 |
|
|
|
|
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." READ MORE: Pope Francis: No more business as usual 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. READ MORE: Sarah Palin 'taken aback' by Pope Francis's 'liberal' statements “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 sending a Vatican contingent, including the Papal Swiss Guards, into Rome to deliver food and charity. soundoff (6,695 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Wow. A lot of vitriol being tossed about.
Capitalism is great, but when the CEO is making up to 100x the salary of the average employee, I can see why people are a bit fed up. I don't think we should tax rich people more, but I do think that we allow the gap between incomes to be too extreme. I'm willing to agree that a CEO has special skills and should make more than others, but no one is so special to deserve the income levels we are seeing relative to their employees.
....and don't even get me started on the sports and entertainment industries!
It would be nice if they only earned 100x the employee pay, but those days are long gone.
"WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) - Chief executives at some of the nation's largest companies earned an average of $12.9 million in total pay last year - 380 times more than a typical American worker, according to the AFL-CIO"
Wow. Thanks for the info. I knew I was being conservative but I had no idea I was off by that much!
Here are my thoughts on some of what the Pope said.
“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”.
This is contrary to scripture, which teaches that all belongs to God, not to the rich and not to the poor.
But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence.
What inequality caused Cain to kill Abel? It was slothful attitude toward giving to God, while Abel gave the best he had. So, inequality is not only caused by suppression from the rich, but is often a heart issue.
the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions
Excellent point – but one that is contrary to many views held by liberals. Liberals often desire the government to manage the 'redistribution' of the wealth. But, the Pope points out that governments themselves are often corrupt. So, what's the solution? I would advocate libertarianism – where the individual gives to those less fortunate as they are lead to do so by God.
The process of secularization tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of the private and personal.
Excellent point! Atheist today are trying to marginalize opposing beliefs into the sphere of the private and personal, while the atheist view of 'no god needed' is openly preached in the public arena.
a weakening of the sense of personal and collective sin, and a steady increase in relativism.
Another excellent point! Relativism strikes at the heart of absolute truth – and the God that sets that truth.
In response, we need to provide an education which teaches critical thinking
Exactly! By developing critical thinking to society, secularization will be halted and eventually marginalized in society.
Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being.
Another excellent point. We need to be on guard against those pretending to be following Christ, but seeking to glorify themselves.
And now moving into the 21st century:
The Apostles' Creed 2013: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
I haven't the time or inclination for a point by point refutation, but I do feel obliged to point out one key point:
Religion is predicated on faith.
Religious faith is the willing suspension of critical thinking in order to accept dogmatic, supernatural answers.
Increasing secularization has not been a detriment to the countries that have embraced it (this does not mean communist regimes in which worship of the state becomes a de-facto religion).
Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries - Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands - all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious. These associations say nothing about whether atheism leads to positive social indicators or the other way around. But the idea that atheists are somehow less moral, honest, or trustworthy have been disproven by study after study.
Then I'll treat your response likewise.
"Atheist today are trying to marginalize opposing beliefs into the sphere of the private and personal, while the atheist view of 'no god needed' is openly preached in the public arena."
I, of course, would disagree.
1) 'No god needed' is not "preached in the public arena", it is simply that "god needed" should not be preached in the public arena.
2) The secularization is for the government, not the individuals. This protects the religious as much as the non-religious.
"it is simply that "god needed" should not be preached in the public arena."
By "public arena" I meant government. People are free to preach what they like in public, within reason.
@ME II : 1) 'No god needed' is not "preached in the public arena", it is simply that "god needed" should not be preached in the public arena.
Can evolution / big bang be proven beyond doubt? No. Thus, it is based upon beliefs. If one belief system should be restricted from the public arena (i.e. public schools, government meetings, etc), then all should be likewise restricted.
@ME II : 2) The secularization is for the government, not the individuals.
Every government is composed of individuals, not machines. These individuals have their own worldviews – either God did it or No God needed. Thus, if the government is secularized, then the individuals are likewise secularized.
Lie4Him
Evolution, big bang, and more can be proven beyond doubt, so it is not based upon beliefs. And even presuming they are wrong, that does not add any support to your creation myth.
