home
RSS
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.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • Church and state • Ethics • Media • Money & Faith • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis

soundoff (6,695 Responses)
  1. Woody

    6447 co.mments, before this post. That's Rush doing what he does best. He makes controversial statements that keep his name and his face in the news. He was, reportedly, recently seen walking into a bank laughing all the way.

    December 4, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Rush is hardly a secret anymore. A news story about him that generates lots of comments will in no way affect his bottom line. The people who are going to listen to Rush already do.

      December 4, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
      • lean6

        That's pretty much because they have found those sponsors who don't care whether people oppose Limbaugh because some sponsors know that people make selfish choices as consumers. People who don't want to inadvertently support Limbaugh should know exactly who his sponsors are. How many people commenting here do you actually believe has a clue about whether they are keeping Limbaugh on the air? How many would switch from their favorite brand of product X to remove their support? Studies have shown....

        December 4, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
  2. Woody

    6447 comments, before this post. That's Rush doing what he does best. He makes controversial statements that keep his name and his face in the news. He was, reportedly, recently seen walking into a bank laughing all the way.

    December 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Woody

      Sorry about the double post. I thought the word filter got me again.

      December 4, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
  3. ME II

    @Live4Him,
    (Reply to comment on December 3, 2013 at 2:12 pm pg: 157)
    You said, “Ever hear of dino soft tissue – providing evidence for a history of less than 10,000 years.”

    You are, I think, falling victim to confirmation bias by focusing on some data that might suggest a 10-100K limit on DNA in certain situations while ignoring examples of older soft tissue found in fossils as well as the very solid dating of dino fossils at >60 Ma.

    In response to my comment, “The individuals when acting as government representatives should not promote personal beliefs,...”
    You said,.“Then, a person believing that there is nothing wrong with abortion should not promote a law concerning abortion, right?”

    The laws concerning abortion, e.g. Roe v Wade, also concern a woman’s right to privacy and control over her own body and health.

    December 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : You are, I think, falling victim to confirmation bias by focusing on some data that might suggest a 10-100K limit on DNA\

      Correction – ALL the data confirms it until you get to dinos. And since the dino soft tissue is few, and the dates are uncertain, then it stands to reason that dinos are less than 10,000 years old.

      @ME II : very solid dating of dino fossils at >60 Ma.

      How do you prove that dino fossils are actually 65M years old?

      @ME II : The laws concerning abortion, e.g. Roe v Wade, also concern a woman’s right to privacy and control over her own body and health.

      NOTHING is controlling her body or her health until she involves another individual. Once it impacts another individual, then why do you think that individual's rights can be ignored?

      December 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
      • FellowTraveler70

        Whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 6 Billion is irrelevent to the ultimate question of God. Either possibility in no way either adds to, or detracts from, the possibility of God or a heaveanly kingdom. How small ones faith must be to tie such faith to something as irrelevent as the age of this planet or whether humans frollicked with dinosaurs.

        December 4, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          It does if you NEED to take the Bible literally. Even if you don't, there is no "heavenly kingdom" in the Bible. The Hebrews did not believe in immortality, or heaven, or hell. Christians cooked that crap up later, and altered the culturally conflated notions of Haedes, Sheol, and the place "above the firmament" where their deity, (Yahweh Sabaoth ... the 70 son of the Babylonian chief god, "El Elyon") who was the war god. The Hebrews wanted help in their battles, and expansionary land claims and battles, so they picked Yahweh.

          December 4, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
      • Rodents for Romney

        DNA mutation rates prove millions of years of Evolution. Too bad.
        Multiple dating methods, (dendritic dating, ice cores, all the DIFFERENT radiometric systems all AGREE0.
        The probability they ALL AGREE and produce the SAME wrong dates, is zero.
        There is no one more stupid and deluded than a Young Earth Creationist.

        December 4, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          Human DNA from 400,000 years ago was confirmed by Harvard.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0

          December 4, 2013 at 9:10 pm |
    • Maddy

      Abortion is always a hot topic issue raised when one wants to change the narrative.

