The Poor

[BarbTherese]

Reflecting on The Gospel for today (in Aust, Gaudate Sunday, 3rd Sunday Advent), in the concluding words, St John speaks of "The One who is to come".  In Luke's Gospel after the temptations of Jesus and in the next Chapter, Chapter 4, Jesus speaks for the first time of His Mission - of His Brief from The Father :  " [18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart,  To preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward" This, for me, tied into Psalm 9 "he hath not forgotten the cry of the poor."

 

One of the striking things about the teaching of Jesus in His Times was that the goods of this world are given solely in stewardship and are to be shared with the poor.  This would have indeed startled the rich and brought comfort to the poor - that they have a God Gifted claim on the wealth of the rich and totally in opposition with the culture and religion of Jesus in His Times.  That the 'rich' have a responsibility and indeed accountability insofar as material goods are concerned for the poor.  The goods of this world are not gifted in order to improve oneself no matter how noble and lofty, pious, the rationalization. 

 

In the early Church this basic teaching of Jesus was taken quite literally and all possessions were pooled and the most needy cared for first.  

 

As I examined my own conscience, I realized how difficult it is to embrace this teaching - to fully internalize it, as I am always finding quite noble and lofty, pious, quite just rationalizations and reasons not to part with the goods of this world to favour the poor.  And it is quite cultural even Catholic cultural to do so.  My mind then shifted on to something else Jesus said and about His Second Coming:  "[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

 

I have no idea how to internalize this basic teaching of Jesus and deny my own culture and rationalizations - other than to pray ardently and urgently that I do so and that it becomes Catholic cultural to do so.  It will be a great Grace and the salvation of souls I suspect if we can do so and it becomes imbedded in our Cathoic mentality and culture to do so.

 

I finished up my reflections at this point with today's Gospel by realizing that my rationalizations can water down The Gospel out of fear of facing its very real challenges.  I, and possibly we, want The Gospel to justify rather than to raise very real and difficult challenges ahead.  This reminded me of something else that Jesus said "[39] He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it."  And this is the very thing I am afraid of I had to face - of loosing my life as I know it and as I have fashioned it.  I am afraid of facing my fears as challenges, prayerful challenges that only God's Grace can meet and overcome.

[Ed Normile]

Babs, have you considered that Jesus included amongst the poor not only those without wealth or possessions ? There are those who are in poor health, those who are poor in spirit too. You think Jesus might have felt we should share the wealth of our faith with the poor in spirit, the passage you quoted in your first paragraph specifically mentioned this as well as the poor in health.

 

Also where do you get "that they have a God Gifted claim on the wealth of the rich" there is no such thing as that would pre-empt the concept of freewill. Jesus taught us we should give of our own accord, not that any had a " claim " to anothers produce, Jesus was no socialist.

 

ed

[BarbTherese]

Babs, have you considered that Jesus included amongst the poor not only those without wealth or possessions ? There are those who are in poor health, those who are poor in spirit too. You think Jesus might have felt we should share the wealth of our faith with the poor in spirit, the passage you quoted in your first paragraph specifically mentioned this as well as the poor in health.

 

Also where do you get "that they have a God Gifted claim on the wealth of the rich" there is no such thing as that would pre-empt the concept of freewill. Jesus taught us we should give of our own accord, not that any had a " claim " to anothers produce, Jesus was no socialist.

 

ed

 

Hi Ed - I have not been called "Babs" for a long time, although our office manager used the tag a couple of times the other day.  It goes back to my teens and I am quite fond of it.  Thank you.

 

Re your first paragraph, I absolutely agree.  My own personal reflection however was focused on material goods and reflecting on my own personal position.

