degree). I fish. A nominal fishing license fee, $23 annually in NJ for the basic license, is fine. Although, I don't agree with what I'll describe as "vocational licensing", barber's licenses, come to mind.
Leftists don't like them because they consider them to be regressive. The poor pay the same as the wealthy. To me, sounds like the fair share. End property taxes and we're getting somewhere.
-
Back to the topic at hand though, Pope Paul VI was more of a commie than this guy. Commentators came out and called him one based upon his encyclicals. The Church of Rome is about social justice while playing the wealthy to pay their way into Heaven. You have to admire them for figuring out you can just as easily work both sides and make it pay.
I recommend:
The "Five Wounds of the Church". A lot of inside baseball about The Church, written about 20 years prior to the Communist Manifesto but published contemporaneously, about 1848.
http://www.rosmini.org/cause/beatit/5w.html
-
Thank you for that, North! Up to chapter 3 and it is interesting. There are some aspects I am not agreeing with thus far, but will hold off until I finish the whole thing.
-
Thank you for that, North! Up to chapter 3 and it is interesting. There are some aspects I am not agreeing with thus far, but will hold off until I finish the whole thing.
Social work is one of the threads of Christianity one dare not pull for risk of unravelling the garment. Doesn't fit with the English/German/Swiss interpretations but it's there. It's quite possibly the undercurrent for many of the European wars.
Latins vs Teutons vs Slavs with a pinch of Moorish Spain.