Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 7:18:14 GMT -5
"Father Bob" as he is affectionately known in Melbourne, Australia was a Catholic priest, wisely put out to pasture by the church.
Bob Maguire became a gadfly to the RCC with his anarchist, leftist, Marxist and secularist attitudes.
He believes the church should be more focused upon "helping the poor" and being a lot less hierarchical, rule bound and well, religious.
Maguire just released a charity raising CD (do they still have CD's?!) It's hip hop, I believe. He sends frissons of excitement when he swears - as if he is one lone man breaking down barriers. And barriers don't help the poor (?)
Quote - "I did exactly what they told me to do. 'Do you mind if the words include sh-, drugs - do you mind?' - I said 'look, give me the words for God's sake. If this is what we have to do, this is what we have to do',"
To people like Maguire, selling off the churches to "help the poor" would be an act of Nobility. Cutting through the costumes and hierarchy would support equality, and tossing aside the moral law of the bible would be liberating.
He's tremendously popular. People often say he "gets things done" and, "he is the only one helping the poor."
Is Bob Maguire the future of the church? Lots of people, who have grown up in a post-religious and atheistic society, think that the role of religion must be to "help the poor." And somehow, by getting rid of these salaried priests and all that church real estate the church can be better prepared for that.
In the end though we have no churches and no religion - but as Jesus reminded people, "you will always have your poor." And now, maybe worse.
Is this what it means in Revelation about the churches of the future? No candle, no voice of the bride and bridegroom - just a cage of hateful and unclean birds?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 19, 2014 9:10:40 GMT -5
In the Kingdom of God Jesus envisioned, the poor are a primary focus. Can't fault Maguire for doing what Jesus asked. However, it's optimistic to think that every participant in the Kingdom will appeal to every other one. I'm not much for hip-hop or swearing, but that's just a personal distaste--nothing condoned or disapproved of by the Kingdom--so I'll give Maguire room to speak to his own niche. He who is not against us is with us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 19:50:00 GMT -5
Quote - "In the Kingdom of God Jesus envisioned, the poor are a primary focus."
One wonders therefor why Jesus didn't come to this Earth to set up food stamps, social welfare programs, a green revolution, GM agriculture, DDT and such, tractors, better tillage ideas and the like.
Instead we get this fatalistic, "you will always have the poor."
nb Isn't the "primary focus" of Jesus was salvation?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 20, 2014 20:21:10 GMT -5
maybe we should define salvation. That will probably highlight why we have different opinions about how the poor fit in the picture.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 20, 2014 20:33:20 GMT -5
Quote - " In the Kingdom of God Jesus envisioned, the poor are a primary focus." One wonders therefor why Jesus didn't come to this Earth to set up food stamps, social welfare programs, a green revolution, GM agriculture, DDT and such, tractors, better tillage ideas and the like. Instead we get this fatalistic, "you will always have the poor." nb Isn't the "primary focus" of Jesus was salvation? Jesus emphasis' here was to let his disciples know that he would not be with them bodily much longer - in response to their objection to Mary's use of the ointment on him - that they would still have plenty of opportunity to serve the poor who would be with them. IOW, to quit carping about the ointment - done in an act of faith and love.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 20:37:15 GMT -5
Recall the "feeding of the five thousand" Some went searching for Jesus to make him their king. Jesus evaded them by going into the mountains, and they came searching for Him the next day...
That has to be ONLY time I recall He fed people (unless you count the two fishing stories) and he didn't want to be their earthly king. He said they were "only" interested in being fed. And I can't find a single reference to him giving money to the poor.
Usually when Jesus spoke of the "poor" He was speaking of the "poor in spirit" A totally different topic.
Spiritual poverty needs its own definition.
But "salvation" is being saved from death.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2014 20:39:33 GMT -5
Quote - " In the Kingdom of God Jesus envisioned, the poor are a primary focus." One wonders therefor why Jesus didn't come to this Earth to set up food stamps, social welfare programs, a green revolution, GM agriculture, DDT and such, tractors, better tillage ideas and the like. Instead we get this fatalistic, "you will always have the poor." nb Isn't the "primary focus" of Jesus was salvation? Apparently Jesus' primary focus was to bring salvation, as scriptures are interpreted. He also apparently didn't come to bring peace. What you mention about Jesus not bringing of our modern lifestyle -- I have talked about the same thing. That's why some of the workers think that it is their job to make new rules when new things come along. Which is nothing more than maintaining their control over "the flock".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 20:41:21 GMT -5
You need to provide specifics - answering these points is like herding cats.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 20, 2014 20:47:21 GMT -5
"And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God."