 

Re your final paragraph - I am likely caught out by my betters as I must confess that I would have to research "socialist" to ensure I had a grasp on what it meant.  Again, I need to refer to my own personal reflection and that is in the times of Jesus and His own Jewish religion, those with material wealth would have looked upon it as a particular and quite personal blessing to them alone from God - and that the poor financially were so because they had offended God in some way and thus not earned His Gifts with no right to any gift from God, and were being punished. Jesus turns all this on its head by pointing out in a few parables and at least once incident in His life that immediately comes to mind -  that material wealth is from God for stewardship and that the rich do indeed have an accountability and responsibility towards the poor under the terms of stewardship and for God's Gifts.  We cannot earn anything from God, nor do we have any right at all to any of God's Gifts - none.  We are all God's children equal in all things and called to service, servants, of each other. This would have alarmed the 'rich' in the times of Jesus and it can be alarming to us also - and it can be a comfort to the poor to know that the goods of this world are dispersed as they are by God for stewardship and first on the list are the poor, those most in need.  If my use of the word "claim" is incorrect, apologies, but it seems to be correct to me - not that the poor have a claim because of their status per se, but because of God's ordination, His Son's Gospel.

 

The teaching of Jesus re material wealth would have been particularly alarming to both the pharisees and the High Priest in particuar who did earn quite a tidy income from temple profits and excavations are revealing that they had quite wealthy abodes.  This alarm, to further personally reflect, would have come to a crisis point when Jesus clears the temple of money sellers.  He is socially violent and disruptive and in the temple precincts from which much of what the pharisees 'earned'/stole was gleaned including from the poor.  Jesus expresses quite physically a disdain for wealth and it is alarming too since it is something new to appearance to the person of Jesus.  Personally, I like to think that He was totally fed up and spat the dummy! :) The pharisees would have been further alrmed since Jesus had been given a right royal welcome by the people into Jerusalem riding on a donkey.  He was becoming a 'power base' they probably feared and a 'power base' with a disdain for wealth and directly challenging the status quo - so financially comfortable to the pharisees and High Priest of the temple.

 

We do indeed have free will, completely free.  We are completely free to choose obedience to God and to The Gospel or to not obey. We have that same freedom of will, of choice, first gifted to Adam and Eve in the garden.   Free will does not mean that each individual can choose whatever he or she decides to choose and that this then makes it right and moral for the individual and I think that has some sort of a tag also - and only I think under social and moral anarchy can such apply.  This is if I am understanding "anarchy" rightly as the absence of all law calling for obedience by the individual..

 

If this makes (my) Jesus socialist whatever intrinsically this 'ist' does mean, then I guess He must be. I am not 'tongue in cheek' in my response, Ed - I am genuinely quite confused over all the 'ists' and 'isms' that crop up here and there and what indeed they do actually mean and I cannot get a grasp on them unless I research and sometimes then am even left floundering.  I am merely sharing a personal relfection flowing from the Gospel of Guadate Sunday, 3rd Sunday of Advent - and a reflection that has put me into my own hot seat.  C'est la vie!

 

Thank you very much indeed for sharing your thoughts, Ed, and for challenging me.  I love a challenge it is well documented although I am not always equal to a particular challenge.  Challenges make life very interesting and an adventure and also mentally stimulating and in my position "challenge" ask that defeat is not disturbing, merely asks a willing recognition and acceptance of reality wherever it may exist.  Thank you again and especially for taking the time to read my post and reflect on it.

 

However I must add, being quite female and inclined towards self will/pig headedness, I rarely will give in to reality without a 'fight' to configure reality to my own view if at all I can. :wedgie:..... :cheers:

 

______________

Jesus came "to bring good news to the poor" and it can be probably impossible to hear mental, emotional and spiritual good news when one is starving and homeless etc.  Hence, it seems to me that if the poor are going to "hear" the Good News of Jesus, it is up to us to strive wherever we can to be stewards of God's financial gifts (in this instance) and see to it that the poor are fed and given a roof over their head insofar as we may be able.  The first step, to my mind, in the message of "good news to the poor" is that we are all stewards of God's Gifts - and all that we have on any level comes to us from God as Gift.

The mentality can exist that I can only give a few dollars now and then when the problem is absolutely massive demanding billions of dollars.  That is a rationalization of a refusal of stewardship to my mind and again it's me largely who am in the hotseat tying The Gospel in with my own life and 'widow's mite' that need not of necessity remain thus.

Edited December 17, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[4588686]

Also where do you get "that they have a God Gifted claim on the wealth of the rich" there is no such thing as that would pre-empt the concept of freewill. Jesus taught us we should give of our own accord, not that any had a " claim " to anothers produce, Jesus was no socialist.