      December 4, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      “ALL the data confirms it until you get to dinos. And since the dino soft tissue is few, and the dates are uncertain, then it stands to reason that dinos are less than 10,000 years old.”

      1) all the data does not confirm a strict upper limit on soft tissue longevity.
      2) The dates for dinosaurs, within ranges, are not uncertain.
      3) you have the uncertainty backwards. The longevity of soft tissue is uncertain not ages greater than 10K years.

      “How do you prove that dino fossils are actually 65M years old?”

      Science doesn't deal in “proof” but the geological, radiometric, fission track, paleomagnetic, etc. data all points to dinosaurs having existed 230-65 Mya.
      “NOTHING is controlling her body or her health until she involves another individual”

      What individual?

      December 4, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @ME II : 1) all the data does not confirm a strict upper limit on soft tissue longevity. 2) The dates for dinosaurs, within ranges, are not uncertain. 3) you have the uncertainty backwards. The longevity of soft tissue is uncertain not ages greater than 10K years.

        Again, you've advanced your beliefs but provided no supporting evidence. I have posted on these forums MULTIPLE times that scientific research has shown that DNA would last less than 100,000 years under optimal conditions. And soft tissue would degenerate much sooner than that. Yet, you come here with your opinions and no facts or research.

        Live4Him : How do you prove that dino fossils are actually 65M years old?
        @ME II : Science doesn't deal in “proof”

        Sure it does. I can PROVE that a 10 pound weight will weigh 10 pounds. No questions. Any other results are due to flawed measurements.

        @ME II : the geological, radiometric, fission track, paleomagnetic, etc. data all points to dinosaurs having existed 230-65 Mya.

        It also reveals that the science is deeply flawed. Find out what happened when they tried to date the KBS Tuff / Skull KNM-ER 1470 (a modern homo sapiens skull). They came back with scientific results between 230 million years ago and 1.9 million years ago. So, apparently, humans ALSO date back 230 Mya, following the radiometric dating results. However, they concluded the actual age was 1.9 million years because it fits their a priori conclusions. Science didn't have anything to do with the conclusion, only their faith in evolution.

        Likewise, when dating Haualalai (Hawaii), RMD yielded vastly erroneous results, claiming that a 200 year old rock / island was actually 1.6 million years old. So, again, how do you calibrate the radiometric dating methods to ensure objective, but accurate results?

        Live4Him : NOTHING is controlling her body or her health until she involves another individual
        @ME II : What individual?

        Any individual, but specifically the child. When she wants to take the life of the child, do you think it is appropriate?

        December 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
      • ME II

        @Live4Him,
        You have posted data that showed that DNA in some conditions would deteriorate in 100,000 but not in all conditions. You also claim that soft tissue would deteriorate faster but I haven’t seen that data. Here’s some additional references supporting old soft tissue, although my point is that its potential longevity in fossils is not yet conclusively determined:

        “Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier.“ (http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html)
        "All of these factors combine to make collagen a durable protein likely to persist for long periods of time. Its presence has been identified in fossils as old as 80 Ma (Asara et al. 2007a,2007b; Schweitzer et al. 2007, 2009, and references therein)."
        (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pX_l24sDARwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA273&dq=soft+tissue+in+fossils&ots=W4y0bztQsk&sig=xgWClhmsUA_P7ko9qijqOQqMlCE#v=onepage&q&f=false ;pg 274)

        Live4Him: “I can PROVE that a 10 pound weight will weigh 10 pounds. No questions. Any other results are due to flawed measurements.”

        Proofs are used in math and logic, i.e. deductive logic, whereas science deals in evidence, i.e. inductive logic. I suspect that you are using colloquial version of the word.
        “One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.”
        (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)
        “A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[36]”
        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)

        You can show that a 10 pound mass “weighs” 10 pounds in certain situations, but that 10 pounds of downward force is not always the case, e.g on the moon, near light speed. I suspect what you mean is that you show that an object has in fact 10 pound of mass.
        “In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight)

        Live4Him: “Find out what happened when they tried to date the KBS Tuff / Skull KNM-ER 1470 (a modern hom.o sapiens skull).”

