[spodi]

Alright so I was talking with a priest earlier today. I know, I'm sorry liberals. Anyway, he read a passage from the book with ALL the answers and what I found amazing was the bible is arguably liberal in some ways. Despising the rich, being for the poor, looking for justice against the bad guys. What's your cold scientific secular take on liberalism in the TRUE book? Thanks and Clinton 2016!

[Soulflytribe]

Jesus never said one word endorsing coercion and stealing. He said that you should help other people (poor, disabled, etc.) if you wanted to, the ultimate choice is up to you, a criminal wearing red forcing you to "do good" at gunpoint has nothing to do with the bible.

BTW, all "christian priests" who have endorsed the liberation theology have been excommunicated by the Vatican, what was the correct thing to do, as socialism goes against christianism in every way. So, I would advise your priest to be careful in what he is telling people at his church.

A christian socialist is like a black KKK member, or a nazi Jew. It's just absurd.

[spodi]

I'm asking for liberal Ferguson protestors opinions not Ron Paul 2008 supporters opinions. I guess your stoned and in the wrong forum. "Legalize don't criminalize, man."

[The Immortal Goon]

Christ said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.
He said a rich man cannot enter heaven.

I do like liberation theology, but it's not accurate to say that it's the exact same as Christ's message.

The fact is that capitalism is not a feudal institution, like the church is. There is plenty of reasons, spiritually and materially, why a catholic priest should not see a dude skidding out in his Hummer going to a McMansion with no concern, love, or care for everyone, and say, "truly, blessed is he!"

A huge part of the reformation was the focus on works. Catholics say you have to do good works. Protestants don't. Fine, but Catholics are not Protestants and by implying that they don't think you have to actively do anything - just love Jesus as you personally see fit - is to have no understanding of Catbolicism.

[Soulflytribe]

I'm asking for liberal Ferguson protestors opinions not Ron Paul 2008 supporters opinions.

This is a public forum in which all non-banned members from all political spectrum are allowed to insert replies. If you are not happy with that, you should go to a more authoritarian kind of site.

[spodi]

Are sarcastic members allowed too??

[Soulflytribe]

Catholics say you have to do good works. Protestants don't. Fine, but Catholics are not Protestants and by implying that they don't think you have to actively do anything - just love Jesus as you personally see fit - is to have no understanding of Catbolicism.

Good point.

In other words: catholics must do good deeds to be saved, but not a government "doing good" on their behalf.

[Drlee]

Anyway, he read a passage from the book with ALL the answers and what I found amazing was the bible is arguably liberal in some ways.

I think we are having a problem with the word "liberal". Despite the garbage that soulflygarbage is trying to sell, Jesus was completely unambiguous about what we ought to do with regard to the poor and what will happen if we don't do it:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, jthen he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,6 you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

And Soulflytribe calls this optional? Eternal punishment is a lousy option, isn't it?

Most of the Catholic priests I know take a personal vow of poverty.

Jesus was unambiguous in his condemnation of the seeking of wealth. This "prosperity gospel" stuff is nonsense.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.

I find it disheartening that some so-called conservatives find it convenient to distort what is such a clear message.

Once you have obeyed these two commandments for a year, go back and see the priest for lesson two.

[The Immortal Goon]

I won't dispute that.

But I will say that many Catholics do support good works in general. I, naturally, can't speak for all. But so far as charitable things go, catholics I know (and the community I'm from has plenty) are less worried about the costs soup kitchens than they are wars.

The kind of individualism that comes with the perverbial, "come to Jesus," moment is really more of a Protestant thing. For most catholics, being a feudal institution and whatnot, the idea of money (a community valued commodity) being horded by the individual for his own gain is almost more distasteful than some of that going to help a brother in need.

Do remember, one of the highest things you can do in Catbolicism is to take a vow of poverty.

-TIG Edit for clarity

[Rich]

In other words: catholics must do good deeds to be saved, but not a government "doing good" on their behalf.

Really Soulflytribe you Libertarians do live in a fantasy world. A fantasy would where the American founders worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. So now not only do we have the anti slavery American founders we have the anti authoritarian Catholic Church. The Church historically was extremely authoritarian. It sought to control lands and exploit the peasantry directly and it sought to get government to raise money on its behalf. The whole basis of Catholicism was authoritarian from the local priest right up the the Papacy, the terror imposed Biblical Cannon to the Spanish Inquisition and witch burning.