@Live4Him,
“Can evolution / big bang be proven beyond doubt? No. Thus, it is based upon beliefs. If one belief system should be restricted from the public arena (i.e. public schools, government meetings, etc), then all should be likewise restricted.”
Science does not deal in ‘proof’. However, science is based upon verifiable evidence, not belief, and all available evidence supports evolution and none supports creationism.
“Every government is composed of individuals, not machines. These individuals have their own worldviews – either God did it or No God needed. Thus, if the government is secularized, then the individuals are likewise secularized.”
The individuals when acting as government representatives should not promote personal beliefs, but should do the job which they were hired for, i.e. running the secular government.
Creationists don't even attempt to prove their case they just try to poke holes in evolution because they know they will never have an ounce of evidence that points directly to the Christian god and so they are left with nothing.
@ME II : Science does not deal in ‘proof’. However, science is based upon verifiable evidence, not belief, and all available evidence supports evolution and none supports creationism
Ever hear of dino soft tissue – providing evidence for a history of less than 10,000 years.
@ME II : The individuals when acting as government representatives should not promote personal beliefs, but should do the job which they were hired for, i.e. running the secular government.
Then, a person believing that there is nothing wrong with abortion should not promote a law concerning abortion, right?
If you are trying to get that law passed base on a religious belief, it shouldn't be allowed. My gosh, but you are disingenuous.
Abortion should be kept legal because that is the only way other people's rights are not affected. You are free to not get one, someone who wants one is free to get one and everyone's rights are protected. If outlawed one side has their rights infringed upon.
@Live4Him,
Reply at end, currently p161.
Lie4Him
So you are going to maintain that you do not put you interpretation on everything and expect people to accept it? You denied doing this in the past but your pompous posts are mostly lies; thanks for proving the point again.
"Atheist today are trying to marginalize opposing beliefs into the sphere of the private and personal, while the atheist view of ‘no god needed’ is openly preached in the public arena."
You are free to preach in the sane spaces atheists speak.
You are not advocating limiting free speech for atheists are you?
@Maddy : You are free to preach in the sane spaces atheists speak.
The atheist worldview on evolution and big bang are taught in public schools. Is creationism likewise taught there?
Evolution is not the "atheist worldview", it is science and well substantiated by the evidence.
There's no evidence for creationism. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, big bang, geology, etc. that disprove your creation myth. Why teach ancient superstition which is unsupported by evidence – you're not even proposing that all myths are taught as fact – Zeus, Odin, unicorns, etc.
No, and for good reason. It is not science, it is religion. It is a specific religion. Creationism comes straight from Genesis.
Because they are based on science.
You are aware that many Christians believe in evolution? Right? It's not an "atheistic belief".
Generalizations are always disingenuous.
Lie4Him
Ley me respond for Maddy. Which of the dozens of creation myths should be taught in schools? If there are Hindu or aboriginal children in the class, why should their creation myth be excluded?
Live4Him is correct. Evolution and cosmology are not taught as science strictly speaking. They do promote a worldview that is not scientific by any means and is no different than creationism. The science of evolution and cosmology say absolutely nothing than can be a basis for worldview such as that which many atheists embrace and certainly secular society embraces (i.e. no god needed). This is the error of the teaching in schools and is in fact a violation of the constitution every bit as much as teaching creationism as Science would be.
fred is your home state Texas by chance ?
Science
No, but a world view of "no god" needed is the promotion of a faith even though it is a godless one.
There should be a warning on the text that the science of evolution, express or implied, has no bearing on the existence of God.
@Fred
Imagine a physics class that doesn't include relativity or a geometry course that omits obtuse angles.
It would be the same as a biology class that omits evolution.
Modern biology and thus medicine, pharmacology, zoology and pretty much every other discipline that involved the study of organic life on Earth is predicated on the understanding and application of evolutionary theory.
There is still a Flat Earth Society that absoultely refuses to accept the heretical notion of heliocentrism...
Doc
I have no problem with the science only when science is used to make non scientific claims. Evolution does not address God so any inference that no god needed is a non scientific conclusion.
What does the bible indicate is jesus' stance on the poor?
