Vatican Calls for World Central Bank

[jmdrake]

I think you may be making some bad assumptions on jmdrake's religious beliefs.

Good point. One of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the belief that church tradition is equal to the Bible. Here's an example:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

The idea of the "living teaching authority" of the church is similar to the idea of the constitution being a "living document".

 

[hazek]

Do you have a way to draft a document in such a way that it is flexible enough to meet the needs of a changing society that evolves over centuries and yet is rigid enough that people claiming to follow it can't corrupt the institution set up to follow it? I'm willing to bet the answer to that question is "no". But prove me wrong. Anything that's written is open to interpretation. But the worst part about both the U.S. constitution and the Bible isn't how they were written but that most people who claim to be living by them haven't read it. People think some things must be constitutional because they've been "done that way" long enough that "it must be true". The value of a constitution is to have at least something to point to and say "We shouldn't be doing that". The works of Ayn Rand are probably open to interpretation as well.

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer yours?

 

[specsaregood]

Have you been to the Vatican?
GOLD everywhere

They should start their own private gold-backed currency/bank where holdings are backed in gold. I'd probably use it.

 

[jmdrake]

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer yours?

I answered the question with a question. But since you didn't understand the answer I'll spell it out for you. No it doesn't bother me because I don't believe that you or anyone else could have or can do a better job in writing down something that won't ever be co-opted. I remember you used to be all ga-ga over Zeitgeist. But ZG has turned out to be a socialist movement. I also believe that if people spent more time actually reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, and less time arguing over it, corrupt institutions like the Vatican never would have existed in the first place and monstrosities like communism never would have arisen.

 

[moostraks]

When will people wake up and realize that every movement in the world, whether it's a "religious" movement or a secular one, can be co-opted and warped? Religion isn't the problem. Hierarchies, religious or otherwise, are the problem. Jesus specifically taught His followers not to set up a hierarchy. But that happened anyway.

Anything that's written is open to interpretation. But the worst part about both the U.S. constitution and the Bible isn't how they were written but that most people who claim to be living by them haven't read it.

awesome again jm!!!

I think the problems are when the systems are originally established by individuals with altruistic intentions and they are then passed on to later generations who loose the intentions of the original foundations. Nefarious individuals then take advantage of others...

 

[Demigod]

Good point. One of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the belief that church tradition is equal to the Bible. Here's an example:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

The idea of the "living teaching authority" of the church is similar to the idea of the constitution being a "living document".

What about orthodox Christians?

 

[jmdrake]

What about orthodox Christians?

T.E.R. is the RPF expert on Orthodox Christians. My understanding from him is that they accept church tradition up to the time of the "great schism" and beyond that I'm really not at all sure.

 

[OrigSEOH]

The local food store called the Krogers is one of my favorite GODS, I praise and worship that temple. I told them I would pledge 8 hours a day to their organizational pyramid, but at last they said I was not worthy. I always thought I only had one god I bowed to; it seems that I have many I worship and pay homage to. I'm thinking its bad enough we have to be in a constant state of rebellion against the "private" sector GODS that provide our wants and needs. We have to rebel against the government GODS, also.

Doesn't it bother you that the way your religion is taught, the way the Bible is written allowed this co option of the highest authority in the most influential religious institution in the world to happen making it the most corrupt? Doesn't it bother you that although there are some universally good ethical advice in what you believe that there's also stuff in there criminals can use to manipulate people and rob them of their freedom and wealth? You know, kind of like the U.S. Constitution?

Doesn't that bother you at all?

 

[zerosdontcount]

Sell the Vatican, Feed the World

 

[hazek]

I remember you used to be all ga-ga over Zeitgeist. But ZG has turned out to be a socialist movement.

Not the same thing. I believe it's portrayal of religion and how it probably started but that doesn't mean I religiously hang on everything it portrayed. I especially disagreed with their suggestions that it made in part 2 and 3 and was never apart of the movement. In fact I strongly disagree with it.

As for your question: as an ancap I don't believe in governments or institutions but in a free society and a free market which certainly don't require a document but merely recognizing the truth of reality.

The worst part of the U.S. Constitution and the Bible is that they are both the founding documents of an institution that pretends to have a moral high ground in order to enslave it's subjects but is used for immoral purposes by those who run them but because of those illusions provided by the founding documents people have a hard time seeing the cage they're in.

 

[Krugerrand]

As people comment around here, they should keep in mind that Bush probably would not have won the presidency without pulling votes from Catholic democrats. McCain was unable to get those votes. (can we sing, Bomb Bomb Iran?)

Ron Paul's pro-life platform combined with his opposition to NAFTA and tendency to support things like school choice stand to be big political positives.

It would be sad if we turned those voters away.

 

[Simple]

The Vatican called for the establishment of "a supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions.

I too have been expecting this, but it came sooner than I expected =\

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/vatican-economy-idUKL5E7LO1LS20111024

 

[jmdrake]

Not the same thing. I believe it's portrayal of religion and how it probably started but that doesn't mean I religiously hang on everything it portrayed. I especially disagreed with their suggestions that it made in part 2 and 3 and was never apart of the movement. In fact I strongly disagree with it.