That's Luke. I presume you prefer Matthew's version, which says "poor in Spirit?" Because I believe that's the ONLY place you'll see that phrase. Shall we go verse-by-verse discussing references to the word "poor"? I'm up for it if you are.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 20, 2014 20:50:09 GMT -5
If this helps, here is what Jesus said his mission was:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."
This is salvation, and one of the primary classes of people he promised help for was the poor. I love how he proved to John that he was the Messiah:
"The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 20, 2014 20:52:50 GMT -5
...That has to be ONLY time I recall He fed people ... The miraculous feeding of the 5,000 prefigures the Eucharist. He is the living bread that came down from heaven. He feeds us still.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 20:55:12 GMT -5
i think your using the wrong "poor" verses if you want to preach giving donations. those verses above only "preach the gospel" to the poor...
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 20, 2014 21:05:10 GMT -5
"gospel" means "good news," wally. Remember as we discuss this that this is good news for the poor, not for the rich.
Jesus preached the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Consider this verse and the instruction to sell all and give the proceeds to the poor:
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
The Kingdom Jesus taught was one of equality and respect for all. This is the promise of the prophets for the Kingdom. Not poor, or not interested in the poor? Then the good news won't be very good news for you.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 20, 2014 21:29:21 GMT -5
Father Bob was right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 0:44:27 GMT -5
When it says Jesus brought the Gospel to the "poor" it is not a reference to their income, or lack thereof. Some of the "poor" mentioned were quite well off - Luke, Matthew, Nicodemus, the Centurion and a 'great company of the priests' etc..
Outside the "feeding of the five thousand" I can't think of one poor person's hunger being sated by Jesus.
"Poor in spirit" means you hunger and third for the things of the Kingdom of Heaven. And nothing of this world can satisfy.
This is the problem for Father Bob style figures - they can give you a bow of soup, but they have no idea of what "bread from heaven" means. And worse - show an open contempt for the very notion.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2014 1:27:17 GMT -5
When it says Jesus brought the Gospel to the "poor" it is not a reference to their income, or lack thereof. Some of the "poor" mentioned were quite well off - Luke, Matthew, Nicodemus, the Centurion and a 'great company of the priests' etc.. Outside the "feeding of the five thousand" I can't think of one poor person's hunger being sated by Jesus. "Poor in spirit" means you hunger and third for the things of the Kingdom of Heaven. And nothing of this world can satisfy. This is the problem for Father Bob style figures - they can give you a bow of soup, but they have no idea of what "bread from heaven" means. And worse - show an open contempt for the very notion. Believe it or not, I have heard a worker say at convention that some people are too poor to preach the gospel to. And I heard the same thing in a Sunday meeting. I don't believe there is any scriptural justification whatsoever for that notion. BUT, I also don't believe that Jesus' intended purpose was to relieve poverty. But I DO believe this: Anyone who is a decent human being will care for the poor whether Jesus or anyone else ever told them to do it. That many rich people don't help the poor is because they are selfish enough that they don't mind making excuses for their own excess. That's why I don't care a lot for people giving to the poor as some kind of religious duty -- they can be as mean as they want and do anything at all for their own salvation, including giving to the poor -- and still be selfish and self-righteous. It is easy enough to find people who need help without looking for some higher motive for doing it. FWIW
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 21, 2014 1:40:46 GMT -5
Does the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 have any meaning to you?
I see people that obviously do not help the poor as Jesus obviously thought we should.....and try to justify it by some of what we are reading in post above. Does his parable of the Good Samaritan mean anything to you? Wasn't this an example of loving your neighbor as yourself? Would you love yourself enough to feed yourself if you were hungry?
