Posted on 12/01/2013 3:27:58 PM PST by Moseley
We discover in the New Testament, in Luke Chapter 12:13-14:
“Someone in the crowd said to Him [Jesus Christ], ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But He said to him, ‘Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?’”
In just one verse, we see that God rejects the left-wing “Jesus Christ supported socialism” heresy. When Jesus was asked to support redistribution of wealth – to tell one brother to share the family inheritance with the other – Jesus refused. Jesus would never support government or a church stealing property by force to give it to a stranger. He would not even intervene for one man to share his own family’s wealth with his own brother.
Obviously, Jesus would sternly warn the brother hoarding wealth against greed, dishonesty and defrauding his family. But Jesus preached to the person in front of him about how to live right. Jesus was never teaching one person what is wrong with someone else (except to clarify how the listener should behave by contrast).
One truth shines out from the Bible: Jesus spoke to the individual, never to government or government policy. Jesus was a capitalist, preaching personal responsibility, not a socialist.
Pope Francis condemned capitalism. Some argue that Francis’ Spanish-language Apostolic Exhortation was mistranslated. But Francis is not among those disputing that translation. Moreover, corrected translations are no better.
Francis argues for dependence upon government to redistribute wealth. And con artists in the U.S. are seizing on the opportunity to spread the misery of socialism. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin this week called Pope Francis on his mangling of economics. Then author Reza Aslan struck back in the Washington Post, claiming that Jesus was a socialist.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
God cares (or knows) English grammar? I know, I've sinned, Father, I should of said "he must have had"! I stand by what I meant to say!
The Christianity of Yankees and of Midwesterners
Northern Europeans, Yankees (like Cal Coolidge), and Midwesterners (like Ronbo), have a more stoic form of belief. Latins and Southern Europeans tend to be more emotive. It is wrong for this Latin Pope to speak so cruelly of Northerners. To be so judgmental of people of other cultures is a form of prejudice and un-Christian.
If I might share a story about Midwestern values, it concerns Bob Dole. While I supported Jack Kemp early during the primaries, I was happy to support Senator Dole after he secured the nomination. Then, in his acceptance speech, there was a point where he recalled his father visiting him the hospital in Detroit, terribly wounded. He said to the convention, with a tear drop forming in his eye, he would not let the poor down. That tear drop never fell. That’s a midwestern man.
And, having shared that story about Midwestern values, I will share one about Latin values. My mother, an Italian-American, and I were watching the World Baseball Classic a few years ago. She much preferred the games being held in Puerto Rico (featuring the Caribbean teams) to the games being held in Arizona (featuring the U.S., Canada, Japan and Korea). She resonated with the Latin spirit of the Caribbean teams.
Yeah yeah, that was it.
I think it’s always safer to limit oneself to the words spoken (or written.) The Pope never said or suggested/implied that Hong Kong is not possible as you allege. I am certain that he understands what has happened in Hong Kong as well as we do. It is also worth noting that he spoke to the world and to the conditions in many other countries not just in the United States, Hong Kong and Singapore. All is not well in this world of ours, and our naive American style theoretical Libertarianism has not been tried anywhere any more than the ideal textbook Communism. I know from reading the paper that he is not proposing “socialism”, or any more involvement of government than we have here already in this welfare state. In the past couple of years, I had a friend, a Chinese economist scholar visiting a university here with whom I discussed for many hours various political and economic issues, and we both concluded that the US was more of a welfare state than the Communist China.
No Catholic on earth denies that the Pope is a sinner.
Anyone of good faith who has taken the time to compare what Popes actually say, versus the spin put on their words by the MSM, understands that caution is in order regarding any sensational claims about what the Pope said, on any topic.
BTTT!
Both of your replies grossly mistate what I wrote. NEVER did I say a word about government confiscation and NEVER did I say that capitalism lacked charity. You are arguing two points that you inferred from my comments incorrectly.
More than once, Jesus directs people to sell all they have and give it to the poor. Society in Jesus’ time was far less monetized than it is today. Jesus had little trouble wandering from town to town without money or a credit card and stayed the night in the homes of total strangers or simply on the ground because He knew His Father would provide all He needed and trusted fully in it.
Jesus wants us all to trust the Father in the same way but we lack the faith to turn a few fish and loaves of bread into a banquet for 5,000. That’s why material possessions and riches meant so little to Him - He could always summon whatever He needed. That’s why He could exhort people to sell all they had. The model worked for Him. In that context, His exhortation makes total sense as impossible as it sounds to most of us.
>The Pope never denied that Hong Kong could, by adopting the “trickle down theory,” experience rapid economic growth.
Looks like it’s put up or shut up time for me.
Paragraph 54. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts.”
“Never” … maybe that’s a translation error … but in English it means I can’t cite even one example that shows that the “trickle down theory” works.
And Hong Kong is not the exception to the rule. The rule is the more capitalist is the country, the richer it is.
Furthermore, the more capitalistic is a country, the more honest and less violent it is, the more civil liberties are enjoyed by the people, the longer is life expectancy, the cleaner is the air and water, the more generous the country is with the poor, the more intelligent are the people, and the more competitive their athletes are in Olympic sports.
I even checked out the correlation of capitalism and how and successful are their girls in international beauty pageants, and found that to be positive but insignificant.
If you will look at paragraphs 52 to 60, there are very few references to scripture or to prior encyclicals. There is a reference to Ex. 32 that - what? - proves the Aaron was a supply-side economist? There is also a quotation from St. Chrysostom, a early Doctor of the Church. I think that’s it. Two tie-ins. So, this entire section is almost entirely fresh. But, maybe I’m wrong. Check it out for yourself. I make no claim to be infallible.