        As I’ve said and cited other places, the KBS Tuff issue was resolved by proper methods and materials.

        Live4Him: “Likewise, when dating Haualalai (Hawaii), RMD yielded vastly erroneous results, claiming that a 200 year old rock / island was actually 1.6 million years old. So, again, how do you calibrate the radiometric dating methods to ensure objective, but accurate results?”

        I’ve heard of creationist claims about misdated material on Hawaii, usually determined to be due to improper materials or methods, like testing inclusions instead of pertinent rock or just performing inappropriate tests, however, to which particular claim are you referring?

        Live4Him: “Any individual, but specifically the child”

        What child? Until the cells are a person, there is no child. Legally it’s not a person until viability. Philosophically one could argue that sentience and/or awareness is the criteria. If you want to believe that it is a person at conception, that is your choice, but you and we as a society don’t impose that choice on a woman.

        December 4, 2013 at 10:05 pm |
  4. Anna

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=360]
    c
    l

    December 4, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Gil

      My, you're a bore. Your taste in music tells me that.

      December 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
  5. AverageJoe76

    'Trickle-down' as in "If you tax the wealthy less, they'll feel generous enough to spread the wealth" ...... to whom THEY want to. IF they want to. So it's all about their generosity on a whim. And that's the main reason we should all believe that 'trickle-down' works. Faith that wealthy people will spread the wealth.

    December 4, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Sara(swati)

      In trickle-down theories I don't believe they ever relied on generosity. The idea was that the money would be spent on goods, services and employees competing in an open market. It doesn't work that way, and was never supported by real economists, but those who would benefit from the policies are conveniently observant in their view.

      December 4, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Ben Bollman

      Yeah, so what gives you or anyone else the right to force people to do certain things with the money they earned? Wealthy people create sustainable jobs, the government doesn't without continuously taking money they didn't earn from people who did earn it.

      December 4, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
      • Sara(swati)

        You are starting with an as.sumption that there is something inherently right and true about the way we distribute salaries in the US, when it is just one in an infinite number of scenarios for rewarding members of society. The money you or I earn is only ours and our worth because society has tacitly agreed it be so. There could be other agangements or, as in taxation, modifications to the currently selected system. The rights you speak of are alao societally determined, and as a society we have agreed to make adjustments through things like taxation and financial aid for college. If we look at legal rights a utilitarian system would grant rights to those actions that increase wellbeing for the greatest number, again likely supporting at least some management of wealth distribution.

        December 4, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
        • Ben Bollman

          Ugh, that is just utter and complete Marxist nonsense. First of all, you are putting way too much trust in the government to be the so-called Arbiters of Fairness in determining and distributing earnings. I can tell you right now that there is no one in the government trustworthy or competent enough to decide these things fairly for everyone. Second, not everything can be fair but free market capitalism is the only system that can come close. An employer determines how much your work is worth and as an employee you can choose if that is good enough or go somewhere else or learn skills to get a better job. If the government controls this you only have the option which the government chooses for you and no freedom of choice.

          December 5, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
        • Susan StoHelit

          Ben – the government at the least is elected. Businesses – your alternate source for 'fairness' are run by the person who has been most effective at extracting maximum money from consumers while paying out minimum wages. FAR less trustworthy than anyone in government.

          December 6, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
  6. lol??

    Mar 10:26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

    What kind of a culture were they in to be so surprised?? The rich EXPECTED to be treated differently?? Better seats in the temple or assemblies?? They always got their way?? They were probably over-educated, like how the socies talk themselves out of salvation.

    December 4, 2013 at 11:15 am |
  7. I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

    As an atheist and an ardent supporter of free market capitalism, I feel I can justifiably criticize both the leftism espoused by the Pope and the hypocrisy of preaching leftism whilst simultaneously living in a palace which contains billions, possibly trillions of dollars worth of art, gold, etc. However, Rush, as the devout Christian he claims to be, should be backing this Pope all the way in his 'pure Marxism'. Let's face it, Jesus was THE original socialist.