Best Pope since John 23;. and Limbaugh? Limbaugh caters to the millions ignorant enough to listen to him, a guy who twists facts into half truths to fit his agenda.
that's what's so great about the USA,when pill popping morons like Rush Limbough are allowed to give their hateful comments on TV and get away with it
Yes, Freedom of Speech is one of the great things about the US, because it applies to all people.
Freedom of speech in Rush's case translation is freedom to hate and make money at the same time... is that whag our founding fathers had in mind?
Yes, actually it was. Voltaire's (or Hall's) interpretation: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It is cracked and all of joy and reality is being sucked into the earth like a black hole unwilling to release any happiness back to Earth and each person in reviewing their lives and religion now face the abyss completely naked and alone. Stolen and attacked by their own home and returned to nothing.
depressing...
Live4Him,
Having trouble getting this to post.
"Trickle-down" economics are not and never were a consolidated government policy. They are an economic concept. That's not semantics, that's a statement of fact. So while the Pope's statements apply to governments, they aren't necessarily directed at them.
My lack of economic understanding relates to complex interest and tax laws, but your explanation of the effects of the stock market are grossly oversimplified. The money that is spent on stocks of corporations are not how they reduce their production costs, they commonly do that by outsourcing work processes and labor to countries with little or no worker regulations (though there are still occasions where direct investments allow improvements, but that can be done using venture capital, and does not require the stock market). Your argument that that causes them to drop their prices is laughable, the newest batch of electronics don't cost less than they used to, they increasingly cost more, people just go out of their way to by them. Older and outdated technologies cost less, but that's generally because of surplus and lack of demand, production has little to do with it. Yes, a company can sell ownership shares that bring capital directly into their pockets for use, but that also involves broadening the number of controlling parties, or diluting stakeholder percentages. What more often happens, is that someone who already owns the stock, sells the stock they have, which puts fresh money in that individual's pocket, not in the companies. The stocks change hands, but the company itself doesn't benefit from it; thus, money changes hands, but nothing is gained, inflating the economy.
Trickle-down economics have failed in the past because people are greedy. Jesus spoke against greed. That's not a non-sequitur, it's the point of the post, and one of the key points of the Pope's speech.
Great Post!
Well said. It's like if the Pope said "Take care of the elderly" this is not political speech about Medicare and social security, it's a plea to humans to do the right thing and take care of one another. If the Pope says shooting an unarmed black kid is wrong, it's not political commentary about the stand your ground law, it's a basic human concept of not wanting to do great bodily harm to others unless your life is actually threatened. I'm an atheist and I can see the Pope trying to push against the tide of ignorance and hate that has invaded Christianity from it's very begining. I don't think he will be able to clean it up so eventually it will have to be put down like the rabid many headed creature it is and it will not go quietly but will kick and scream and froth at the mouth, much like Rush Limbaugh does when someone tries to take a bite of his 10 gallon hot fudge sundae...
@BRC : "Trickle-down" economics are not and never were a consolidated government policy. They are an economic concept. That's not semantics, that's a statement of fact.
Implemented by those in the government. And as I've stated, I'm not arguing over semantics – be it "policy/economic concept" or "recent/30 years ago" which you raised the first time. I won't respond futher on this semantics issue.
@BRC : The money that is spent on stocks of corporations are not how they reduce their production costs
Of course this is a simplification – but without investors, where does the money come from to optimize their process?
@BRC : venture capital, and does not require the stock market
Obviously, you've failed to note that venture capital is the first step in getting stocks to put on the stock market.
@BRC : the newest batch of electronics don't cost less than they used to
Ummm... Hate to tell you, but the NEWEST batch of electronics never existed before.
@BRC : Older and outdated technologies cost less, but that's generally because of surplus and lack of demand, production has little to do with it.
Production has EVERYTHING to do with it. Surplus is the difference between production and demand. When the production is low, surplus will usually be low (unless there is low demand). As production increases, surplus will usually increase too – once production catches up with demand.
@BRC : a company can sell ownership shares ... is that someone who already owns the stock, sells the stock they have, which puts fresh money in that individual's pocket, not in the companies.
