comment: >
  
  Was Jesus poor? What happen to the gold, frankenscence, and myhrr?
context: File under: Unintentional Irony. >
  
  his ridiculous golden prayer baton could feed the entirety of Guatemala for a week … this “stay poor, and the imaginary sky God will bless you” while we roll in gold scenario has to stop! >
  
  I know he replaced the opulent throne with a wooden one… wish he’d do the same with everything else. >
  
  They still have the gold throne, it was moved to the basement with the countless other priceless artifacts >
  
  Yes that is necessary for a country to hold onto treasures, but not sitting in it daily is a good statement. >
  
  Pfft. You say the same about Nazi gold? There's not a single punce of precious metal in the Vatican that isn't blood stained. 
  "Necessary" for what? The pop could wave his arm and every Catholic in a thousand miles would donate a new golden throne. 
  If he wants people to be like Jesus, the Vatican should be broke as he was >
  
  What asshole is sitting on Nazi gold daily? (Also illegal to have by international law) Vatican is a country and every country’s treasures are stained in blood. False equivalency here. The church is falling in membership dramatically and I personally don’t agree with it, but I can recognize at least something decent by people I’m not fond of. >
  
  The church was built on blood. The church continues to build itself on blood to this day. The most powerful man in the world stepped out of his Palace in his private kingdom, leaning on his 40 million euro golden cane, to address a Christmas mass of millions of devout followers around the world, to tell them "not to be power hungry". The Vatican is bad at being like Jesus. >
  
  None of this relevant to the chair statement. We can’t change our futures without acknowledging and moving on from our pasts. I’m not saying anyone is a saint, just that a wooden chair for the throne of the leader of a city state known for its hippocratic opulence sends a better message than before. >
  
  And how many mouths does messaging feed? How many of the poor and destitute are lifted from poverty by the pope trying to improve public relations for the Catholic image in pop culture? I'm sorry but I can't see the value of your perspective because the actions you're lauding are not worthy of respect. >
  
  He says as he holds a cross worth thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars >
  
  If it's solid gold, it's probably worth the higher end of hundreds of thousands on material alone. add to it the religious significance and provenance and easily worth millions. >
  
  Easily. It's a religious relic. But so are his undies, so. Take that how you will. >
  
  
  But so are his undies, so. Take that how you will.
  
  I see a great opportunity in selling holy water that is just the bathwater of the pope. >
  
  Dios mio... >
  
  And also a refugee looking for shelter for his family from an oppressive government. Kinda like the people trying immigrate to wealthier nations >
  
  People still forget that Jesus and his family were refugees when the fled for Egypt.  Ironically it was the Romans that wanted him dead as a child and the later Romans that took his teachings creating the Roman Catholic faith. >
  
  
  Romans that wanted him dead as a child
  
  Herod the great want Him dead as child
  Herod is Jewish king definitely not Roman >
  
  The catholic church is one of the richest institution in the world. 
  How hypocritical that pope can be? >
  
  Isn't that most Catholics though? I mean so many votes for Trump and he's a pornstar banging (While married no less) con artist and general sleezeball. If you add in how many religious types are progun despite the fifth commandment. I mean it is thou shall not kill, not thou shall not kill unless they are gay, Jewish, colored, Muslim, Lutheran, Cathar, Protestant, Mormon, stealing your Xbox. >
  
  You're confusing Catholic with Christian, the former are a subset of the later but didn't vote for Trump. >
  
  You sure about that? Seems to me like there’s a lot of crazy republican Catholics out there. Not to mention, he put Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, a woman known to be a particularly fanatical catholic. >
  
  I'm not sure I'd consider her Catholic. That's like considering a Mormon to be Christian. >
  
  Except Mormons are Christian. They worship Christ. There’s a ton of doctrine they also believe in that other Christians would consider blasphemous, but they still identify as Christians and are definitionally Christian. You can’t “no true Scotsman” them out of Christianity. >
  
  Definitely doesn't fall under that fallacy.
  ~~Their~~ Smith's addendums are considered blasphemous by Christians because they would be the "false prophets" that are prophesied in their holy text.
  That text also warns against such addendums.
  Also, the advocation of slavery and polygamy by it's founder, among other things. >
  
