Skip to main content

View Diary: Home Depot Founder & Republicans Decry Pope: He doesn't "Get" Rich People (339 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what a complete asshole (36+ / 0-)

    running to Dolan like a sniveling little crybaby. remove the plank from your eye, jerk.

    Does Dolan let non-rich-people speak to him?  Or does money buy access to God.

    My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

    by JLFinch on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:32:05 PM PST

    •  Money does buy access to bishops (18+ / 0-)

      The US RCC, hard hit by lawsuit judgements in the priest abuse scandals and declining membership, is particularly reliant on big donors. So my guess is that the US Catholic Bishops will always listen to people who are five, six, and seven figure annual donors.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:50:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  There's that "Pharisee" thing again (5+ / 0-)

          Look ... I know that's the way half the Sunday schools in the nation teach the Jesus Story.

          Antisemitism runs deep in grass roots Christianity ... indeed the faith would not have made the progress it did in the 3rd and 4th centuries without it.

          However: circa 30 CE  (the approximate time of the Ministry of Jesus) ... there were three major schools of Jewish thought:

          There were the Sadducees ... closely aligned with the hereditary Temple priesthood and the strictest and most repressive interpretations of the Law.  In fact, substitute "Sadduccee" for the the Gospel's  "Pharisee" -- and the Sunday School version stops being quite so a-historical and offensive.

          Then there were the Pharisees.

          In general, whereas the Sadducees were aristocratic monarchists, the Pharisees were eclectic, popular, and more democratic. (Roth 1970: 84) The Pharisaic position is exemplified by the assertion that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer, according to the Pharisaic definition, is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest, in which marriage of the parents could not lawfully occur. The word is often, but incorrectly, translated as "illegitimate".")[16]
          Pharisees  came in two models
          There was the more conservative School of Shammai --
          and the more liberal School of Hillel, whose parables and teachings predate Jesus by about a generation -- but are strikingly similar.

          Arguably -- Jesus was a great popularizer and commentator on the then quite popular teachings of Hillel, except for the "Kingdom" and "Salvation" ideas.  

          Those were new, His, and much of the reason why the early Christians had to file the Jewish serial numbers off those parts of Torah and Talmud they wanted to keep ... while recasting the Pharisaic scribes and rabbis who were Jesus' colleagues.  as the Sadducee Priests and Scribes who (supposedly)  betrayed Him to the Roman authorities.

          From there proceeded the next 1839 years of Christian-Jew relations in the West.  

          •  AdamSelene, I've enjoyed reading (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SME in Seattle, PrahaPartizan

            your history lessons on the Pharisees in these Pope Francis diaries.   If I understand your point, it's that references to the Pharisees in the gospels were inserted by the writers, decades or centuries after Christ's death, for religious and/or political reasons.  Is that correct?

            And, more important, how do you feel about " whited sepulchres?"  I've always liked that expression.

            •  My point ... such as it is -- was (3+ / 0-)

              It's 1800-plus years later ... and  American Christians  still feel free to say "Pharisee" when they mean "hypocrite."  That's just so "Mel Gibson!"

              To a lesser degree ... sure ... I think it's pretty evident that  the Council of Nicaea probably did not include  the whole spectrum of Christian belief when creating their (Imperial) Canon ... and that the Evangelists of the First and Second Centuries  felt  free to grow their Church by telling such stories as they thought their audiences would respond to.

              As to "Whited sepulchres": that turn of phrase might very well have Jewish roots.

              That is:  a   Jew, speaking to other Jews in the First Century CE, might very well have invoked  the horror the Priestly class held for  the ritual impurity of corpses.  (Given the Jewish burial practices of the time ... LOTS of listeners would have had a profound gut-level understanding of what one encounters in a sepulcher when one opens it.)  

              •  Yes, whited sepulcher (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SuWho, Cassandra Waites

                Still has that grisly, Stephen-Kingish feeling.

              •  Pharisees themselves.... (0+ / 0-)

                ... had a tradition of calling out "false parisees" (and hypocrisy was a reason for being categorized as "false").

