Rush Limbaugh says Pope is preaching Marxism

reply to post by ketsuko


Who is taking or advocating taking anything by force?

The people did ultimately choose Christ to die.

reply to post by LDragonFire


That is what Marxism is. Redistribution of wealth must be done by force. You cannot get everyone to give up what they have by choice. Those who will already are giving what they can.

What the Pope is advocating is Liberation Theology which advocates change through violent revolution and forced redistribution.

ketsuko
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

That is what Marxism is. Redistribution of wealth must be done by force. You cannot get everyone to give up what they have by choice. Those who will already are giving what they can.

What the Pope is advocating is Liberation Theology which advocates change through violent revolution and forced redistribution.

Just because Rush said he's preaching Marxism doesn't make it so.

Your saying this Pope, the one who acts more Christ like than any other pope in recent history is calling for the violent overthrow of the current corrupt system?

reply to post by LDragonFire


I'm saying the paper he wrote is liberation theology which borrows heavily from Marx and tries to marry it to Christian theology. It's a two step process. Step one is to change to world through revolution, violent in some instances. The second step is spiritual.

It was known during the selection process that the Latin American Catholic church is very deep into liberation theology, and that this would be a concern if a Pope was elected from the Latin American bishops. When Francis was selected, everyone hastened to assure the world that he was not into liberation theology, but this paper seems to make that a lie.

Liberation Theology

This movement is usually held to have begun with the second Latin American Bishops’ Conference, which was held in Colombia in 1968. At that conference, the attending bishops proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Karl Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism. The bishops interpreted every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots, and every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for a social uprising by peasants and workers. At the end of the conference, the bishops issued a document affirming the rights of the poor and accusing industrialized nations of enriching themselves at the expense of Third World countries.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I can't pretend to know the Pope's mind - or heart

Based on what I've been hearing - he seems to be concerned with the poor - and poverty. Well, not sure what he can do about it, but AMEN

Whenever anyone starts talking about the poor, it seems to make some people 'nervous'

Funny that :-)

We love you Pope - but hands off the money - Pope. Money is not in your jurisdiction

:-)

reply to post by ketsuko


History has shown us that when the Catholic Church held power over those corrupt gov'ts, they weren't very "Christian" at all.

Corruption is apparently, a human flaw. I will take the current "corruption" over the religious corruption we.ve endured in the past and are threatened with by the current Muslim version which controls every facet of society.

The Pope needs to apply " cast not stones unless you are without sin" and clean his own house before worrying about everyone else's....

limbaugh is preaching madness, he's been at it for quite a while.

i wonder if limbaugh considers jesus "marxist" for giving away free food to the hungry.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Again, my concern is that we are seeing the seeds of one world religion and a possible false prophet here between the remarks on not needing God to be saved, the remarks on other social issues, the outreach to other religions in the manner he has taken, and now this.

I was withholding judgment on the Pope, and still am, but this alarms me. Liberation Theology is not a healthy doctrine, and it could be part of the pattern of rumblings I've been seeing throughout for the global socialist overthrow and establishment of the new world order. This is dangerous.

The system we have is broken, but exchanging on tyranny for another is not the answer.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Actually, no. He considers that charity because Jesus chose to do it and wasn't forced into it by government.

reply to post by ketsuko


Good point.I hadn't considered it from that angle.

A depressing thought. Thanks a lot! LOL.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


LOL, if you knew anything about Rush, other than left wing rants, you'd know he donates huge sums to charities.

So "wonder", isn't what your doing. It's the usual, left mantra of disagree?? We'll trash you.

His comment was about the Pope's "comment". As usual, he's right....

reply to post by GrantedBail


i listen to him live too, if i can, but i am by no means a supporter of limbaugh. quite the opposite.

are you familiar with knowing thine enemy?

nwtrucker
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

LOL, if you knew anything about Rush, other than left wing rants, you'd know he donates huge sums to charities.

So "wonder", isn't what your doing. It's the usual, left mantra of disagree?? We'll trash you.

His comment was about the Pope's "comment". As usual, he's right....

do you know the man personally? i highly doubt it.

he is known as a firebrand, but i am willing to accept that perhaps it is some sort of character that he plays; i highly doubt that, too, however.

it is easy for him to 'always be right' (as heralded by his dittoheads) when he makes claims concerning matters of such overwhelming unimportance and underwhelming relevance.

you arent honestly hoping to champion limbaugh, right?

reply to post by wickedso


Frankly, I have no need to "champion" him. But, yes, his viewpoint resonates with many and that includes myself.

Virtually all the comments disparaging Rush are either personal attacks or of comments taken usually out of context.

I don't listen to him all the time, knowing his views in general, but do tune in when events are more noteworthy.

Few seem to be willing to debate his ideas, rather attack on verbal slips, or again, out of context statements.

Lately, he's moved more and more into the Tea Party views as the Republicans sit back and say little or do nothing about Obama's almost daily violation of the Constitution. He's earned angst from moderate Republicans and as is now occurring in the Democrat ranks a major insiders fight is occurring in the Republican ranks.

This thread is a joke. As Rush replayed the entirety of his comments today and I found nothing insulting, incorrect or malicious in them. Merely political observations about a political statement.

Actually, the attacks of Rush are no different than the attacks on Palin, Cruz, Bush, Cheney...all the way back, at least, to Reagan.

Almost none address ideas, rather it's personal attack. It's been going on without variation for decades and is boring.

The ONLY reason I comment on it is the are many on this thread who don't listen to Rush or live elsewhere and have no other information than what's posted at A.T.S.

My motive is to show there are many of us that find him enlightening, entertaining and willing to chastise the Republicans when it's appropriate as well as being the first, biggest and longest lasting conservative advocate in the U.S. media.

I'd be interested in debating ideas. The rest? ...Yawn.

nwtrucker
reply to post by wickedso

 

Frankly, I have no need to "champion" him. But, yes, his viewpoint resonates with many and that includes myself.

Virtually all the comments disparaging Rush are either personal attacks or of comments taken usually out of context.

I don't listen to him all the time, knowing his views in general, but do tune in when events are more noteworthy.

Few seem to be willing to debate his ideas, rather attack on verbal slips, or again, out of context statements.

Lately, he's moved more and more into the Tea Party views as the Republicans sit back and say little or do nothing about Obama's almost daily violation of the Constitution. He's earned angst from moderate Republicans and as is now occurring in the Democrat ranks a major insiders fight is occurring in the Republican ranks.

This thread is a joke. As Rush replayed the entirety of his comments today and I found nothing insulting, incorrect or malicious in them. Merely political observations about a political statement.

Actually, the attacks of Rush are no different than the attacks on Palin, Cruz, Bush, Cheney...all the way back, at least, to Reagan.

Almost none address ideas, rather it's personal attack. It's been going on without variation for decades and is boring.

The ONLY reason I comment on it is the are many on this thread who don't listen to Rush or live elsewhere and have no other information than what's posted at A.T.S.

My motive is to show there are many of us that find him enlightening, entertaining and willing to chastise the Republicans when it's appropriate as well as being the first, biggest and longest lasting conservative advocate in the U.S. media.

I'd be interested in debating ideas. The rest? ...Yawn.

edit on 5-12-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar error

edit on 5-12-2013 by nwtrucker because: clarification

alright

You guys all read the translation, right...?

Vatican.va Link

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

It does not seem that awful to me and I would not expect him to quote 'The Virtue of Selfishness' or anything like that anyway (what with being Pope and all...)

There is much more, but I can not quote it all... Read it for yourself if you are interested.