 

ed

 

 

 

No it doesn't

[BarbTherese]

No it doesn't

 

Hi Hasan, I looked at your response to Ed and had a bit of a think.  Then I glanced at your pic and caption and started laughing thinking "over sensitive girl? nahhhhh man of few words methinks"

[4588686]

Hi Hasan, I looked at your response to Ed and had a bit of a think.  Then I glanced at your pic and caption and started laughing thinking "over sensitive girl? nahhhhh man of few words methinks"

 

My profile was hacked by some degenerates but since I am a man of honor I left the changes.  

[theculturewarrior]

I don't believe in the existence of the poor.  I am an apoorist.

[BarbTherese]

As the Opening Poster in this here thread (wow! a title and initials, OPITHT,at at last!), your disclaimer (quite honestly,is that the right word?) is accepted, Hasan.

[BarbTherese]

.............. beliefs and reality do not always see eye to eye, huh.  But then again, depending on the definition of "in the existence of" they might.  I am going to get into one heck of tangle, I can feel it coming.  Ahh well, and on we go.................

 

Babs, OPITHT

Edited December 17, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

I believe in the Gospel, and I thereby, as an OPITHTer and the OPiTHter founder, dub this belief as progospelist and what progospelists actually believe is an ongoing enlightenment hence definition; therefore, anything not yet fully understood and awaiting full accepted definition is to be called progospelistism.

 

[theculturewarrior]

My profile was hacked by some degenerates but since I am a man of honor I left the changes.  

 

 

 

Does this mean that you are not really gay, and I have been making fool out of myself the whole time?  These profile pics have really become unpredictable these days.

[4588686]

Does this mean that you are not really gay, and I have been making fool out of myself the whole time?  These profile pics have really become unpredictable these days.

 

 

 

LANGUAGE!!!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnvgq8STMGM

[Ed Normile]

Hi Ed - I have not been called "Babs" for a long time, although our office manager used the tag a couple of times the other day.  It goes back to my teens and I am quite fond of it.  Thank you.

 

Re your first paragraph, I absolutely agree.  My own personal reflection however was focused on material goods and reflecting on my own personal position.

 

Re your final paragraph - I am likely caught out by my betters as I must confess that I would have to research "socialist" to ensure I had a grasp on what it meant.  Again, I need to refer to my own personal reflection and that is in the times of Jesus and His own Jewish religion, those with material wealth would have looked upon it as a particular and quite personal blessing to them alone from God - and that the poor financially were so because they had offended God in some way and thus not earned His Gifts with no right to any gift from God, and were being punished. Jesus turns all this on its head by pointing out in a few parables and at least once incident in His life that immediately comes to mind -  that material wealth is from God for stewardship and that the rich do indeed have an accountability and responsibility towards the poor under the terms of stewardship and for God's Gifts.  We cannot earn anything from God, nor do we have any right at all to any of God's Gifts - none.  We are all God's children equal in all things and called to service, servants, of each other. This would have alarmed the 'rich' in the times of Jesus and it can be alarming to us also - and it can be a comfort to the poor to know that the goods of this world are dispersed as they are by God for stewardship and first on the list are the poor, those most in need.  If my use of the word "claim" is incorrect, apologies, but it seems to be correct to me - not that the poor have a claim because of their status per se, but because of God's ordination, His Son's Gospel.

 

The teaching of Jesus re material wealth would have been particularly alarming to both the pharisees and the High Priest in particuar who did earn quite a tidy income from temple profits and excavations are revealing that they had quite wealthy abodes.  This alarm, to further personally reflect, would have come to a crisis point when Jesus clears the temple of money sellers.  He is socially violent and disruptive and in the temple precincts from which much of what the pharisees 'earned'/stole was gleaned including from the poor.  Jesus expresses quite physically a disdain for wealth and it is alarming too since it is something new to appearance to the person of Jesus.  Personally, I like to think that He was totally fed up and spat the dummy! :) The pharisees would have been further alrmed since Jesus had been given a right royal welcome by the people into Jerusalem riding on a donkey.  He was becoming a 'power base' they probably feared and a 'power base' with a disdain for wealth and directly challenging the status quo - so financially comfortable to the pharisees and High Priest of the temple.