its all quite simple really. Wearing buns and dresses means nothing if you don't understand these simple concepts.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 21, 2014 4:22:44 GMT -5
Does the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 have any meaning to you? I see people that obviously do not help the poor as Jesus obviously thought we should.....and try to justify it by some of what we are reading in post above. Does his parable of the Good Samaritan mean anything to you? Wasn't this an example of loving your neighbor as yourself? Would you love yourself enough to feed yourself if you were hungry? its all quite simple really. Wearing buns and dresses means nothing if you don't understand these simple concepts. I think you missed the point of what I wrote. What I meant was that, for me, it doesn't matter what Jesus said about anything. A decent human being will do what he can for the poor simply because it is the decent human thing to do. Giving to the poor as a means of getting into heaven doesn't impress me at all. Any rich buzzard will pay what it takes to get what he wants, whether he likes it or not, and if he thinks it will work. In other words, what does "helping the poor because you're a Christian" add to simply just "helping the poor"? In the Bible the ones who helped the least for no other reason than to help them turned out to have done it for the Lord. Maybe you have to believe in the Lord along with helping without knowing it was for the Lord -- in order for it to count as doing it for the Lord.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 6:10:42 GMT -5
Does the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 have any meaning to you? I see people that obviously do not help the poor as Jesus obviously thought we should.....and try to justify it by some of what we are reading in post above. Does his parable of the Good Samaritan mean anything to you? Wasn't this an example of loving your neighbor as yourself? Would you love yourself enough to feed yourself if you were hungry? its all quite simple really. Wearing buns and dresses means nothing if you don't understand these simple concepts. The parable of Lazarus is a good point. There is no intrinsic moral value in being either rich or poor. Many rich people accepted Jesus, many rich people served God in the OT. And many of the poor of Israel came to the conclusion that Jesus had no relevance for their situation.
Okay, so its a parable, but... The rich man wasn't judged because he didn't give to Lazarus. It seems that is precisely what could have happened - he fed from the rich man's table (albeit the crumbs) The essence of the parable IMO is that we can have the good things this life offers, but they won't be there in eternity.
A real rich man came to Jesus in Mark 10. He was told to give all he had to the poor and follow Jesus. This wasn't about helping the poor - it was about giving up everything for the Gospel's sake (and in the Ministry of course he would have nothing to give the poor.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 7:11:20 GMT -5
Can anyone remember when bankruptcy (Chapter 11) was shameful? It's becoming more respectable now. and there's this about drunken behavior ---- "Queensland Deputy Commissioner of Specialist Operations Ross Barnett said that it will take a significant change in the attitudes of people to reduce the prevalence of this illeg"al behaviour. “Once upon a time if you went out and you were arrested by the police and taken to the watch house, that would have been a matter of considerable shame and embarrassment,” he said. “That stigma seems to have disappeared, and sadly for some people it seems to be something to celebrate, and something to be proud of, that they have been arrested by the police.www.news.com.au/national/queensland/hundreds-arrested-as-queensland-police-crack-down-on-alcoholfueled-violence/story-fnii5v6w-1226891439458
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 21, 2014 8:38:33 GMT -5
Does the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 have any meaning to you? I see people that obviously do not help the poor as Jesus obviously thought we should.....and try to justify it by some of what we are reading in post above. Does his parable of the Good Samaritan mean anything to you? Wasn't this an example of loving your neighbor as yourself? Would you love yourself enough to feed yourself if you were hungry? its all quite simple really. Wearing buns and dresses means nothing if you don't understand these simple concepts. The parable of Lazarus is a good point. There is no intrinsic moral value in being either rich or poor. Many rich people accepted Jesus, many rich people served God in the OT. And many of the poor of Israel came to the conclusion that Jesus had no relevance for their situation.
Okay, so its a parable, but... The rich man wasn't judged because he didn't give to Lazarus. It seems that is precisely what could have happened - he fed from the rich man's table (albeit the crumbs) The essence of the parable IMO is that we can have the good things this life offers, but they won't be there in eternity.
