If Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin don’t like the pope, they won’t care much for Jesus (He's serious)

The Washington Post's On Faith ^ | November 28, 2013 | Reza Aslan

[2ndDivisionVet]

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are starting to sour on the new pope.

In response to Pope Francis’ first Apostolic Exhortation, in which the pontiff denounced “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” these two paragons of the far right – both of whom regularly invoke the teachings of Jesus to bolster their own political views – have suddenly turned their backs on the man whose actual job description is to speak for Jesus.

Sarah Palin complained that Pope Francis sounded “kind of liberal” in his statements decrying the growing global income equality between the rich and the poor (she has since apologized).

Rush Limbaugh went one step further. “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope,” he harrumphed into his giant microphone.

Limbaugh, in his trademarked conspiratorial style, speculated that the pope’s tirade against “widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion” must have been forced upon him by somebody else. “Somebody has either written this for [the pope] or gotten to him,” he said.

Limbaugh is right. Somebody did get to Pope Francis. It was Jesus....

[NKP_Vet]

Would you like it better if he said women can be priests and it’s OK to murder the unborn?

[Jeff Chandler]

It has been my experience that people who say God is Love really mean Love is God.

[boatbums]

Donations, yeah that’s a lot of donations, don’t u think?

There is a very interesting history behind all the billions in the Roman Catholic Church. Read it HERE

[nonsporting]

I've always wondered how it is that Catholics have thought it is OK to call a man "pope" and their priests "father" when the bible explicitly says not to do that.

They are ignorant of the scriptures. Their leaders teach them damnable heresies, keeping them ignorant of the truth.

And they are unsaved, since they have not believed the gospel--"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23). They believe that works (and ordinances) are required for salvation. They are not trusting in the finished work of Jesus Christ to save them.

"Abraham believed God and it was counted unto for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:3-5)

Salvation is either by works/debt or grace. But he that would keep the law, but offend in one point is guilty of all! (Galatians 2:10). All of us have sinned at some point. Therefore, our only hope is salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

The Catholic knows none of this. The unsaved are trusting in their own works (living a good life) to justify them before God. Jesus was in effect talking about the Catholic so-called priesthood as well when he said "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13). The Catholic needs to hear the words of God, believe him and be saved, receiving eternal life which he can never lose (its eternal not temporary). The saved understand and know this:

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:10-12

[Zionist Conspirator]

Actually, if one omits Paul's writings and concentrates on the "red letters," J*sus does sound like a liberal.

The best solution to liberal chrstianity isn't conservative chrstianity, but a return to the original religion G-d gave to Adam, to Noah, and finally to Moses and Israel at Sinai.

[Campion]

Pales next to the Inquisition.....what was that, 6 or 9 million people?

About 12,000 ... but they actually got trials and got to speak in their own defense, instead of just being murdered in cold blood, like the people at Mountain Meadows. And they were all Catholics, or claimed to be, unlike the victims at Mountain Meadows, who were killed because they weren't Mormons.

So you're really comparing apples to oranges.

[Redmen4ever]

>why doesn’t the Pope use his wealth to help the poor?

Sorry to take so long to respond. What would it mean for the Pope to sell the artworks and other treasures of the Catholic Church? If these forms of wealth are evil, then they should be donated to a museum, rather than profit come from selling them. As part of a museum, they could serve mankind through the uplift that is art. One could argue that the Church is a museum for these very beautiful things, so that they are already where they should be. But, if the Church were to believe that wealth beyond a modicum is filthy lucre, then it would be prostituting itself to sell its treasures.

I, however, have nothing against wealth. In fact, I am for wealth. I think wealth is a good thing. Not only wealth in the form of land and natural resources (which seems to be the Church’s understanding of wealth through the 19th Century), but also wealth in the form of treasures such as precious metal, jewels, fashion, architecture and art, music, performance, gardens, resort islands, cruise ships, Vegas casinos, etc., etc., AND wealth in the form of productive capital, either owned directly (e.g., in the forms of physical capital, technology and human capital) or indirectly (e.g., via stocks, bonds, mutual funds, bank accounts, pensions and insurance).

My program for ending poverty isn’t re-dsitribution of the wealth, but is by the creation of additional wealth. To me, the Pope, in castigating the wealth that we have by reason of capitalism, but wanting the fruits of that wealth, is prostituting himself. As a holy man, he should not covet the fruits of evil. That would be greedy on his part and sinful.

Here’s the Pope’s problem: Jesus says to whom much is given, much is expected. The Pope has been given a great position, even an exalted one. He is responsible for using his position for the glory of God. If he goes around saying things such as Jupiter has no moons and that capitalism is evil to its core, there’s about a billion people on the planet who will discover that their pastoral leader is a nincompoop.