              •  Academy Infighting (0+ / 0-)

                Worse, if Christ were involved in an academic squabble with others identified with the Pharisee faction, it would fit perfectly.  In academe, a subtle smear always bests the most congently presente dargument and that's pretty much what were looking at here.

                "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

                by PrahaPartizan on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 11:20:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry ... "Subtle smear ????" (0+ / 0-)

                  Is that the "whited sepulchres" remark ...

                  Remember :   My complaint isn't so much with which following of which Rabbi might have said what at which private symposium or public debate ... to be reported  a couple of generations later by Eangelists for  a completely different faith, with their own agendas.

                  MY issue is with modern Christians who feel free to offend Jewish sensibilities by insisting that Pharisee and Hypocrite are synonyms ...   who are  generally the same folks who insist that The United States was founded as a Christian Republic, ... er, "On Jooodio-Christian VALUES, donchaknow?"

                  Some of us  call these people  "goyim" to distinguish them from "Our Christian friends."

          •  good description of the difference (0+ / 0-)

            between Pharisees and Sadducees

            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 09:12:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Questions... (0+ / 0-)
            [Re: Pharisees] There was the more conservative School of Shammai --
            Reading the Gospels, it seems that the Pharisees that Jesus encountered were of that school. They had an ongoing insistence on interpreting the Law literally, which Jesus took some real issue with, such as healing the sick on the Sabbath.
            the early Christians had to file the Jewish serial numbers off those parts of Torah [that conflicted with Christ's new teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven and salvation].
            Are there parts of the Torah that early Christians disavowed? The Church did accept the books in the Septuagint as canon (plus of course some Apochrypal books that were not in the Septuagint*).


            * The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures - that was completed in the late 2nd Century BCE.

            You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

            by paz3 on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 11:15:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, "circumcision", the dietary laws, (0+ / 0-)

              the purity laws, the  practice of the Jubilee, where in the calendar the Sabbath fell ... anything having to do with the Temple Priesthood, or the Temple itself, sacrifice at the Temple, purification by "living water", the laws concerning the conduct of siege warfare ...

              But you're right ... it probably would be fairer to say the early Christians appropriated the Pentateuch  in it's entirely , but glossed over  roughly half the Statutes contained therein,  ... and ignored the Talmud altogether."  

              Of course the whole "healing the sick on the Sabbath" thing had been argued to death 30 years before the birth of Jesus -- developing a  Rabbinical consensus "the Sabbath was made for Man and not Man for the Sabbath" -- meaning that not only were Good Deeds  (such as the example of pulling the Ass from a pit ) but that strict Sabbath observance had to give way to issue of human "life and health".  For example: cooking food for a "holay" ... someone so sick that they cannot rise from their bed ... would be a Good Deed, and not Something-Forbidden.

              •  In other words, similar to Karaite Judiasm only (0+ / 0-)

                in some cases even more nasty.

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 07:39:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You'll have to explain to me what you mean by (0+ / 0-)

                  "Karaite Judiasm" and why you think it's so nasty ...

                  You asked

                  Are there parts of the Torah that early Christians disavowed?
                  And I gave you a list ... half of which Jews STILL practice and half of which lost applicability when the Romans destroyed the Temple and abolished the Jewish Kingdom ...  (We of course don't think of these archaisms as "void" or repealed ...  merely as "in abeyance" until the the Rededication of the Temple  and the  Coming of the Messiah. )
                  •  I was referring to how many of the fundie (0+ / 0-)

                    Christian denominations are kind of like the Karaites only even more nasty.  In case you didn't know, Karaites reject the Talmud and follow the Torah exclusively.  They are not very common as things like refusing to call 911 on the sabbath when someone has a heart attack or even stoning your kids to death* when they start acting up isn't a very good way to keep your sect going.

                    *Yes, I know about the two witnesses who both have to warn the person that they are committing a capital sin and other limitations which normally makes such a thing practically impossible, however that is in the Talmud which Karaites reject.

                    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                    by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 02:43:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "Learn something every day .." Thanks: (0+ / 0-)

                      I lived in Israel during the transition from Labor to Likkud.  Any number of religious sectarian squabbles found their way into the English editions of HaAretz and The Jerusalem Post ... whether the Falashim, Lembas, and Samaritans  were Jews ... whether Russian's whose internal passports said "Jew" needed to be circumcised in order to marry in Israel ...