 

We do indeed have free will, completely free.  We are completely free to choose obedience to God and to The Gospel or to not obey. We have that same freedom of will, of choice, first gifted to Adam and Eve in the garden.   Free will does not mean that each individual can choose whatever he or she decides to choose and that this then makes it right and moral for the individual and I think that has some sort of a tag also - and only I think under social and moral anarchy can such apply.  This is if I am understanding "anarchy" rightly as the absence of all law calling for obedience by the individual..

 

If this makes (my) Jesus socialist whatever intrinsically this 'ist' does mean, then I guess He must be. I am not 'tongue in cheek' in my response, Ed - I am genuinely quite confused over all the 'ists' and 'isms' that crop up here and there and what indeed they do actually mean and I cannot get a grasp on them unless I research and sometimes then am even left floundering.  I am merely sharing a personal relfection flowing from the Gospel of Guadate Sunday, 3rd Sunday of Advent - and a reflection that has put me into my own hot seat.  C'est la vie!

 

Thank you very much indeed for sharing your thoughts, Ed, and for challenging me.  I love a challenge it is well documented although I am not always equal to a particular challenge.  Challenges make life very interesting and an adventure and also mentally stimulating and in my position "challenge" ask that defeat is not disturbing, merely asks a willing recognition and acceptance of reality wherever it may exist.  Thank you again and especially for taking the time to read my post and reflect on it.

 

However I must add, being quite female and inclined towards self will/pig headedness, I rarely will give in to reality without a 'fight' to configure reality to my own view if at all I can. :wedgie:..... :cheers:

 

______________

Jesus came "to bring good news to the poor" and it can be probably impossible to hear mental, emotional and spiritual good news when one is starving and homeless etc.  Hence, it seems to me that if the poor are going to "hear" the Good News of Jesus, it is up to us to strive wherever we can to be stewards of God's financial gifts (in this instance) and see to it that the poor are fed and given a roof over their head insofar as we may be able.  The first step, to my mind, in the message of "good news to the poor" is that we are all stewards of God's Gifts - and all that we have on any level comes to us from God as Gift.

The mentality can exist that I can only give a few dollars now and then when the problem is absolutely massive demanding billions of dollars.  That is a rationalization of a refusal of stewardship to my mind and again it's me largely who am in the hotseat tying The Gospel in with my own life and 'widow's mite' that need not of necessity remain thus.

 

You get it, we have the responsibility to provide for the poor as its God's will we do just that. The poor have no claim for any such assistance, we have moral obligation to provide that through our freewill. This does not mean that we have any right to demand money be taken from another to be given to the poor, or to assume the state must redistribute the money of another no matter how much they have. We are not God and we can not expect to remove the freewill of anyone no matter if they own more than they could ever use, its their money and possessions to do with as they please. If we follow the will of God we will share our time, talents and treasures willingly. A socialist believes in government redistribution of monies, our current President is a socialist.

 

ed

[4588686]

You get it, we have the responsibility to provide for the poor as its God's will we do just that. The poor have no claim for any such assistance, we have moral obligation to provide that through our freewill. This does not mean that we have any right to demand money be taken from another to be given to the poor, or to assume the state must redistribute the money of another no matter how much they have. We are not God and we can not expect to remove the freewill of anyone no matter if they own more than they could ever use, its their money and possessions to do with as they please. If we follow the will of God we will share our time, talents and treasures willingly. A socialist believes in government redistribution of monies, our current President is a socialist.

 

ed

 By your logic Ronald Reagan was a socialist.  

 

 

Obama is not a socialist (nor was Reagan) and you clearly do not understand what socialism is.  Socialism is hinged on the democratic control of the means of production. 

[theculturewarrior]

LANGUAGE!!!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnvgq8STMGM

 

I feel like I need to point out that Ophelia had depression with psychotic features.  Hasan, I am sorry if I offended.  I do not know the proper way to broach the subject or if there even is one.  I always thought that you were one of the coolest phatmassers here, although I have known for a while now that my feelings a pathologically impossible to reciprocate.  dUSt owes me an apology, and if Richard Dawkins does make an appearance, I might get one.  If not, see you in five years.  (My heart will go on, Hasan).