Will The Pope Francis Phenomenon Trigger A Return To The Teachings Of Christ

[Stone holm]

In a conversation with one of my sons about Pope Francis, my son indicated, this is kind of new for my generation to have a religious leader actually emphasizing what Christ actually taught. What he meant was that he was accustomed to Religious leaders concentrating almost exclusively on sexual morality, and ignoring the economic injustices surrounding them unlike Christ. It is already being suggested that the Pope is becoming the face of a new civil rights movement. In the same conversation, he indicated that most of the upper level Catholic executives he knew were unhappy with the Pope or ducking for cover. Am wondering what others are hearing.

[Mystery Meat]

Maybe, but let's just get this out there right now that Christ never once said it was the Government's job to care for the poor. Us in our individual capacity, absolutely. But as to the Government he was silent and anyone who tries to say that's what He had in mind is either being dishonest or is just flat out wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe, but let's just get this out there right now that Christ never once said it was the Government's job to care for the poor. Us in our individual capacity, absolutely. But as to the Government he was silent and anyone who tries to say that's what He had in mind is either being dishonest or is just flat out wrong.

 

 

Who did you think the Government is? Christ said plenty about not helping the poor.

[Alan]

Who did you think the Government is? Christ said plenty about not helping the poor.

 

Absolutely, the government are people too.

I think Christ taught that when you can help you should. To my mind, that applies whether you are an individual, a group, a church, an elected official, or a group of elected officials (ie. a government).

[Palerider]

Who did you think the Government is? Christ said plenty about not helping the poor.

 

lvjd66 is correct here and although he's been a little straightforward for some, here's why he's right. 

 

The government has power to enforce by law. That means that we (the government) are going to take your money through taxation and use it how WE see fit, without your permission. And if you don't contrbute we will put you in prison........

 

Your free agency to give out of the goodness of your heart is going to be taken away and we're going to force you to do what we think is good (sound familiar?).

 

Not only that but we're going to set up nice big bureaucracies to administer your money in a terribly ineffcient way, with a ton of waste. Bureaucracies that will grow like a malignant cancer.

 

So for every dollar that you contribute (unwillingly), about a nickel will actually make it to a poor person who will be of our choosing, not yours.

 

Personally, I don't mind a minor social safety net like social security if it was administered properly. But look what they have done to it. It's despicable. Like pigs at the trough. Thieves and robbers.

 

Remember who complained about the expensive spice that was used to anoint the Savior? That it could have been used for the poor, because HE HELD THE PURSE and he was a thief......... 

 

The woman used her free agency to donate the spice as she saw fit, according to what was in her heart and that is the only way we are blessed for our good deeds.

[Stone holm]

Maybe, but let's just get this out there right now that Christ never once said it was the Government's job to care for the poor. Us in our individual capacity, absolutely. But as to the Government he was silent and anyone who tries to say that's what He had in mind is either being dishonest or is just flat out wrong.

 

This is not accurate.  At the time, the Jews in Jerusalem were in their day to day affairs governed by the Jewish establishment in the form of the Sadducees and Pharisees, which was consistent with Roman imperial policy.  In other words, the Jewish establishment was the equivalent to the government for the community of Jews living in Jerusalem during the Roman occupation. So He was absolutely condemning the government which was responsible for the day to day life of the Jews.  He was not calling for rebellion against Rome, as He was sent to minister to the Jews during His mortal ministry which He pointed out several times.

[thesometimesaint]

lvjd66 is correct here and although he's been a little straightforward for some, here's why he's right. 

 

The government has power to enforce by law. That means that we (the government) are going to take your money through taxation and use it how WE see fit, without your permission. And if you don't contrbute we will put you in prison........

 

Your free agency to give out of the goodness of your heart is going to be taken away and we're going to force you to do what we think is good (sound familiar?).

 

Not only that but we're going to set up nice big bureaucracies to administer your money in a terribly ineffcient way, with a ton of waste. Bureaucracies that will grow like a malignant cancer.

 

So for every dollar that you contribute (unwillingly), about a nickel will actually make it to a poor person who will be of our choosing, not yours.

 

Personally, I don't mind a minor social safety net like social security if it was administered properly. But look what they have done to it. It's despicable. Like pigs at the trough. Thieves and robbers.

 

Remember who complained about the expensive spice that was used to anoint the Savior? That it could have been used for the poor, because HE HELD THE PURSE and he was a thief......... 

 

The woman used her free agency to donate the spice as she saw fit, according to what was in her heart and that is the only way we are blessed for our good deeds.

 

I find it to be a disingenuous to posit that because Jesus, during his mortal ministry, did not specifically address the issue of government responsibility. He paid taxes, and used the Roman government roads bridges, aqueducts, and army protection. That we should not band together to address the social concerns of our day is not only self defeating it is rather short sighted self indulgent. I totally agree with this editorial http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/12-6

 

In this country you do voluntarily consent to paying taxes. If you don't, you have said you are willing to go the jail because of it. If you really object to paying taxes you are free to leave and find a place where there are no taxes. I personally like the benefits of paying taxes, though I sometimes don't like what those tax monies are spent on(like Iraq). Heck I even like having a military to protect me. It would appear that you want all this stuff for free.