The Catholic Church sought totalitarian power and dominance. It not only sought to control peoples behaviour's but their minds. The Catholic Church was only Liberal and pluralistic because it was corrupt and pragmatic. In order to advance its own power it had to compromise with other power holders, the Roman State, the the Germanic Kings, powerful merchants and Plutocrats.

[Pants-of-dog]

...

BTW, all "christian priests" who have endorsed the liberation theology have been excommunicated by the Vatican, what was the correct thing to do, as socialism goes against christianism in every way. So, I would advise your priest to be careful in what he is telling people at his church.

....

Your link says only one person has been excommunicated. Others, such as the founder of liberation theology Gustavo Gutiérrez seem to have received no censure whatsoever from the Vatican.

[DrSteveBrule]

The bible is for social justice, but it also has segments regarding now unacceptable ideas, like slavery. I don't think that the "Ferguson protester liberal" would approve of that. However, it does have some ideals that do transcend eras and culture, and I see it as a product of its time. To completely discredit it for practices that are unacceptable nowadays is putting us at a loss.

It's actually really interesting how some modern ideas were present in ancient times.

James 2:2-6
For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?

1 Timothy 5:18 ESV
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Exodus 5:9 ESV
Let heavier work be laid on the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words.”

Jesus never said one word endorsing coercion and stealing. He said that you should help other people (poor, disabled, etc.) if you wanted to, the ultimate choice is up to you, a criminal wearing red forcing you to "do good" at gunpoint has nothing to do with the bible.

Is there any difference between the encyclical’s philosophy and communism? I am perfectly willing, on this matter, to take the word of an eminent Catholic authority. Under the headline: “Encyclical Termed Rebuff to Marxism,” The New York Times of March 31, 1967, reports: “The Rev. John Courtney Murray, the prominent Jesuit theologian, described Pope Paul’s newest encyclical yesterday as ‘the church’s definitive answer to Marxism.’ . . . ‘The Marxists have proposed one way, and in pursuing their program they rely on man alone,’ Father Murray said. `Now Pope Paul VI has issued a detailed plan to accomplish the same goal on the basis of true humanism—humanism that recognizes man’s religious nature.’”

Rand's theories that religion implicitly endorsed socialism were spot on. How the GOP manages to reconcile economic Darwinism and religion has always perplexed me.

[magnocrat]

Its refreshing to read about bible interpretation by those who are not necessarily Christian.
The bible has much to say to us about our life- styles, it is not the sole property of Christians but belongs to all mankind.
I am well aware how far short I have fallen from a moral caring life. I have much to regret and I feel very accutely the battleground within between my conscience and my desires.

[Paradigm]

There's a lot of really cool stuff in Catholic social teaching that resonates with leftist values: charity, solidarity, preferential option for the poor, and the dignity of work. This isn't liberation theology we're talking about. It's official church teaching. They also recognize a right to private property, which is a bit at odds with leftism, but they believe that property is conditional, being subject to the "universal destiny of goods on earth." What this phrase means is that the world and its goods ultimately belong to God, and were meant for the mutual benefit of all God's creatures. Any attempt to use private property to exclude others of their equal right to the Earth's bounty is illegitimate, and may warrant expropriation. Of course, there's also that "sanctity of life" stuff that underlies their reactionary views on reproductive politics, but even then, there have been other, more progressive applications of that doctrine toward issues like climate change, capital punishment, and war.

[Drlee]

They also recognize a right to private property, which is a bit at odds with leftism, but they believe that property is conditional, being subject to the "universal destiny of goods on earth." What this phrase means is that the world and its goods ultimately belong to God, and were meant for the mutual benefit of all God's creatures.

This is true for protestants as well as Catholics though it is ignored by many Protestants. The interesting thing is that Protestant Church doctrine, if the protestant chooses to read and understand it, not at all inconsistent with a Marxist economic view. The Discipline of the Methodist Church:

We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress

Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation.

The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions. We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.

The Methodist Church is a good example of mainstream Protestant thought. Clearly it could exist and thrive in a Marxist government if that government allowed the free expression of religious views.