  Okay, I’ll admit, your first comment didn’t use any “no true Scotsman” claims. I just expected you to use that because religious gatekeepers typically do.
  But your examples don’t add up. Slavery and polygamy are biblical. The Book of Mormon didn’t support polygamy, it was the bible that Joseph Smith used as justification for taking additional wives. It was the Bible that he referenced when making up “the law of Sarah” to tell his first wife Emma that she was ordered by god to let him marry other women. 
  Not to mention, there were many Christians sects of that day that were pro-slavery. The slavers of the American south at the time were Christians and could point to examples of slavery in the Bible as justification for slavery. A few pro-slavery Mormon leaders was hardly unusual.
  And so many Christians from all sorts of backgrounds claim to be prophets. Even more common is Christians writing books to teach people about their religion. People who don’t agree will describe it as blasphemy, but that doesn’t make them less Christian. It makes them a different sort of Christian. >
  
  Slavery and polygamy are certainly in the bible, but I'd argue they aren't advocated.
  People have used the Bible as a tool to control and manipulate for a very long time.
  Sure, many people who call themselves Christians do all sorts of things contrary to Christianity. That's on them.
  I'm not talking about some random preacher in the confederacy.
  I'm talking about the very founder of Mormonism, who considered himself a prophet ordained by God, advocated for slavery and polygamy.
  Every follower of every religion has their own interpretation, and I don't see an issue with that until you're trying to tell people that only your interpretation is correct. >
  
  People use the Bible to control and manipulate because it’s the perfect tool for control and manipulation. It’s so vague and contradictory that anyone can cherry-pick any message they want from it. 
  Sorry, but I just find your reasoning for excluding Mormons from Christianity to be flimsy. Even if they have all the additions that other Christians might find blasphemous, they still follow Jesus Christ. Other Christians might say they’re doing it wrong, but worshipping Jesus as their savior makes them Christians. >
  
  Now tell us the story about what Jesus did to the money changers in the temple. Tell that one next. >
  
  Jesus whipped people because they were selling things in church. This is a no-no only the church is allowed to sell things in church. And then everyone clapped. >
  
  Serious question. What does the treasure of the Vatican do for the Catholic people? For the “church”? >
  
  The buildings can be beautiful. >
  
  Also Jesus could create food out of nothing and raise people from the dead, cash in hand isn’t a major concern for the son of god. >
  
  That was the alpha version of Jesus. There have been so many versions since then, from a crusader to fighting commies. The current version, “Jesus 2022 Extreme MAGA Edition”, carries an AR-15 and a fist full of greenbacks.
  In short, man creates their gods in their own image. The world is an increasingly selfish and unjust place, so we get a selfish and unjust Jesus. >
  
  But Jesus wasn’t selfish or unjust. >
  
  Which Jesus? The gay-hating white guy who lots of mega-churches worship, or the middle-eastern hippie who washes people’s feet? >
  
  In that case I guess the Vatican secret archives will soon be opened for everyone to access and visit? Since they shouldn’t be power-hungry they should be glad to share this knowledge with us poor plebeians. >
  
  The Vatican Secret Archive was actually renamed Vatican Apostolic Archive back in 2019. It's been open to the public for decades and a digitization effort has created millions of digital images.
  It's really like any other state archive, not unlike the National Archives in the US. They declassify materials on a regular basis once it's past a certain time period. Most materials from before 75 years ago are available and some more recent materials have also been declassified at the discretion of the pope. >
  
  Putting aside the hypocrisy of this coming from the Catholic Church, the Facebook comments I saw on this story were also absurd. There were people arguing that since one of the disciples was a treasurer, that had to mean that Jesus was actually quite wealthy because poor people don’t have treasurers. Modern Christians will do any mental gymnastics they can to justify their way of living. >
  
  I especially loved his bulletproof JesusMobile. And how he protected his apostles from child molestation charges by moving them to different villages. >
  
  Add in 'dressing in high drag' and I think you've basically written the Pope's job description. >
  
  Being able to do sick death drops is a must. >
  
  Franciscans: "OH REALLY MISTER POPE!?" >
  
  Laughs in Jesuit corruption >
  
  So when are they gonna sell off the Vatican’s real estate, property, artwork and other valuables and start preaching from a simple shack with wooden benches? >
  
  "Just sell everything and forget about our 2000 years of history written in all things we own" - the Catholic Church, probably never >
  
  Nothing in the Vati is older than 1600 years, and the "Vatican City" wasn't founded until 1929. We can repaint when they move. >
  
  The Vatican itself is what’s left of the Roman Empire. It never truly fell, it just rebranded >
  
  Okay I realize his parents not being able to do much with the frankincense and myrrh but what the hell did they do with the gold?