Right. That's why I said "you used to be all ga-ga over Zeitgeist". Part 2 was already out when you were trying to shove ZG part 1 down my throat. (And I pretty much ripped apart the "accuracy" of ZG part 1 multiple times. It's a joke of a documentary.) Really you're making my point for me. You found parts of ZG part 1 that you liked, you hadn't taken the time to fully learn about the rest, and you were blindly pushing it because of the part you like without understanding the whole. With the Bible and the constitution there are a lot of people that for better or for worse don't understand the whole. Those people are manipulated, not because there's anything wrong with the Bible or the constitution, but because they don't understand what it is they are attempting to follow.

As for your question: as an ancap I don't believe in governments or institutions but in a free society and a free market which certainly don't require a document but merely recognizing the truth of reality.

And how is the "truth of reality" supposed to be communicated? Word of mouth? Slick videos? When the Bible and the constitution were written the only options were to tell things orally or to write them down. When something's written down it's called a...you guessed it...DOCUMENT! But a document is only helpful to the extent that it's read. Oral tradition sucks because it's always open interpretation of the person doing the speaking. With a written tradition at least there's a possibility of verification. The reason the Vatican was able to get away with so much for so long was that most people couldn't read and very few could read the Biblical languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew etc). Stefan Molyneux could have written the original book. It wouldn't have mattered because the people transmitting the information to the unlearned masses could have just said whatever they wanted.

The worst part of the U.S. Constitution and the Bible is that they are both the founding documents of an institution that pretends to have a moral high ground in order to enslave it's subjects but is used for immoral purposes by those who run them but because of those illusions provided by the founding documents people have a hard time seeing the cage they're in.

Except the enslaving isn't being done by those following these "founding documents" but by those who are not. Why do you think Ron Paul is always quoting the constitution? It's not because the constitution is perfect, but rather because the worst problems we face come from straying away from this imperfect document.

 

[jmdrake]

As people comment around here, they should keep in mind that Bush probably would not have won the presidency without pulling votes from Catholic democrats. McCain was unable to get those votes. (can we sing, Bomb Bomb Iran?)

Ron Paul's pro-life platform combined with his opposition to NAFTA and tendency to support things like school choice stand to be big political positives.

It would be sad if we turned those voters away.

Are Catholics in general opposed to NAFTA?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

As people comment around here, they should keep in mind that Bush probably would not have won the presidency without pulling votes from Catholic democrats. McCain was unable to get those votes. (can we sing, Bomb Bomb Iran?)

Ron Paul's pro-life platform combined with his opposition to NAFTA and tendency to support things like school choice stand to be big political positives.

It would be sad if we turned those voters away.

Are you saying catholic democrats switched parties to vote for GWB instead of McShame in the GOP primaries? Seems unlikely to me.

 

[Krugerrand]

Are Catholics in general opposed to NAFTA?

This is solely my perception ...so take it for what it's worth .... but I generally see Catholics as union supporters. As such, they see NAFTA as a threat to US labor jobs, and thus a bad thing.

 

[Krugerrand]

Are you saying catholic democrats switched parties to vote for GWB instead of McShame in the GOP primaries? Seems unlikely to me.

Nope, I didn't mean to imply that. That was a general election statement comparing 2000 to 2008.

But, I plan on Ron Paul winning the primary, so I'm not in favor of offending any large voting block.

 

[moostraks]

This is solely my perception ...so take it for what it's worth .... but I generally see Catholics as union supporters. As such, they see NAFTA as a threat to US labor jobs, and thus a bad thing.

I see the same thing as well living in Ohio. They also don't seem to feel like these trade treaties are improving the lot of the individuals in the countries that receive the benefits at our expense. The only ones they see reaping rewards are those at the top of the mega corporations...

 

[hazek]

jmdrake don't put words in my mouth. I didn't used to be all over zeitgeist, I STILL believe it's portrayal of religion as accurate and you never really proved to me anything to the contrary.

I don't have this weird need that you seem to have that when you believe part of something to be true that the whole is also true.. For example I don't believe the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11 and I really despise Alex Jone's pompous style of propagating that belief but I do believe the government might have had at least at some level knowledge of an attack and they either intentionally or unintentionally dropped the ball in stopping it. I'm also highly suspicious of how WTC7 collapsed. What does this mean? It means I'm neither a truther nor do I believe the government to be completely innocent.

Same goes for Zeitgeist, or Ron Paul, or what ever. I alway try to take away the lessons that I believe to be the truth of the reality and strongly appose any bullshit I run into.


But I agree with you about what you said about how to communicate the truth of the reality. The meaning of documents can get lost if they aren't read properly except that isn't the case. Guess what, 2+2=4 can't be misunderstood. It's as true as it was 2000 years ago and people then and people today know what it means and that it's the truth of reality. How do we know it's true? We can test it empirically.

Do you think truth's about ethics and morality are any different? If the founders really wanted to communicate the truth, maybe instead of composing a founding document for an institution they should have written a document about an empirically verifiable truth.

 

[pcosmar]