                      But it appears the greatest foofraw concerning Karaites seems to have been  whether the 40,000 Karaites then living in Isreal had to be RE-cirmucised 1) to qualify for Law of Return benefits or 2) to be married in Israel.

                      And  I never heard or read of it until I consulted Wikkipedia.

                      It would seem that that after The Annihilation of 79 CE, the  great difference between Karaites and mainstream Jews was that the Karaites rejected the DIVINITY of the Babylonian Talmud.

                      But, given my Conservative-leaning-Reform Jewish upbringing ...  I'd tend to agree with them.  Talmud IS on the face of it the opinion of many Rabbis over a long period of time, and does NOT always take a firm position as to which opinion ought to be given the greatest weight.

                      That's a far cry from the folk tail that The Almighty is supposed to have whispered the Unwritten Law to Aaron's who then communicated it -- word perfect -- to the men who became the Priests of Israel.

                      Now if you want to think about "nasty" ... the current batch of Haredi that dominate the Religious Parties in Israel can give their Christianist  friends from Liberty University a run for their money in the Nastystakes.

                      They are one  reason I'm such a zealot for Church/State Separation:  I've seen what happens when a religious authority is given too much ANY control of civil law.  

                      •  Well civil law doesn't really matter that much (0+ / 0-)

                        when they are carrying out the death penalty themselves just like many Christianists would like to.  Though that is another reason why they are so rare as life sentences for murder tend to have that effect.

                        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                        by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 08:01:46 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm sorry ... this has happened where? When? (0+ / 0-)

                          And according to who  ?

                          For certain, "not in Israel" and "not in the 20th century."

                          And in the first century, when the sect first emerged ... the Roman occupiers had arrogated the power of capital punishment to themselves -- while, a century earlier,  the Sanhedrin had, to all intents and purposes, allowed the practice to fall into such disuse,  that Hillel the Great observed that "a Sanhedrin that passed one death sentence in seventy years would be thought a cruel Sanhedrin."

                          On the other hand ... if we want modern day examples of rightious parents murdering their delinquent children --  this century, that would be the Pakistani Moslems abiding in Great Britain.

                          Civil law actually counts for a great deal when the Powers That Be come to think that their State ought to hold the monopoly on coercive violence.    

                          One might equally well argue ... in the absence of evidence ... that Rabbinical Judiasm was better able to regulate a society in Diaspora precisely because it's claims of Divine origin for Talmud gave them greater authority among the "simple and ignorant" than a position of "these are the opinions of fallible men who have gone before us, let us use them as the starting point of our own deliberations."

          •  So who were the ones that were ripping people (0+ / 0-)

            off at the temple?  Were they Shammai, Hillel, or some other sect that weren't Pharisees at all?

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 07:38:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd always thought they were simply opportunists. (0+ / 0-)

              The Temple Tax was something everyone was supposed to pay and the sacrifices were set in a part of the Torah no one was arguing over.

              For a modern example of the dynamic, there are plenty of Christian publishing groups right now fleecing the living daylights out of the fundamentalists who get touchy about Bible editions and other reference materials. All of which happen to be public domain. And all of which are usually priced the same or higher than similar materials that aren't public domain in the US. There's one Christian catalog that wants more for a reprint of the 1828 Webster's dictionary than I paid for an up-to-date new American Heritage Collegiate, both hardcover. And good luck if you're a 1611 KJV only type, because they know anyone needing that edition won't be looking at a $5 'Gift and Award Bible' KJV as an alternative. Given the other products carried in the catalog and sold by the same publishers, they don't believe the same as those seeking those goods - but they do believe their money is as good as anyone else's.

              Given the part of the Temple they were in, they might not have even had to be Jewish or God-fearers, just knowledgeable enough about sacrificial law to make sure they were selling animals likely to be accepted and that a purchaser would think would be.

      •  I can think of one wealthy devout Catholic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, high uintas

        who is on the side of the Nuns on the Bus--Melinda Gates.

        Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.--Sam Rayburn

        by Ice Blue on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 09:23:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site