Obviously, I'm addressing selling shares rather than transferring shares between investors.
@BRC : thus, money changes hands, but nothing is gained, inflating the economy.
So, are you advocating that if you get a $5/hr raise, you're going to put it under the mattress rather than spending it? Well, if an investor gets a profit, he'll do the same as you will. Some of it will be saved / invested and some will be spent. When he/she spends it (for example: buys a new TV), he/she is indirectly causing the supplyer to hire more employees.
@BRC : Trickle-down economics have failed in the past because people are greedy.
So you advocate, but again have failed to provide any evidence of such greed hindering TDE.
"@BRC : Trickle-down economics have failed in the past because people are greedy."
"So you advocate, but again have failed to provide any evidence of such greed hindering TDE."
"In 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. By 2007, the top 1 percent account for 24% of all income. In between, their share fell below 10% for three decades. In terms of the nation's wealth rather than income, as of 2011 the top 1 percent control 40 percent."
If you think TDE is just fine the way it is and works then you are either one of the stupidest people on the planet or part of the 1% and just don't mind p i s s i n g in everyone elses face.
Live4him,
Average worker pay has stagnated for over a decade, while the salaries of the op 1% of corporate executives has grown over 100%. Most CEOs make between 100 adn 300 times as much per year as the average employee (not their lowest paid employee, the average). THAT is a clear and blatant failure of TDE.
@BRC : Average worker pay has stagnated for over a decade, while the salaries of the op 1% of corporate executives has grown over 100%.
Are you claiming that Obama is practicing TDE?
Live4Him,
No, I'm saying that the Corporate leaders in America are stunningly greedy and the system is stunningly imbalanced. I honestly don't have an opinion on whether or not Obama believes in the principles of trickle-down economics, can't come up with a strong enough impression based on what he's done, but he's the President, so that's not really his job. NOW, the legislative body, is a completely different matter. there are still a good number of Congressmen who have sttempted to pass or endorse laws that would remove regulationas and make it even easier for businesses to do pretty much whatever they want. I consider those people dolts, and wish they would take a more realistic look at our economic situation.
@BRC : I'm saying that the Corporate leaders in America are stunningly greedy and the system is stunningly imbalanced.
How do you propose to prove that 'corporate leaders' are any more greedy that 'corporate employees'?
@BRC : I honestly don't have an opinion on whether or not Obama believes in the principles of trickle-down economics
There are two economic theories that have governments have used: trickle down and redistribution. Obama has definately practiced the latter.
"There are two economic theories that have governments have used: trickle down and redistribution. Obama has definately practiced the latter."
Wow. What grade of school did you finish by the way, because I am seriosuly curious about your lack of education. You do know that when a President get's elected they don't get to just change the entire financial system in America. Obama is using the exact same system of capitalism as his predecessors have. Have you read the ACA? I'm not sure why I even ask because of course you havn't, if you had you would proclaim "Well this is the biggest boon for the private health industry in years! Private companies and all of their investors are set to rake in hundreds of billions in profits from the additional mandatory enrollment into PRIVATE health insurance. You must be one of the 60% of stupid Americans who think Obamacare IS a healthcare plan, IT'S NOT you ignorant masses, read the fvcking bill instead of whining and you might just learn something. Oh, but I forgot, you aren't really mad at him for his give away to private health care, you are mad at the color of his skin because it doesn't match your pristine "white" house. Well go fvck yourself you ignorant pigs. I wouldn't be as harsh if I thought they don't know anything because they have learning disabilities or couldnt read but they refuse to do the research and would rather live in their own little Red Fantasy and it's just so frustrating for the rest of America.
Live4Him,
I see, so every government ever has only practiced one of those two concepts? I find that more than a littel unlikely. How about this, IN the mid1900's, when the American industrial machine was running at high speeds and we truly may have been THE world power, when our economy was flourishing post war and depression and we had businesses taking off adn making break throughs, there were laws, that tethered CEO pay to a companies performance. It made it so that a CEO cuold literally dump all of a company's profits into his own pocket and then sell the husk.. Is that TDE, or is that redistribution? To me it seems to be a form of regulated capitalism, and it seems like it worked pretty well.
sorry, that should say "made it so that a CEO couldn't literally dump..." it was made to prevent that practice to protect workers.