Regarding St. Chrysostom, here is a short but balanced commentary of his teachings regarding the poor (which includes the very quotation cited by Pope Francis). St. Chrysostom said the rich had a moral obligation to share of their wealth to the poor; and, that forced redistribution of the wealth would be useless. Sounds like my kind of Christian. But, who is St. Chrysostom anyway? He’s not infallible. And, why should you trust me to summarize him. Check it out:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/18664-chrysostom-on-the-poor.html
Some future Pope will apologize for this attack on capitalism, as John Paul II apologized for the Pope who denied that Jupiter had moons. The wild accusations of tyranny and murder. The name-calling. And calling those who disagree, some of whom have whom the Nobel Prize in economics, calling them naive.
>No, this is absolutely false.
I can see there is no room for discussion with you. Perhaps you are an infallible authority. Anyway, as you say there was a condition which the two agreed to, and then held back. Now, since you are such an authority, would you give the time line involving the Jerusalem Church and the siege of Jerusalem? I kind of thinking there’s a connection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)
If, as you say, I am completely in error, I would appreciate the correction.
Jesus was and is a KING... not a duly elected official...
In Jesus kingdom EVERYTHING BELONGS to Jesus.. even YOU..
NO DEMOCRACY in Jesus kingdom.. NONE..
To Jesus...... earthly kingdoms are BIZARRO WORLD..
AND..... they are...
Here’s some more good stuff on the Jerusalem church:
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity#Jerusalem
Jesus and his apostles, disciples, and early followers, being Jewish or Jewish proselytes, traveled from Galilee to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, c. 33, at which time the city was under Roman occupation as part of Iudaea province. After an incident in the Temple, he was crucified in Jerusalem at a site called Golgotha and buried nearby. According to Christian belief, on the third day he was resurrected, and after appearing to his disciples and others ascended to heaven.
Jerusalem was the first center of the church, according to the Book of Acts, and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: the location of “the first Christian church”.[7] The apostles lived and taught there for some time after Pentecost.[8] Jesus’ brother James was a leader in the church, and his other kinsman likely held leadership positions in the surrounding area after the destruction of the city until its rebuilding as Aelia Capitolina, c. 130, when all Jews were banished from the city.[8] In about 50, Barnabas and Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the “pillars of the church”:[9] James, Peter, and John. Later called the Council of Jerusalem, this meeting, among other things, confirmed the legitimacy of the mission of Barnabas and Paul to the gentiles, and the gentile converts’ freedom from most Mosaic law, especially circumcision, which was repulsive to the Hellenic mind.[10] Thus, the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:19–21) may be a major act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots[11] (the first major act being the Rejection of Jesus as Messiah[12]), though the decree may simply parallel Jewish Noahide Law and thus be a commonality rather than a differential. In roughly the same time period Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement of Jewish boys even stricter.[13]
When Peter left Jerusalem after Herod Agrippa I tried to kill him, James appears as the principal authority.[14] Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) called him Bishop of Jerusalem.[14] A second-century church historian, Hegesippus, wrote that the Sanhedrin martyred him in 62.[14]
In 66, the Jews revolted against Rome.[8] Rome besieged Jerusalem for four years, and the city fell in 70.[8] The city was destroyed, including the Temple, and the population was mostly killed or removed.[8] However, according to Epiphanius of Salamis,[15] the Cenacle survived at least to Hadrian’s visit in 130. A scattered population survived.[8] Traditionally it is believed the Jerusalem Christians waited out the Jewish–Roman wars in Pella in the Decapolis. The Sanhedrin relocated to Jamnia.[16] Prophecies of the Second Temple’s destruction are found in the synoptics.[17]
>I hadn’t seen this prior to just now. But, this lines up with my impressions of what was going on. It is my impressions that the time from about Pentecost or so to the Siege of Jerusalem, the new community of believers (most of them Jews, but also gentiles), became outcast from the Jewish patriots (or zealots).
>So, during the time they were still in Jerusalem, but becoming outcast from the Jewish patriots, this is when I suppose the Jerusalem Church adopted its communist arrangement. Anyway, that’s how I differentiate the communism of the Jerusalem Church from the normal, individualistic, private property arrangements provided by the Bible.
I blitzed through most of the papal document and found it a hopelessly liberal view of reality. The only way to make sense of it is to list a “good” column and a “bad” column; put each concept he disparages in the “bad” column, and each concept he encourages in the good column. When you are done, the lists will help you realize who he is and what he stands for.
For those who love God, it might be simpler and more profitable to seek that which is good, true, beautiful, virtuous, honorable, righteous, etc... than to pursue a list of liberal pseudo-virtues.
As Jesus warned us, “by their fruits you will know them”.
Absolutely. Hesus wasn’t about forcing people to do anything.
As soon as you start giving government that kind of power you are inviting men into the position only God can occupy.
Your point about the voluntary aspect of the sharing arrangement is very important. Regarding the Jerusalem Church, sometimes I use the word voluntary Communism or Christian Communism. Even the family, isn’t the family communistic? I think I see how we got here. When I said that the conditions of the Jerusalem Church were unusual, and it operated under something like martial law, perhaps this left it possible to think that I was saying that the sharing going on was imposed from without.
Your point about Wikipedia is also correct. I use it for its convenience. But I don’t rely on it. I rely on either myself or on valid sources.
I really hate these kinds of claims coming from both sides. These political-economic constructs are created by men and not God. Some are definitely better than others and I think one that is based in personal liberty is absolutely the best, but it is not without flaw.
While we do our best to make our way here, we need to be storing our treasure in Heaven first.
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.