Posted on 10/12/2009 9:29:34 AM PDT by Ed Hudgins
It’s no secret that Michael Moore hates economic liberty; the theme of his movie Capitalism: A Love Story is that the free market is evil. But unlike most on the extreme left, Moore attempts to justify his views based on his Christian Catholic religion.
Moore asks, “Would Jesus be a capitalist?” He answers that capitalism “is opposite everything that Jesus ... taught” and that all religions are clear about one thing: “It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” (Sadly, he’s ignoring the fact that wealth isn’t a static pie but something that must be created. And he doesn’t understand that in a capitalist system, those who create the most get the most. Then again, his movies are based on twisting and ignoring facts.)
Moore says that Jesus “told us that we had to be our brother’s and sister’s keepers and that the riches that did exist were to be divided fairly.” Moore argues that one cannot be a capitalist and a Christian because “you can’t love money AND your neighbor.”
Christ, no!
No doubt many Christians—certainly the ones I know—would object strongly to Moore’s conclusions. Some might argue that Moore takes Jesus’ teachings out of context and would quote Bible verses to the contrary. “Thou shalt not steal,” for example, means that it’s a sin to take someone else’s private property. And such property is the foundation of a capitalist system.
Others might point to the parable of the talents (Matthew 25: 14-30). A master gives his three servants money for safe keeping while he’s away. Upon his return he finds that two of the servants have doubled the money entrusted to them through trade and commerce and he praises them. But the third buried …
(Excerpt) Read more at atlassociety.org ...
No, just a freak.
No, just a Freak.
Really? I must have missed that in Catholic school. Jesus was a carpenter and as such traded his services for wages/pay.
liberalism/communism/socialism
is not justifiable with Biblical Christianity.
Period. End of argument.
Before we continue with this discussion...
What is Michael Moore’s position on abortion?
Imagine if Jesus got secular Rome to raise taxes on the Jews and Samaritans (at sword point) to pay for the early Christian's fish, bread and wine. This is what Moore progressives think!
Perhaps someone should ask him, where in his bible, he finds the verse that commands “Take from those who produce, at the point of a sword, and give to those who do not produce so the non producers will show up every 2 years to vote for your political cronies”.
BTW, anyone asked Mikey when he is going to sell his opulent private homes along with the rest of his processions and “share them fairly with his bothers and sisters”?
nah, he’s just trolling. The left does this all the time. They’re trying use the foundation of right wing faith, to justify moving left. It be equivalent of a capitalist joining Greenpeace and use environmentalist rhetorical to push free market solution to solve environmental problems
I was hoping that Hannity would have asked...” Since you mention the teachings of Jesus, is he indeed your savior and Lord”?
I’d love to see MM give his political answer on that...
Jesus did NOT tell us to outsource our Christian charity to the State.
Notice that leftists that assert that the bible and the sayings of Jesus are “up for interpretation”,
because a plain reading in historical-grammatical hermeneutics
yields the opposite of their worldly ideology.
Leftist Humanism is not the same as Christisnty, MICHALE MOORE, you ignorant, hypocritical buffoon.
Religion and revolutionaries Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. - Karl Marx We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American renewal. - Barack Obama; The Audacity of Hope; p. 216 Karl Marx seemed to regard religion as one of the toughest roadblocks to mounting and sustaining a proper revolution by the proletariat. That the masses would continue to stubbornly cling to their religions, placing their hope in God rather than man, was evidently one of the more prickly thorns in ole Karl's side. Both Lenin and Stalin concurred with Marx, and one of the most stringent and murderous thrusts of Soviet Communism was its campaign against religion, especially Judaism and Christianity. Mao and other eastern communists went this route as well, and never pretended to have any faith whatsoever in anyone or anything but the material world. But Barack Obama, the student of Saul Alinksy, sees the necessity of reeling in those of faith, and making them part of the class struggle, while avoiding the harsher approach of demanding that the people give up their faith as a consequence of their commitment to revolutionary change. Americans have proven much more stubborn in the religious realm than the Europeans, who fell hook, line and sinker for Marx, Lenin and Stalin. America might seem more amenable to the kind of Third Way socialism that Hitler brought to Germany, while cunningly using Christian jargon to wile his way into Aryan minds and hearts. Black liberation theology, I have discovered (Read Part One here.), is yet another form of Third Way socialism, developed by Marxists seeking a way around the stubbornness of the ardently faithful, a way to hook folks on the revolution, without putting up a fight to eradicate their religion. And Obama's Chicago experiences seem to give him great hope that his cloak of religiosity will help to catapult him over the religious right and into the White House on the wings of liberation theology.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obama_black_liberation_theolog_1.html#
Freepers might be interested in our blogs on this topic:
http://www.faithfacts.org/blog/biblical-capitalism
Lets see what Jesus actually said:
#
Matthew 13:12
Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Matthew 13:11-13 (in Context) Matthew 13 (Whole Chapter)
#
Matthew 25:29
For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Matthew 25:28-30 (in Context) Matthew 25 (Whole Chapter)
#
Mark 4:25
Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”
Mark 4:24-26 (in Context) Mark 4 (Whole Chapter)
#
Mark 14:5
It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
Mark 14:4-6 (in Context) Mark 14 (Whole Chapter)
#
Luke 8:18
Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him.”