 

I like Agency. What agency can't do is remove the consequences from my actions, or lack of actions. IE; I have the agency to drive very fast in a school zone. No law can take that agency away from me. What Agency can't do is prevent me from traffic tickets, and/or serious legal consequence if I hit someone.

 

One contrary governments are some of the most efficient means to get money to those that need it. If I need a road built I band with my fellow citizen to pay for that road to be built. Charities are fine, but they just can not any where meet all the needs of the American people. Total charitable giving in the US last year was a little less than $320 Billions of dollars, about 2% of GDP.

 

Overhead cost in government is about 2% or about 2 cents on the dollar. Charities OTOH average overhead is about 30% with some being in excess of 99%. We can't really use the Church as a model because no one is paid for their charitable work.

 

Without Social Security we would be right back in the days of the Robber Barons. Not exactly what I would call the Golden Years to be too old to work.  Also SEE:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=tenements+of+new+york+1890&client=firefox-a&hs=bDt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=0ZDeXYypv7s93M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcR5bPcb6_7xWLEXkCbUScPbFZ_4jiYfz3ZW7h_5_qmfCn2ePEHE%253B1892%253B1482%253Bc0F0JQcN_H_9FM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.studenthandouts.com%25252F01-Web-Pages%25252F01-Picture-Pages%25252F10.07-Industrial-Revolution%25252F1-Riis-Family-Living-in-One-Room-New-York-City-Slum-1890.htm&sa=X&ei=1kmrUrPlO5fqoATphoLYBg&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA&biw=1366&bih=568#facrc=_&imgrc=0ZDeXYypv7s93M%3A%3Bc0F0JQcN_H_9FM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.studenthandouts.com%252F01-Web-Pages%252F01-Picture-Pages%252F10.07-Industrial-Revolution%252F1-Riis-Family-Living-in-One-Room-New-York-City-Slum-1890.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.studenthandouts.com%252F01-Web-Pages%252F01-Picture-Pages%252F10.07-Industrial-Revolution%252F1-Riis-Family-Living-in-One-Room-New-York-City-Slum-1890.htm%3B1892%3B1482

 

I wasn't the one whom complained the cost of the oil and spices used. I think everyone deserves to be treated like a much loved son or daughter of God.

[mbh26]

Perhaps all that military spending was a waste.  We should have just let the Soviet Union establish global communism.  That seems to be what the people want. 

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps all that military spending was a waste.  We should have just let the Soviet Union establish global communism.  That seems to be what the people want. 

 

Iraq was about Operation Iraqi Liberation(OIL).  Global Communism was/is more of Pipe Dream for its advocates and critics alike.

[Stone holm]

Perhaps all that military spending was a waste.  We should have just let the Soviet Union establish global communism.  That seems to be what the people want. 

 

I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating "communism" and the Pope is certainly not advocating "communism".  The problem seems to be that when anyone points out deficiencies in largely unregulated capitalism, people immediately start screaming "communism".  That dog no longer hunts.  Obviously, the industrialists really didn't care that much about civil liberties during the Cold War, because they have largely utilized the cheap labor available in a communist police state.   You do not have to become a police state in order to make sure that everyone that wants to work has access to a safe job and income sufficient that they do not have to live in poverty, and those who for good reason can't work have enough to live with dignity.  Given what Christ said about helping out the sick and injured, it seems very unlikely to me that He would oppose making sure that everyone has access to healthcare without fear of winding up bankrupt.  If that means that the people who are doing very well because of our economic/social system have to help make this happen by means of more taxes, then fine.  After all the government subsidized most of the research and physician training that made the healthcare possible in the first place.  Yelling out extremes like the Stalinist U.S.S.R. -- doesnt really address the issue.  And as to the military spending, yes we have spent excessive sums on military equipment -- not necessarily on military personnell, many of whom have to apply for food stamps to get by.

[bdouglas]

delete

Edited December 13, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

delete

[bdouglas]

In a conversation with one of my sons about Pope Francis, my son indicated, this is kind of new for my generation to have a religious leader actually emphasizing what Christ actually taught. What he meant was that he was accustomed to Religious leaders concentrating almost exclusively on sexual morality, and ignoring the economic injustices surrounding them unlike Christ. It is already being suggested that the Pope is becoming the face of a new civil rights movement. In the same conversation, he indicated that most of the upper level Catholic executives he knew were unhappy with the Pope or ducking for cover. Am wondering what others are hearing.

 

 

In my opinion there is a pre-occupation not only in the church but the wider Chrisitian community in the U.S. with sexual sin. It's almost as if nothing else really matters. It's been a while since I read it but I think H. Nibley addresses this question in "We Will Still Weep For Zion" or "What Is Zion". He said the focus on sex is a case of "switched villains"--i.e., setting up a dummy, fake villain (sex) in place of the real one, the one that is a real and present danger and is keeping us from achieving or even getting close to the Zion ideal. I liked this idea, when I read it. It seemed dead-on. I will have to go back and re-read him.

[Chronos]

No politics.

