Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
But everyone here is implying that religion is politics
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Where did I mention politics in my post? Even though you are wrong, because Christianity is very much involved in the political compass, at least here in the United States, that's not what I am talking about at all. "Conservative" and "progressive" are pretty vague terms that apply to places other than just politics. A "progressive" approach to the Church could see them reform their opinions on gays, contraceptives, etc. but that doesn't mean the Pope has to declare himself a Democrat.
And actually, just because they oppose reform in the areas of contraceptives/premarital sex does mean they are on the opposite side of what I call "progressivism." That doesn't make it an objectively bad position, even if I don't agree with it, but it is factually a conservative position because that has always been their position on those issues.
Following their dogma/religious text to the letter is pretty much the definition of conservatism when it comes to religion, so I'm not really sure what argument you are trying to make here.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
But everyone here is implying that religion is politics
Because politics is infested with religion. Conservative beliefs are thoroughly entwined with the church and have been throughout history, in part because of the wealth and power of the church which naturally led to opposition to any kind of change. Religion may not be political but people are political and religion is held by people.
Honestly not sure if it's been posted before but just saw that. I think it's a funny coincidence but it seems the Christians on my Facebook think otherwise..
Clearly Zeus is angry at him.
*Jupiter. It's Rome, not Greece!
On a more serious note, this (the whole situation, not the lightning bolt thing) is really bugging me, as I'm a catholic who recently reignited my faith. I feel like the church is in a place where we need a pope who can provide strong and highly visible leadership, especially with recent world events.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
The main difference is that political systems are somewhat forced. What they did (giving away wealth) was done by free will, this is different to the political system of taxes as taxes are mandatory. Also the christians lived inside a state, their form of living was not replacing the state. For this reason I wouldn't assign a political direction to Jesus.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
The main difference is that political systems are somewhat forced. What they did (giving away wealth) was done by free will, this is different to the political system of taxes as taxes are mandatory. Also the christians lived inside a state, their form of living was not replacing the state. For this reason I wouldn't assign a political direction to Jesus.
Many communists believe that proper communism could only ever be voluntary, anyhow.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
But everyone here is implying that religion is politics
Because politics is infested with religion. Conservative beliefs are thoroughly entwined with the church and have been throughout history, in part because of the wealth and power of the church which naturally led to opposition to any kind of change. Religion may not be political but people are political and religion is held by people.
I think you're being a bit obtuse if you're only going to link conservatism with the church and say that it has been that way throughout history. There have been more than enough revolutionary religious movements in the West. In the Reformation days there was Muntzer and the Peasants' War, Post WWI there was the famous Religious Socialists group that included Martin Buber and Paul Tillich, and even the "neo-orthodox" Karl Barth was derided by American fundamentalists for being a socialist. Barth (in)famously stated that true Christianity would be socialist, and we're talking about the man who is almost unanimously considered to be the most influential and important theologian of the 20th century. He was a Protestant and yet Pius XII called him the most important theologian since Aquinas. These people aren't just wayward fringe figures.
Of course the churches have various failings. If there wasn't then liberation theology would have never came out of the Catholic church to criticize itself.
And as for those who are attempting to "de-politicize" Jesus of Nazareth, even if it may be true that Christ's central focus is not worldly politics (my kingdom is not of this world), he does make very explicit gestures that would fall flat on a certain political direction if we are to actually follow it instead of obscuring and veiling what he actually meant so that we can free ourselves from responsibility.
Was he now? There's a necessary component of both socialism and populism that is noticeably missing both from the words of Jesus and from the writings of the apostolic fathers.
Was he now? There's a necessary component of both socialism and populism that is noticeably missing both from the words of Jesus and from the writings of the apostolic fathers.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
I don't doubt he'd be horrified by the violence and terror of Stalinism and so forth, nor do I believe that he advocated a coercive form of redistributive government. Just that he railed against greed and excessive wealth, promoted charity for the sake of kindness and promoted equality despite racial and class differences. The guys who actually knew him believed that the Christian community they were creating should be one in which the collective took responsibility for the care of its members according to their need and created a commune without private property.