A real rich man came to Jesus in Mark 10. He was told to give all he had to the poor and follow Jesus. This wasn't about helping the poor - it was about giving up everything for the Gospel's sake (and in the Ministry of course he would have nothing to give the poor.)Again, you miss the point if you don't realize that in both these accounts, the "Gospel" that Jesus was teaching was a Gospel that the most important part of is simply "love". Not "works", but "love" (which of course will result in "works"). One of the works results will be helping the poor/needy when you see them. He tried to show how this happens (or doesn't happen) when telling these two parables. You are correct though. When we love our earthly possessions more than we love our neighbor, it would result in the possibility to walk by the needy and not help them. Again, the parable of the Good Samaritan. I appears you miss a very important part of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. Nothing wrong with being rich, but because of the Christ-like love that he lacked which was indicated by his in-actions in helping Lazarus, he had nothing of eternal value. Do you not think this story would have been very different if he had been willing to bring Lazarus in and share his very best with him....or at least treated Lazarus the way the Good Samaritan treated the one he helped?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 21, 2014 8:44:47 GMT -5
Does the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 have any meaning to you? I see people that obviously do not help the poor as Jesus obviously thought we should.....and try to justify it by some of what we are reading in post above. Does his parable of the Good Samaritan mean anything to you? Wasn't this an example of loving your neighbor as yourself? Would you love yourself enough to feed yourself if you were hungry? its all quite simple really. Wearing buns and dresses means nothing if you don't understand these simple concepts. I think you missed the point of what I wrote. What I meant was that, for me, it doesn't matter what Jesus said about anything. A decent human being will do what he can for the poor simply because it is the decent human thing to do. Giving to the poor as a means of getting into heaven doesn't impress me at all. Any rich buzzard will pay what it takes to get what he wants, whether he likes it or not, and if he thinks it will work. In other words, what does "helping the poor because you're a Christian" add to simply just "helping the poor"? In the Bible the ones who helped the least for no other reason than to help them turned out to have done it for the Lord. Maybe you have to believe in the Lord along with helping without knowing it was for the Lord -- in order for it to count as doing it for the Lord. In anyone except God's eyes, no one would know the difference. God would know that we are helping them as a result of "love for our neighbor". Having the ability to just walk by them with absolutely no compassion, and many time disdain WOULD indicate to everyone much though. A lack of love, compassion, and maybe even pride. We think we are better than them because we have, and they don't.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 21, 2014 8:54:42 GMT -5
Of course, everyone I know that refuses to help them will always have a good excuse. "They made the choice to be in that condition". "They will just simply use it to get drunk". "They could find a job". "Helping them just encourages more to do the same". "I have what I have because I worked for it".
People without compassion don't realize that everyone was not lucky enough to be born to a good family, or born with a set of brains that they were born with that allowed them to help themselves the way they have. I'm definitely not a liberal, but sometimes it does "take a village". Its ones like the "Rich Man" in Luke 16 that doesn't understand this.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 21, 2014 10:31:40 GMT -5
When it says Jesus brought the Gospel to the "poor" it is not a reference to their income, or lack thereof. Some of the "poor" mentioned were quite well off - Luke, Matthew, Nicodemus, the Centurion and a 'great company of the priests' etc.. Outside the "feeding of the five thousand" I can't think of one poor person's hunger being sated by Jesus. "Poor in spirit" means you hunger and third for the things of the Kingdom of Heaven. And nothing of this world can satisfy. This is the problem for Father Bob style figures - they can give you a bow of soup, but they have no idea of what "bread from heaven" means. And worse - show an open contempt for the very notion. You've heard of Maslow no doubt? The Salvation Army were smart enough to know that you had to cater to the physical needs (food and shelter) before they were ready to even look at spiritual needs. When your busy surviving, anything else gets put on a 'back burner' so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 21, 2014 12:32:32 GMT -5
Okay, so its a parable, but... The rich man wasn't judged because he didn't give to Lazarus. You miss a couple of very important points here - it isn't easily dismissed as (just) a parable because even parables have a basis of truth, perhaps based on unnamed real people. Lazarus has a name in this story - the only 'parable' that does have a name. We heard in a homily that we probably all know a Lazarus ... Yes, the rich man was judged because of his poor treatment (or lack of good treatment) toward Lazarus.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 21, 2014 12:44:45 GMT -5
Of course the parable about lazarus and the rich man is about money. The rich man didn't do anything wrong, except he didn't share his riches. The entire point is that in the existing age, injustice exists, but in the age of the Kingdom, fortunes reverse. The poor are favored, the rich no longer are, as they had their reward in the prior age.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 21, 2014 12:48:38 GMT -5
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven
(these are all just from one Gospel)
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 21, 2014 13:02:28 GMT -5
A few of the expectations of the coming Messiah. I just cut-and-paste from a search on the word "poor," but anybody can do this study and learn what the Messiah's role was, inaugerating a new age of Godly rule when all would be equal. Jesus, in caring for the poor--indeed, stating that his message was FOR the poor--was claiming to be the Messiah.
Deu 15:4 Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it:
Job 29:12 Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him.
Psa 9:18 For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.
Psa 72:4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.
Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Isa 14:32 What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the LORD hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.
Isa 29:19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
Eze 22:29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.
|
|