Also, Live4Him, I don't believe corporate leaders are necessarily more greedy than corporate workers, they just have the opportunity and resources to act on their greed. That's why I agree with putting laws in place that limit ANYONE's ability to being hoard unreasonable amounts of money earned by the efforts of others.
Choice not;
Want not.
Listen to the man;
Save some truth as long as you can.
A crazy insane and delusional ruse;
A platform built to use and abuse.
Children chained and preached up cold;
Dysfunctional adults as they grow old.
A world of timeless lies and affliction;
Religion is the world’s addiction.
Jesus has been disabled since he rose from the dead carrying with him the burden of the sins of every human soul, past, present and future. Sins that He, indeed, created to begin with and must have been pondering the wisdom of that choice about the time the miserable world he created was becoming all he would ever know. For he had sacrificed himself and accepted this unfortunate fate. But who am I to be critical.
Jesus said "blessed be the pure at heart for they shall see God". Notice how truth is truth regardless of your opinion. You cannot see God based on your critical statements so you have proven another truth in the Bible and from the words of Jesus.
Now I have yet to have anyone show me one statement from Jesus that is not true do you have one? If not then by extension we have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of Jesus. Then this would apply to you also:
"For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
I thought the quote went "blessed be the puerile at heart and dim of mind for they shall see God"
@fred,
Didn't Jesus say, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is smaller than all seeds. "
when, in fact, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds?
ME II
Thanks! If I could find just one it would be a shock to me. In this parable Jesus was simply using a term known to all in the area and referring to a seed local to the area. Now, I do not know if the mustard seed is the smallest known in the area today or not but it certainly was thought of as such back then. Jesus was a Jew and "as a grain of mustard", is often used, proverbially to be the smallest of things by them in their writings I do not count this as an error. Would you agree?
fred
Well that is a pant load, I can bad mouth the holy trinity all I want as long as I repent in the end. Isn't that why your lot believe in an after life because of the christ taking on the sins of all broken people. Your god sucks and makes zero sense.
That would be your opinion but it is not biblical. It is by God alone that someone would find that transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Certainly God can do anything but a lifetime of hate in a person would take a miracle to break through
eyes hurt for never stopping not to see the truth in a bowl filled with many ingredients it is hard to separate the arugula for the mesclun so ask early or you are going to be late for the shoe styles they are quite interesting and fun to eat if you haven’t had the crab
my naked lunch through a punch crunch that caused a balancing act not to balance and Bill to fly off into the night with a bottle smashing out the left tail light but in the end you can always ride your bike to the Jack and Jill for the little wax tubes with some kind of colored liquid inside or get some wax teeth that is why I put on my knap sack at the tender age of 5 to be a vagabond but couldn’t cross the street by myself and was returned to the care of my divorced mother and that is why they closed down the granary but kept the railroad
the water dripping behind me was like a single ice cycle dripping faster than it should demonstrating that gravity changes when you are not looking that is why it is smart to buy slip on sneakers and save the best breast meat for sandwiches later
paper boat floating bobbing drifting sinking hiding
Sarah Palin's collection of crusty looking, never cleaned battery operated adult toys is said to be worth millions. Soon these objects will be put on public display at museums all over the world. Tea party patriots are already lining up to buy tickets in advance.
Funny in a way but sooo true!
funny, where the pope to critisize communism or socialism, nobody would be complaining about his getting the church into politics.
No kidding
Kind of funny... many of the ones who call themselves devout Christians love the clergy who tell them who to hate... but they are hating one that tells them not to hate. And the message of not hating is much closer to that of Jesus.
Wouldn't that kind of make the other ones a collective anti-Christ? You know, preaching a false version of Christianity and all that?
This is known as a strawman logic fallacy. You've stipulated things and then tear them down, rather than taking facts and refuting them.
Okay, then... who did Jesus say to hate? What were his views on greed? How did he feel about helping the poor?
@Raven : Okay, then... who did Jesus say to hate? What were his views on greed? How did he feel about helping the poor?