[Campion]

It seems to me that if one Pope can declare the economic system endorsed by prior Popes as “unjust at its root,” and not merely as flawed, then there can be no claim of Papal infallibility.

Neither Rerum Novarum, nor Centisimus Annos, nor any of Pope Francis' teachings, are protected by Papal infallibility. It's debatable whether something which strayed far from moral principles into the specifics of their practical applications even *could* be protected by Papal infallibility.

[Campion]

The Catholic knows none of this.

Go tell it to the Catholic bishop, St. Augustine, who was working out the doctrines of grace 1500 years before you were born.

[Redmen4ever]

>what is protected by Papal infallibility?

This goes to the definition of “infallible” to Catholics. To non-Catholics, a better word might be “presumption.”

There are degrees of infallible. The Pope speaking spontaneously is to be given presumption. Hence, there is some weight to Pope Benedict XVI’s spontaneous remark that Christianity is not a political nor an economic system.

The Pope in issuing this pastoral letter is to be given a greater degree of presumption.

The Pope in issuing encyclical even more so.

And, the Pope issuing an encyclical in conjunction with the bishops of the Church would be the highest level of presumption. Don’t quote me on this, but I think there have only been seven in two thousand years of Church history. They concern such matters as Christ’s nature as truly God and truly Man (which is not to say that Christ has two separate natures).

The bishops of the United States, when they issue a pastoral letter, deserve a certain presumption. But, I’ll just say with regard to economics, these pastoral letters have been as embarrassing as Pope Francis’ exhortation.

The Doctors of the church also deserve a certain presumption. Their teachings are said to be relatively free of error. Hence, we can have some confidence in St. Theresa’s great teaching that our little things are acceptable to God.

If I might return to Pope Benedict XVI, I did very much enjoy his spontaneous remark, when asked by the crowd upon being elected Pope to instantly declare John Paul II a saint, “Are we not all saints?” Very Baptist of him.

[goat granny]

Jesus was asked a specific question from one man. Did he ever say that to the rest of his followers...if in the bible, please tell me chapter and verse. An answer to one question is not a demand for others to follow. It was for the man that asked the question and said he followed all things Jesus already taught. Was that even possible when Christ already said all have fallen short and all men sin.
this gentleman obviously didn't think he sinned as he had done all that was requested already. Even Jesus apostles owned homes and had families. I don't remember reading that Jesus told Peter and the rest to sell their homes or they could not follow Him...I am surely open to being corrected. That's how we learn.

[ex-snook]

Don’t think the Pope said socialism is better but anyway the question is why are the poor increasing here? Shipping jobs and factories to other countries for whatever reason is not a help to our poor here. Sure doesn’t sound like today’s Good Samaritan is using his money here if he can find a lower wage to take care of himself.

[S.O.S121.500]

So you’re really comparing apples to oranges.
++++++
ONE is too damn many to die over a ‘religion’; any religion.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.

[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in theirpublic acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nationnow in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?

[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.

[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.

[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

Besides these sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power, namely, that of "the rulers of the darkness of this world," [Ephesians, 6. 12] "the kingdom of Satan," [Matthew, 12. 26] and "the principality of Beelzebub over demons," [Ibid., 9. 34] that is to say, over phantasms that appear in the air: for which cause Satan is also called "the prince of the power of the air";[Ephesians, 2. 2] and, because he ruleth in the darkness of this world, "the prince of this world":[John, 16. 11] and in consequence hereunto, they who are under his dominion, in opposition to the faithful, who are the "children of the light," are called the "children of darkness." For seeing Beelzebub is prince of phantasms, inhabitants of his dominion of air and darkness, the children of darkness, and these demons, phantasms, or spirits of illusion, signify allegorically the same thing. This considered, the kingdom of darkness, as it is set forth in these and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark and erroneous doctrines, to extinguish in them the light, both of nature and of the gospel; and so to disprepare them for the kingdom of God to come.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

[Salvation]

And many more Catholics were killed throughout the ages, including in current history in Syria and in Egypt.

[S.O.S121.500]

And many more Catholics were killed throughout the ages, including in current history in Syria and in Egypt.

---

Target availability....

[nonsporting]

What do you mean? Clarify.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Don’t think the Pope said socialism is better but anyway the question is why are the poor increasing here? Shipping jobs and factories to other countries for whatever reason is not a help to our poor here. Sure doesn’t sound like today’s Good Samaritan is using his money here if he can find a lower wage to take care of himself.

The charity of the Good Samaritan had nothing to do with his business, other than that whatever business he was in allowed him to afford to express his charity with money as well as with courage. Business may empower charity, but business is not charity. There is only so much charity possible in the conduct of business, and an unbounded “need” for charity wherever it is not “more blessed to give than to receive.”

[ebb tide]

I'd like it better if he would just stop babbling nonsense.

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. Pope Francis