    December 4, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • Live4Him

      First, how do you define socialism. Next, what are the Biblical passages that link Jesus to this definition?

      December 4, 2013 at 9:53 am |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        Socialism = a bunch of do-gooders on an ego trip spending other people's money.

        Biblical passages = Too lazy to look. It's all there though. Jesus going ape-sh!t at all the business in the temple. Rich people can't get into heaven.

        December 4, 2013 at 9:57 am |
        • Live4Him

          @I'm sorry Dave : Socialism = a bunch of do-gooders on an ego trip spending other people's money.

          How do you propose that they spend other people's money? Do they break into their homes and steal it?

          @I'm sorry Dave : Biblical passages = Too lazy to look. It's all there though.

          Well, I've studied the Bible for more than 15 years, reading through it once a year for the last 5 years, and I've never seen it. So, you'll need to better than saying 'too lazy to look'. I don't trust anyone until they are proven trustworthy.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:04 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          They break into people's salaries. It's basically the same thing, only sanctioned.

          Maybe you should look harder.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:11 am |
        • Live4Him

          @I'm sorry Dave : They break into people's salaries. It's basically the same thing, only sanctioned.

          How do individuals break into another person's salary?

          @I'm sorry Dave : Maybe you should look harder.

          One cannot find that which isn't there.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:14 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          "How do individuals break into another person's salary?"

          Individuals can't, but governments can.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:16 am |
        • Live4Him

          @I'm sorry Dave : Individuals can't, but governments can.

          Ahhh... I FINALLY got you to admit government action is required. However, Jesus NEVER advocated governments redistributing their citizen's wealth. Instead, he advocated individuals voluntarily giving to those less fortunate than themselves. So Jesus was not a socialist, by your own admission.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:25 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          It's not really voluntary though if the alternative is to spend an eternity in agony.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:30 am |
        • BRC

          Live4Him is actually right on this one, Jesus was not a Socialist. Socialists by definition require government redistribution of wealth and resources. Jesus was a communist. He believed in self sustaining communities (commune-ist) which hared freely with one another to ensure that everyones needs; and are concerned more with well being than with material wealth. Communism can function with or without government involvement.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:40 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Communism never gets past the dictatorship of the proletariat. And dictatorship of the proletariat is code for totalitarian dictatorship. Communism has not and will never work. Thankfully, virtually everybody realizes this now.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:47 am |
        • BRC

          I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that,
          I agree, because of human nature communism on a national scale will NEVER work correctly. BUT, communism in the sense of 15-50 people with the available natural resources for sustainable food works just fine (if you don't mind living a rather agrarian and probably boring life). I could and would NEVER do it, but to each their own.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:52 am |
        • Live4Him

          @BRC : Jesus was a communist. He believed in self sustaining communities (commune-ist) which hared freely with one another to ensure that everyones needs

          If you mean voluntarily (rather than freely), then I agree with you. However, most communist societies come about through government intervention, with the elitists in control, and there is nothing voluntary about giving to those elites.. Jesus opposed such organizations. However, he did support voluntarily giving to your neighbors.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:53 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          That sounds more like communitarianism or a Kibbutz than communism (but let's not argue semantics) but if somebody wanted to live like that, I say good luck to them as it's voluntary

          December 4, 2013 at 10:54 am |
        • BRC

          Live4Him,
          Yes, despite my horrible spelling I did mean "sharing freely" as in openly and willingly, not through force or coercion. People who genuinely care about the welfare of those around them.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:59 am |
        • Live4Him

          @BRC : I did mean "sharing freely" as in openly and willingly, not through force or coercion. People who genuinely care about the welfare of those around them.

          Then we agree.

          December 4, 2013 at 11:11 am |
        • ME II

          Wouldn't Jesus' statement about 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" support Socialism, both as a implication of who owns the wealth, i.e. Caesar i.e. the government, and as an endorsement of taxation and therefore "redistribution of wealth"?