1) No one. 2) He opposed greed because the person's heart wasn't on the things of God but on the things of this world. 3)He advocated helping those less fortunate.
Now, you're original position was "many of the ones who call themselves devout Christians love the clergy who tell them who to hate". You've failed to support this statement in any manner.
@Live4Him,
Did Jesus not say, according to "Luke" anyway, to hate all who keep one from being a Disciple?
Is that just your sneeky way of showing another error in the bible?
I mean, with a name like that, you probably have a bible. Feel free to look it up. I know that if I were Christian, and I focused on hate, spewed little other than hellfire and brimstone, never reaching my hand out to help those less fortunate and not practicing compassion, I'd be pretty "damned" nervous to meet Jesus in the end....
The Pope's critique of capitalism thrilled many liberal Catholics
Why is the Pope trying to get the church involved in politics? Where does Christ advocate getting involved in politics?
He isnt getting involved in politics at all. There is no mention in his speech about left or right, conservative or liberal, just instead an condemnation of the consumer driven society of today. Its no different that previous popes making comments.
I don't think there is any doubt that the Christ described in the bible was in fact very political. In one of his most political move he physically throws the money changers off the steps of the temple which was a primary reason he was targeted by the Sanhedrin. However, until the Pope throws out the thousands of moneychangers that inhabit the Vatican then he will never truly be emulating Christ. Could you imagine a Vatican without any gift shops selling kitchy Jesus statues?
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : In one of his most political move he physically throws the money changers off the steps of the temple which was a primary reason he was targeted by the Sanhedrin
Oh, you think he was defending a political view rather than defending God's house?
Are you trying to expose yourself as a moron? The jewish system at that time was a theocracy, the Temple was the law, albeit under Roman occupation which is why they had to take their claim of Blasphemy which is what the man Jesus in the bible was arrested for and ultimately executed for. Of course it was taken politically at the time and anyone who doesn't see that is either blind, deaf and dumb or just plain stupid.
Where did Christ teach how to endorse child molestation and then hide the perpetrators from justice?
And it is Allegedly taugh since no one can verify he said anything.
The sad thing is that Rush has an estimated 15 million listeners. Hard to imagine that so many people would be interested in listening to his hateful rants on a regular basis.
Rush is an idiot and while I think the pope hasn't a prayer in righting any wrongs in this corrupt world or in the Vatican itself, atleast the pope has social grace.
I agree with Israel and its Prime Minister when he summed up America and its policies in the Middle East as "Theatre" during his visit with Francis yesterday. Obama sucks and the GOP are no better... but the worst actors on this stage are the "people" who entertain such nonsense. We have become the laughing stalks of the world. Thank you social media for all you don't do.
We are circumvented
Invented
Lost then found then lost
Loud but silent
Profit Pour
This shaggy dog was prowling the bar and spattin’ out pussy hair like sunflower seeds.
I have taken that walk with him.
He never said much…that you could remember anyway. Not much difference in the pour either.
Rush wouldn't recognize REAL socialism if it bit him on his HUGE ass! Rush is a blilthering fool! Anyone who listens to him is severely lacking in intelligence.
Where are all the GOP and Tea Clowns? Someone has to defend Rush. Personally, I call for a public hanging. All his years of spewing hate has cost this nation dearly.
Rush and Sarah are right. He is an anticapitalism, socialist marxist lib. I urge all Catholics to run as fast as they can from him.--During his March 2, 2010 radio broadcast, Beck said this:
I beg you, look for the words “social justice” or “economic justice” on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I’m going to Jeremiah’s Wright’s church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” I don’t care what the church is. If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “Yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing,” I’m in the wrong place.
Cold callous drone. Lacking compassion and empathy. Rush and Sarah are WRONG, and so are you. You wouldnt know a good Christian if Jesus came up to you with a hand extended. You would call Him a bum and spit in his hand.
God help what's become of Christianity in this country. Jr is living proof of what the love of money does to "good Christians"
Rush and Sarah are in the business of making money, and both of them have proven they will say anything to get it. If the Popes message conflicts with the greedy, dishonest and the proud, you can bet he is on track. And you can bet that evil will show up to protest.