Luke 8:17-19 (in Context) Luke 8 (Whole Chapter)
#
Luke 12:48
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Luke 12:47-49 (in Context) Luke 12 (Whole Chapter)
#
Luke 19:26
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
Luke 19:25-27 (in Context) Luke 19 (Whole Chapter)
Marxism/Communism/”Liberation” Theology are NOT compatible with Christ’s teachings, they all lead the wrong direction. Just because someone evokes the name of Jesus does NOT mean he’s a follower, mostly His name is used as a curse word.
Well, I have to admit, Moore's right on this one. The exact biblical reference is II Histrionics 7:22-26.
Matt. 25:14-30
[14] For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
[15] And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
[16] Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
[17] And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
[18] But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
[19] After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
[20] And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
[21] His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
[22] He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
[23] His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
[24] Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
[25] And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
[26] His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
[27] Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
[28] Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
[29] For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
[30] And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
No.
Ayn Rand got her economics right, but her theology was wrong.
Hey, Moore, did it ever dawn on you that you can have money without the ‘love of money’?
Here’s one for you, Moore - Jesus wore a seemless robe. The poor could not afford seemless robes. Seems Jesus wasn’t concerned with money being evil but the ‘LOVE’ of money as being evil.
As a Jesus freak, I resent that.
Hannity did repeatedly the other night on his show. Moore dodged the question multiple times, of course.
Just ask Michael Moore if Jesus Christ is Lord or if He is his personal Savior and you'll get your answer.
“When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.
On the other hand, when Christianity rejects the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces socialism or some politically run hybrid “middle way” between capitalism and socialism, where politicians and bureaucrats make the big decisions about how people’s wealth will be allocated. Economic growth then slows or is reversed. Always.”
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Actually, Mikey the Liar, is a very successful capitalist. He uses his resources and the labor of others to create capital—a movie for distribution. He (and the theater owners) then charge the poor people $10, each, to enjoy his capital on a very temporary basis.
I haven’t seen him announce that he is donating all the profits from his capital to charity. Quite the opposite. He has grown quite wealthy by exploiting his capital.
For obvious reasons. Where's the compassion in voting for the government (Rome) to take your neighbors money?? Moores target audience is the 'no so bright' that want to believe this. He was on Hannitys program and Hannity didnt expose him on this, any more than O Reilly years ago.
Notice that Moore defines compassion as collective, not personal. But the pro-abortion side defines freedom as personal right to an abortion(”it's my body”) , but funded by the government.
Sadly, Moore didn't need any tactics or strategy and Sean managed to show himself to be a lightweight at debate as Moore had him for lunch and dinner.
I like Sean Hannity as a person and I'm very glad to have his voice on the side of conservatism, but.... and it pains me to say this, Sean Hannity neither listens well nor thinks fast enough on his feet for this kind of public debate and he just came off looking silly and redundant in that so called "debate" with the fat boy from Michigan.
I've noticed Sean often does the same thing with his callers, fails to listen quite enough and talks a little too much, even when he's just repeating the same thing over and over in an ever louder voice. That's not debating, it's just stating the obvious and cutting off any attempt at discussion.