          December 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
        • Sara(swati)

          Dave, socialism has little to do with do-gooders spending other people's money. It is about reorganizing the economic system to redfine who owns what. Robinhood was not a socialist – he was a generous theif. Taxing and redistributing money is not socialism. Reassigning ownership and regulating salaries comes closer. We have to stp just tossong around words like Marxism and socialism randomly. These words have meaning and outside the US, which was too paranoid to educate its citizens on what these systems are, most of the world knows what these words mean.

          December 4, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          Live4 HIm
          You can read the Babble thousands of times, and still know NOTHING about ancient cultures, and the perfectly natural HUMAN political origin of every single verse in that set on non-unanimously VOTED (into the canon) set of texts. which were proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls to have changed a LOT through the years. Babble study is for fundie idiots. Scripture scholarship is an entirely different matter. Presuppositionist "bible believing" colleges teach nothing but crap.

          December 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm |
      • ?

        Lie4Him
        You ran away like the coward you are when backed into a corner with questions you could not or would not answer. You are irrelevant on this blog, you are a coward and a liar.

        December 4, 2013 at 10:33 am |
        • Rodents for Romney

          Live4Him,
          If I can provide you with an event that has as good or better evidence for it, than the resurrection has, do you agree to accept it ?

          December 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm |
    • lol??

      Socialism is like evolutionism to a socie. They wannna see it everywhere. As you can see their relentless pursuit has been largely successful, almost as much as the national debt.

      December 4, 2013 at 10:01 am |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        😉

        December 4, 2013 at 10:04 am |
  8. Brother Maynard

    So the bible in one part says ( basically ) " If you do not work ; you do not eat"
    And in another part says ( basically ) " If you are wealthy you cannot go to heaven "
    What I do not understand is why xtians cannot see that these two thoughts are in direct contradiction to each other. And this contradition invalidates the inerrancy of the bible !!!
    How can you believe in a book that opposes itself?

    December 4, 2013 at 8:34 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Brother Maynard : If you are wealthy you cannot go to heaven

      Do you enjoy distorting the Bible? You're acting just like the snake in the Garden of Eden – you take a part of the words and twist it to suit your desires. In reality, the wealthy can get into heaven as long as their heart is devoted to God and not making / hoarding money.

      Additionally, one can be a worker and earning a wage, but not be wealthy. So, you strike out on both points.

      December 4, 2013 at 9:46 am |
      • fintastic

        Christians love to twist words and play the "this means that" game when it comes to the fiction that is the bible.
        Gods word?... no, nothing but mythology....

        December 4, 2013 at 9:52 am |
        • Live4Him

          When you can be polite, I'll respond. Until then...

          December 4, 2013 at 10:12 am |
        • fintastic

          Don't expect me to kiss your deluded a$$ anytine soon you total religious nut job!
          '

          December 4, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        It's right there in plain English. Unless it's a mistranslation from the original Hebrew or Aramaic, it's pretty simple to understand. Rich people cannot get in to Heaven.

        You're right on the second part though. My mom worked five days a week for forty years in a laundromat and has very little money to her name.

        December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am |
        • lol??

          You think Abe didn't make it??

          December 4, 2013 at 10:04 am |
        • Live4Him

          @I'm sorry Dave : It's right there in plain English. Unless it's a mistranslation from the original Hebrew or Aramaic, it's pretty simple to understand.

          First, the passage you are referring to is in Greek, not Hebrew, since it is in the New Testament. Second, it states that it is DIFFICULT, but not IMPOSSIBLE.

          @I'm sorry Dave : Rich people cannot get in to Heaven.