It's hard to say where he would have stood on various historical and political issues but the actions of those who knew him and were directly influenced by his beliefs suggest that he fell somewhere near the Marxist ideal of a stateless commune in which everyone did everything for the common good with neither wealth nor coercion.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
I don't doubt he'd be horrified by the violence and terror of Stalinism and so forth, nor do I believe that he advocated a coercive form of redistributive government. Just that he railed against greed and excessive wealth, promoted charity for the sake of kindness and promoted equality despite racial and class differences. The guys who actually knew him believed that the Christian community they were creating should be one in which the collective took responsibility for the care of its members according to their need and created a commune without private property.
It's hard to say where he would have stood on various historical and political issues but the actions of those who knew him and were directly influenced by his beliefs suggest that he fell somewhere near the Marxist ideal of a stateless commune in which everyone did everything for the common good with neither wealth nor coercion.
Sure, but it's a stretch to sat from this that Jesus was a socialist. Jesus, while alive, even had rich friends that held property, for example, Joseph of Arimathea who provided Jesus his tomb. I don't recall Jesus ever telling them that they did not have a right to property while he was alive.
Their communal living did not even last, and the apostles went their separate ways to spread the gospel. In fact, when Paul went to see the Thessalonians, he found they had stopped working, sold their possessions and just shut themselves in to pray because they thought the world was going to end and Jesus was going to come back soon (sound familiar?) and had to convince them that they had to keep living life and get back to work rather than just leeching off fruit of the labor of others.
Again, there's nothing wrong with voluntarily communal living. But to say that because his followers shared their possessions implies that Jesus was a socialist, or that we should all be socialists, is a bit of a stretch.
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote: [quote] He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
I don't doubt he'd be horrified by the violence and terror of Stalinism and so forth, nor do I believe that he advocated a coercive form of redistributive government. Just that he railed against greed and excessive wealth, promoted charity for the sake of kindness and promoted equality despite racial and class differences. The guys who actually knew him believed that the Christian community they were creating should be one in which the collective took responsibility for the care of its members according to their need and created a commune without private property.
It's hard to say where he would have stood on various historical and political issues but the actions of those who knew him and were directly influenced by his beliefs suggest that he fell somewhere near the Marxist ideal of a stateless commune in which everyone did everything for the common good with neither wealth nor coercion.
Sure, but it's a stretch to sat from this that Jesus was a socialist. Jesus, while alive, even had rich friends that held property, for example, Joseph of Arimathea who provided Jesus his tomb. I don't recall Jesus ever telling them that they did not have a right to property while he was alive.
Their communal living did not even last, and the apostles went their separate ways to spread the gospel. In fact, when Paul went to see the Thessalonians, he found they had stopped working, sold their possessions and just shut themselves in to pray because they thought the world was going to end and Jesus was going to come back soon (sound familiar?) and had to convince them that they had to keep living life and get back to work rather than just leeching off fruit of the labor of others.
Again, there's nothing wrong with voluntarily communal living. But to say that because his followers shared their possessions implies that Jesus was a socialist, or that we should all be socialists, is a bit of a stretch.
I like the level of conversation here. Just one thing, please differentiate communism from socialism. Socialist do not deny the right to possessions and private property at all!
So the quoted text only argues that Jesus was not a communist.
Even then not in the political communist sense, nor in the historical class theory one. Rather that it suggests he believed in an ideal communal society without divisions based on race, class or wealth in which people did things for the common good of their neighbour and a fraternal ideal without expecting immediate reward. It's difficult sometimes to identify the meaning of the words we use because communism is refers to a political ideology, an economic belief, a historical narrative and a utopian stateless society. I believe his teachings and the actions of his followers imply that he argued for the communist utopian society, not the other stuff.
I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
On February 13 2013 06:15 Mandalor28 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
You must admit, it's stylistically quite excellent.
On February 13 2013 06:15 Mandalor28 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
On February 13 2013 06:15 Mandalor28 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
It's a sign!
Makes me wonder if the Pope ever heard anything about the Palpatine comparisons... I think at least someone in his inner circle should be aware of it by now.
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote: L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
Like it or not, Institutional Catholicism has a very strong socialist/social justice bent, in part because there is a very strong argument for the proposition that Jesus was a socialist/communist in the idealistic sense of the terms.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/CrlpRMhzmedwSicGLRUYFA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMjE7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-02-12T001411Z_535592776_GM1E92C0MDH01_RTRMADP_3_POPE-RESIGNS.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2810/vlcsnap33293ri8.png)