 

~Chronos

[Ahab]

In a conversation with one of my sons about Pope Francis, my son indicated, this is kind of new for my generation to have a religious leader actually emphasizing what Christ actually taught. What he meant was that he was accustomed to Religious leaders concentrating almost exclusively on sexual morality, and ignoring the economic injustices surrounding them unlike Christ. It is already being suggested that the Pope is becoming the face of a new civil rights movement. In the same conversation, he indicated that most of the upper level Catholic executives he knew were unhappy with the Pope or ducking for cover. Am wondering what others are hearing.

I'm hearing that he chose the name Francis in honor of the Catholic patron saint of the poor, and that he is more concerned with getting help for the poor than with arguing about issues of doctrine.  I'm also hearing that he wants to focus on the fact that God loves everyone, including those who some would call  "sinners".

 

Sounds very good to me, and I think he's the best pope the Catholics have had in my life time.

[Stone holm]

In my opinion there is a pre-occupation not only in the church but the wider Chrisitian community in the U.S. with sexual sin. It's almost as if nothing else really matters. It's been a while since I read it but I think H. Nibley addresses this question in "We Will Still Weep For Zion" or "What Is Zion". He said the focus on sex is a case of "switched villains"--i.e., setting up a dummy, fake villain (sex) in place of the real one, the one that is a real and present danger and is keeping us from achieving or even getting close to the Zion ideal. I liked this idea, when I read it. It seemed dead-on. I will have to go back and re-read him.

 

I agree.  I am not intending here to play down the seriousness of sexual sin, but to focus so much attention on sexual morality while neglecting some of the actual causation issues is to place our efforts on a perpetual treadmill going nowhere.  It is part of the reason that so many people have lost all interest in organized religion -- it simply isn't addressing critical systemic issues.

[EllenMaksoud]

In a conversation with one of my sons about Pope Francis, my son indicated, this is kind of new for my generation to have a religious leader actually emphasizing what Christ actually taught. What he meant was that he was accustomed to Religious leaders concentrating almost exclusively on sexual morality, and ignoring the economic injustices surrounding them unlike Christ. It is already being suggested that the Pope is becoming the face of a new civil rights movement. In the same conversation, he indicated that most of the upper level Catholic executives he knew were unhappy with the Pope or ducking for cover. Am wondering what others are hearing.

Jesus did say that the poor would always be with us. The only other thing that could apply I think would be "love others as ourselves".  It seems that what ever the government does is just messed up. Perhaps churches should be helping the poor more? The LDS do a good job. I think the Catholics used to. The rest is on an individual basis with varying success. I think that government programs just breed more poor.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps all that military spending was a waste.  We should have just let the Soviet Union establish global communism.  That seems to be what the people want. 

 

Ah, Nephite reasoning right before the end. We need the big military and to fight the bad guys or they'll kill us all. If we do not build an army and kill off those Lamanites they will kill us.

 

Of course in the Book of Mormon God has said that if we are righteous God will either fight our battles for us or keep our enemies from fighting in the first place. Never mind that though; the only way to fight Soviet realpolitik is to fight using realpolitik of our own.

[mbh26]

Of course in the Book of Mormon God has said that if we are righteous God will either fight our battles for us or keep our enemies from fighting in the first place.

 

How righteous is that?  In your assessment, how did that strategy work out for the early LDS in the 19th century? 

 

How did the United Order work out for them? 

[Stone holm]

How righteous is that?  In your assessment, how did that strategy work out for the early LDS in the 19th century? 

 

How did the United Order work out for them?

Are you suggesting that the United Order was not inspired? The United Order colonies were under attack by the Federal government which was threatening to confiscate their property, as a result even the successful ones had to dissolve.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus did say that the poor would always be with us. The only other thing that could apply I think would be "love others as ourselves".  It seems that what ever the government does is just messed up. Perhaps churches should be helping the poor more? The LDS do a good job. I think the Catholics used to. The rest is on an individual basis with varying success. I think that government programs just breed more poor.

 

That was a statement of the way things are. Not the way things should be.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that governmental programs breed anyone, and even less that they breed poverty among anyone.

[Stone holm]

That was a statement of the way things are. Not the way things should be.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that governmental programs breed anyone, and even less that they breed poverty among anyone.

Given one the eras of our greatest widespread prosperity came during a time of high taxes and government stimulus in the form of constructing the interstate highway system and other programs, that notion has been proven false repeatedly...but when the facts interfere with your ideology, it's relatively easy to just ignore them and scream about extremes that are irrelevant to the discussions.

[thesometimesaint]

Given one the eras of our greatest widespread prosperity came during a time of high taxes and government stimulus in the form of constructing the interstate highway system and other programs, that notion has been proven false repeatedly...but when the facts interfere with your ideology, it's relatively easy to just ignore them and scream about extremes that are irrelevant to the discussions.

 

I won't get too political, but I agree.

[Tacenda]

The pope made Time's "man of the year"! Maybe he'll make an even bigger impact now.

[thesometimesaint]

The pope made Time's "man of the year"! Maybe he'll make an even bigger impact now.

 

I sure hope so.