          Job – Rich and heaven bound
          Abraham – Rich and heaven bound
          Isaac – Rich and heaven bound
          Jacob – Rich and heaven bound
          Joseph – Rich and heaven bound
          King David – Rich and heaven bound

          Need I go on? Generally, after three strikes the batter is out.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:09 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Unless you've been to Heaven to verify its occupants, you can't say for sure who's there. And seeing as the place doesn't exist, you'll have great difficulty finding out.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:13 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          For once, I have to agree with L4H.
          The Biblical passage, oh so helpfully repeated over and over by another poster, doesn't state that wealth makes it impossible – only more difficult.
          Wealth often leads to sloth, gluttony, greed, elitism (ignoring or belittling the less fortunate) and a host of other behaviours that are contrary to Jesus' teachings.
          The passage is warning against allowing comfort to make you complacent and self-centered.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:18 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          For once, I have to agree with L4H.
          The Biblical pa.ssage, oh so helpfully repeated over and over by another poster, doesn't state that wealth makes it impossible – only more difficult.
          Wealth often leads to sloth, gl.uttony, greed, elit.ism and a host of other behaviours that are contrary to Jesus' teachings.
          The pa.ssage is warning against allowing comfort to make you complacent and self-centered.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:20 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Have you ever tried to get a camel through the eye of a needle with 2,000 year old Middle-Eastern technology? I'd say it's impossible, not just difficult.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:21 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          "sloth, gluttony, greed, elitism (ignoring or belittling the less fortunate)"

          What else is there in life?

          December 4, 2013 at 10:24 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Dave
          What else is there in life?
          By Crom!
          What is best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of the women.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:27 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          OK, there's that too.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:28 am |
        • Live4Him

          @Doc Vestibule : For once, I have to agree with L4H. ... The passage is warning against allowing comfort to make you complacent and self-centered.

          Gasp! I think I'm hearing things! 😉 But thanks!

          @I'm sorry Dave : Have you ever tried to get a camel through the eye of a needle with 2,000 year old Middle-Eastern technology? I'd say it's impossible, not just difficult.

          Then how did Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David and others get into heaven?

          December 4, 2013 at 10:32 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          "Then how did Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David and others get into heaven?"

          The same way Santa visits all the children of the world in one night. He doesn't and they didn't. But if we take it as purely fiction, they're in Heaven because the Bible is laden with contradictions (mainly between OT and NT). Jesus says that rich people can't get into Heaven. He also says that Yahweh loves everybody. Yet we know from the OT that Yahweh hates everybody who isn't Jewish and I don't believe anybody goes to Heaven in the OT seeing as it wasn't invented until late in the Second Temple Period.

          December 4, 2013 at 10:43 am |
        • Ed

          Actually, you are misquoting this passage(Matthew 19:23). The translations quote Jesus as saying that it is "hard", "very hard", "with difficulty", etc for the rich to get into heaven, but not impossible or "cannot". A couple of lines later Jesus says that with "God everything is possible."(Matthew 19:26). A rich person with deep faith and a heart for God can get into heaven. Read the story of Zacchaeus, a rich man.(Luke 19: 1-10).

          December 4, 2013 at 10:47 am |
        • fintastic

          "But if we take it as purely fiction,....."

          Which of course it is.

          December 4, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          "No one shall come to me, unless the Father draw him".
          He would not have said anything so exclusionary, if everyone was called.
          Your deity is very capricious.

          December 5, 2013 at 12:18 am |
      • caydenberg

        New International Version
        Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

        New Living Translation
        I'll say it again–it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"

        English Standard Version
        Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

        New American Standard Bible
        "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

        King James Bible
        And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        Holman Christian Standard Bible
        Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

        International Standard Version
        Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."

        NET Bible
        Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God."

        Aramaic Bible in Plain English
        “And again I say to you that it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”

        GOD'S WORD® Translation
        I can guarantee again that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

        Jubilee Bible 2000
        And again I say unto you, It is easier to put a cable through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        King James 2000 Bible
        And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        American King James Version
        And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        American Standard Version
        And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        Douay-Rheims Bible
        And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

        Darby Bible Translation
        and again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to enter a needle's eye than a rich man into the kingdom of God.

        English Revised Version
        And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        Webster's Bible Translation
        And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

        Weymouth New Testament
        Yes, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

        World English Bible
        Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

        Young's Literal Translation
        and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.'

        December 4, 2013 at 10:09 am |
      • Brother Maynard

        L4H - Sorry not buying it.
        Are you now telling me that getting a camel throught an eye of a needle is just a "difficult" task? Not impossible?
        How long does it take to accomplish this task?