Then the question may be whether a socialist/communist government can exist with an active and respected religious community. I think it most certainly could. Lennin understood that the communist state did not directly abolish religion but sought to create a society in which the people would no longer see a need for it.

IMO Marxists often forget that theirs is an economic struggle first and foremost. Its adherents sometimes, at least when first embracing it, seem to believe that if you "fix" the economic concerns of every person that this person will be "absolutely" happy and no longer need religion. They seem to believe that there will come to all people some realization that they do not need heaven because they are already in heaven. This completely denies the humanity of every person/ It also charges Marxism with the impossible goal of eliminating all anxiety and worry in the individual's life. Marxism may be able to cure hunger but it can't cure death. And in the end it is death that is at the very heart of religious belief and always has been. Does Marxism truly offer each and every one of its subjects real contentment in the belief (for belief is all it will ever be) that this world is all that there is and will ever be?

My belief is that if there is 'ever' to be a reconciliation between true liberal thought and religion it must be started on the battlefield of human rights and social justice. I believe that while Christianity can exist in an acquisitive and increasingly unfair world, it must eventually side with those who would move to make this world more fair.

I do not fault Lenin for his abhorrence of religion in Russia. He was confronted by an oppressive regime bolstered by an imperial church. I do blame Marx however. He lived in a world where there were examples of altruistic Christianity and social ministry. He chose to pick a fight with those who may well have been the carriers of his main message; the fight against capitalism. If he actually thought of himself as an activist rather than a philosopher he would probably have taken a different stand.

[DrSteveBrule]

Does Marxism truly offer each and every one of its subjects real contentment in the belief (for belief is all it will ever be) that this world is all that there is and will ever be?

Strict adherents would argue that materialism would. It professes that the world can be known, and that matter comprises everything and is responsible for everything. So yes, it professes that the only world, is this world. I find that disconcerting.

Marxism may be able to cure hunger but it can't cure death. And in the end it is death that is at the very heart of religious belief and always has been.

Indeed. It is an uncomfortable notion to view the world as is, and to see that each of us will be nothing after our life expires. There is no continuation of life, as the material composition of us eventually degrades and fades away into oblivion.

[spodi]

Oh and I'm gonna go a little controversial here so please excuse me catholics (I am one officially by the way) but it is very very liberal with what some priests do to alter boys. Lord forgive me but I am a bearer of truth.

[DrSteveBrule]

Oh and I'm gonna go a little controversial here so please excuse me catholics (I am one officially by the way) but it is very very liberal with what some priests do to alter boys. Lord forgive me but I am a bearer of truth.

This might be my new sig quote

[spodi]

This might be my new sig quote

Lol great! Glad to hear and if so save it for the new year. For all the girls and boys on this forum to enjoy in 2015

Oh come all yee faithful joyful and triumphant... Happy new years! *blows horn, while wearing a tacky new years hat*

[nucklepunche]

I don't think the Bible per se has a lot to say that translates well to modern political arguments. Jesus lived in the Roman Empire but did not actively challenge it. The only political statement Jesus makes is "render unto Caesar" and there is the story of Jesus and the Roman Centurion and had a tax collector among his disciples. Granted this did not mean he loved all the Empire's policies, just that the Gospel was not about stirring the pot.

This being said, "render unto Caesar" does not exactly say much about what the ideal tax rates should be. Jesus did say to help the poor but at no point did he say that this means you should want higher taxes to redistribute to the poor, on the other hand he did not say you should oppose them. The Roman Empire did have some rudimentary welfare practices on which Jesus did not comment, but I think these only applied to Roman citizens.

For years people have tried to make their religion all about their pre-existing political ideals. Leftist Catholics want to make Catholicism all about economic justice, right-wing Catholics want it all to be about abortion and other social issues. There has always been that tension in Catholicism because the body of teaching of Catholicism has been critical of the free market, yet socially conservative. Different factions within Catholicism have emphasized different portions.

It is fairly obvious as a non-Roman Catholic looking in that Pope Francis clearly is a "social justice Catholic." This is not surprising given he comes from Latin America, even if he is still more conservative than classical liberation theologians. By "social justice Catholic" I mean he tends to emphasize the aspects of Catholic social teaching that are more critical of the market and doesn't try to put things like abortion front and center. Benedict was the opposite in that issues like abortion, euthanasia etc. always overrode the other aspects.