Again, I do like Mr. Hannity and I agree he's a great American. But when it comes to salient discussion and inteligent debate, he simply can't hold a candle to either Rush or Glenn Beck. (neither could I, but it's ok to criticize isn't it? :-)
Even the Devil can quote scripture.
Michael Moore is no more a Jesus Freak than Satan himself is.
Both recognize and capitalize on misrepresentation of Jesus’ teachings in order to further their own pride-driven enterprises.
Hannity and OReilly are lightweights and not at all up to the task of taking on Moore.
Mikie- who makes the pie? and when in modern American history has pie failed to reach the poor?
“Is Michael Moore a Jesus Freak?”
No, but if he goes swimming he might have the Rainbow War rior pull up alongside to protect him from whaling ships.
He is not. He is just using the Jesus angle as a new tact. He started it with the promotion of his new movie. Its so obvious.
People forget that Jesus was a trust-fund baby. In today’s Christmas story we talk about 3 wise men bringing gifts. We choose the number 3 because of the 3 gifts listed. But these guys didn’t travel all that way to throw a couple bucks the kid’s way...
Well, she was an objectivist. Her world was the living world, and the many things she got "right" with her philosophy can be explained rationally and logically within the concrete realities of this world. But these logical truths will only be understood and accepted by people who first grant that there is a concrete physical reality. Those who question whether or not we even exist at all can author any "logic" they need from that null premise. (I'm speaking of leftists here)
She also thought the greatest document ever written by man was the Declaration of Independence (noting that its only mistake was a minor one of word choice. That was, that instead of being endowed with inalienable rights by a "creator", man is endowed those rights by "nature"). The discussion of nature versus creator is, I believe, a healthy and illuminating one for those who like to exercise their minds.
His beliefs align with so-called Christian Liberation Theology. That’s pure Marxism paired with a complete bastardization of the Bible.
If he really believs it, he’s a fool. I doubt that, though. Which means he is knowingly twisting the Bible to promote his warped self-serving beliefs
Either way, he’s as much a Christian as I am a satanist.
Hannity got to this Marxist Jesus stuff with Moore and moron Hannity goes off on how HE gives to charity(who gives a crap??) . Moore has been on this for years, and it's the best Hannity could come up with. Nothing about Rome taking the money to give to someone else as false generosity.
Knowing Hannity he probably has a disconnect between taxing and spending. He never minded GWB spending at the time, as long as he didn't raise taxes. In a way that is like a secular Jesus, the government collects a dollar in taxes, and borrows one in effect doubling the money it can give away (Jesus and fish and bread.)
That there are leftists who deny or question physical reality I think is true.
I just think she was wrong on her theology; Christianity doesn’t deny concrete physical reality but celebrates the same. Followers also assert a reality beyond the mere physical :); and this, as I understand Rand, is where she went off track.
Moore is a wicked and evil liae, quoting scripture to to achieve his depraved ends.
Moore asks, “Would Jesus be a capitalist?” He answers that capitalism “is opposite everything that Jesus ... taught”
Really? I must have missed that in Catholic school. Jesus was a carpenter and as such traded his services for wages/pay.
I believe Jesus and his disciples worked for their room and board as they traveled preaching. Seems he practiced self-reliance.
Yes, we need to be sacrificial in our giving to the poor. However, we need to do it on an individual basis. It is not the role of government. In fact, the capitalist system allows us to make more money so we can give more money.
I haven't studied all of Rand's statements on Christianity specifically, so I don't know how complete her understanding is.
What I do understand is that she doesn't accept, as logic, that which comes from a place outside the knowable. What I admire about her is that she has been able to illustrate how basic morality can be shown as logically to exist and benefit man's pursuit of happiness on this earth. Similarly, I admire our country's founding principles which make the case for a rational protection of individual rights.
(Disclaimer: I'm no Rand expert, but I've recently re-read Atlas Shrugged so she is fresh in my mind. That book, by the way, is so relevant to today that it is scary. The motivations in the left-leaning characters in the book are so well described that their words can be seamlessly superimposed over any of today's center and leftist politicians and pundits.)
A moral freak!
Simply put, Christ wants a willing heart; in everything. Forcing people into doing and giving things by force is not Biblical. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and a thief.
Isn't that the mindset of Obama and his cronies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.