        December 4, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
  9. lol??

    BTW Mikey, what pet name do ya call yer hubby?? Twerpy??

    December 4, 2013 at 5:31 am |
    • Science Works

      For sh-its and grins lol??

      How is your housekeeping ?

      Dec. 3, 2013 — Scientists have found that Neanderthals organized their living spaces in ways that would be familiar to modern humans, a discovery that once again shows similarities between these two close cousins.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131203091616.htm

      December 4, 2013 at 7:03 am |
    • Science Works

      So lol?? are the crickets invading the homestead ?

      December 4, 2013 at 9:16 am |
  10. lol??

    Socies LUV the poor. That's why they make so many of em.

    December 4, 2013 at 3:37 am |
  11. Frank

    This just doesn't sound like the Rush I know. That man would put on lace-up hip huggers. We'd go out and he'd whiff up a few whippets and do a Soultrain on the hood of my old Chevy with the radio going. A bit too much nitrous would get him going on about his mommie. Real maudlin like.

    Now since he got all those cysts and fissures in his rectum and started doing that Excellence in Broadcasting shit we don't see him around any more. He used to love this Roy Orbison song:

    A candy-colored clown they call the sandman
    Tiptoes to my room every night
    Just to sprinkle stardust and to whisper:
    "Go to sleep, everything is alright"

    I close my eyes
    Then I drift away
    Into the magic night
    I softly sway
    Oh smile and pray
    Like dreamers do
    Then I fall asleep
    To dream my dreams of you

    In dreams...I walk with you
    In dreams...I talk to you
    In dreams...Your mine

    All of the time
    We're together
    In dreams...In dreams

    But just before the dawn
    I awake and find you gone
    I can't help it...I can't help it
    If I cry
    I remember
    That you said goodbye
    To end all these things
    And I'll be happy in my dreams
    Only in dreams
    In beautiful dreams

    December 4, 2013 at 12:16 am |
    • Maddy

      Bravo!

      December 4, 2013 at 12:20 am |
  12. Sam Yaza

    wasn't Jesus a socialist?

    December 3, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      what one moment i'm i starting to like this pope, i cant like the pope im the fucking devil. standing up for social justice,.. dude that my game, i'm the great rebel, me.. well i guess my lake of throne is beg enough for more people,...but i never thought the pope. next thing you know hes going to have a sit down with Mumia Abu-Jamal.

      December 3, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
  13. Mark

    If that fool Limbaugh hates you, you must be doing EVERYTHING right.

    December 3, 2013 at 11:40 pm |
    • John H

      You are too kind Rush is no fool, he is an absolute evil fascist pig. He has NOTHING to contribute to society other than eventually fading away, the sooner the better.

      December 4, 2013 at 12:53 am |
      • James

        Sheesh – angry much?

        December 4, 2013 at 9:40 am |
      • fintastic

        People seem to love an aggry loudmouth that spreads lies and hate.

        December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am |
        • fintastic

          "angry"

          December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am |
  14. Andres Munoz

    Rush is an idiot. He does not realize that the Catholic Church not about the Vatican. It is about the teachings of Jesus which are without a doubt anti-capitalist. Where would the Church be without Capitalism? It would be better off and sterilized of any members who believe unfettered capitalism serves any good in the world.

    I would also like Rush or any other conservative to explain why Marxism is a bad thing? How exactly is it anti-American. It seems like Rush and other conservatives throw that word around without understanding what's wrong with it.

    December 3, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
    • fintastic

      "hail Mary full of grace" repeated over and over again with no mention of jesus

      December 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
  15. lol??

    Mikey, you exhibit the typical socie confusion about who will do the judging.

    December 3, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
    • Michael

      Thank you for not having the wisdom to recognizing the verses I quoted related directly to "Christians" such as yourself.

      December 4, 2013 at 12:26 am |
  16. lol??

    What kinda catholic woman would marry Bill Gates??

    December 3, 2013 at 10:50 pm |
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
Advertisement
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.