Vatican Calls for World Central Bank

[Krugerrand]

...
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.
...

FYI, 2+2 = 11 in a Base-3 system.

 

[Xenophage]

I would be interested in getting Tom Woods take on this.

Maybe he'll come around to atheism.

 

[Bosco Warden]

ALLAH AKBAR!!

 

[Xenophage]

FYI, 2+2 = 11 in a Base-3 system.

FYI, 11 in a Base-3 system equals 4 in a Base-10 system, so what's your point?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Stop spreading around this Alex Jones, bullshit, New World Order, crap.

There is no such thing.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Any reasonable person looking at ZG part 1 and who compares its claims to the facts about ancient religions knows it's garbage. It makes claims not only about Christianity that aren't true, but about the religions that it's comparing Christianity to that aren't true. Still the bottom line is that you were pimping ZG part 1 before you knew about the socialism in parts 2 and 3. I'm not putting "words in your mouth". I'm stating facts. Quit trying to avoid the facts.

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.

What's "weird" about verifying facts about something? The fact is ZG 1 is bollocks. Khrishna wasn't crucified according to the Hindu religion. He was mistaken for a deer and shot in the foot. But ZG takes some bogus claim written in some unverified book by some French pseudo socialogist and promotes it as "Hindu gospel". And that still doesn't change the fact that you didn't know about ZG parts 2 and 3 until people here pointed it out to you. Had you done your homework you would have known that. What is "weird" is the fact that you can never admit you were wrong about anything.

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.

This isn't just a question of "style". There are some 9/11 "truth" movies that are total bollocks. There are movies that make strange claims about the airplanes being "holograms". ZG part 1 is like that when it comes to religion. Whether the ultimate thing ZG part was is trying to prove is true or not, it makes claims that are easily disproven to anyone with half a brain who isn't so totally biased that he can't see truth.

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.

Again, if you went back and did your homework on ZG part one you'd see it as bollucks. Again there are some 9/11 "truth" movies that I don't promote because I know they are bollocks. That's not "weird". It's prudent.

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.

And Jesus clearly said that He didn't want His church to be a heiarchy. That's as clear as "2+2=4". (And thanks Krugarrand for pointing out that in base 3, 2+2 = 11).

Matthew 20:24-26
New International Version (NIV)
24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.

That's plain as day. Hierarchies are against everything Jesus was about. So why do most (not all) churches have them? Because the plain words of Jesus have simply been ignored. For at least 1500 years or more the majority of Christiandom has been a hierarchy. People think it should be that way because it's been that way. That's not the fault of the book or its author.

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.

That would be the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Krugerrand]

FYI, 11 in a Base-3 system equals 4 in a Base-10 system, so what's your point?

The comment was intended to show that "2+2=4" can be misunderstood. Like much of what we 'know' it is based on presumptions that may change over time.

 

[jmdrake]

FYI, 11 in a Base-3 system equals 4 in a Base-10 system, so what's your point?

Probably that someone reading an equation 2+2 = ....and made the wrong assumption about the base would get the wrong answer.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Funny, I don't remember voting for anyone at the Vatican...

 

[RonPaulMania]

I'm always "shocked" when someone says something from a religious organization about the need for more centralization the cries of "collectivism" aren't screamed from the roof-tops. Oh, that's right collectivism is ok when it's a religion.

I'm a Catholic and this is not theological doctrine or dogma and therefore Catholics are free to disagree with it. The Vatican is full of NWO and socialist types, that doesn't mean they are all and it's a forced doctrine for Catholics to believe.

Take all the terrible slanders against the Catholic Church and put in "black" or "African" and you'll see the clear collectivism most of you idiots decry.

It's really smart to alienate the Catholic voting block with collectivism. Guys like myself, Woods, Napolitano, and other Catholics are individually an asset, but to collectivize us is a huge error.

 

[fisharmor]

What about orthodox Christians?

This is America, they don't count.

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.

I've not heard that before. My brother-in-law is an OCA priest and I'll be talking to him tonight, so I'll get a better answer.
My understanding is like this.
Nowhere in Scripture is the idea of the trinity totally spelled out.
There's no mandate to baptize infants, and no mandate not to baptize infants.
Celebration of the Eucharist every Sunday isn't in there either.

AFAIK these are all traditions in the Orthodox sense. There's ample evidence that these things should be done, but ultimately it's a particular understanding of the faith which calls for these.
Protestants of different stripes reject some of these things. Some of them do it in good conscience because of a misunderstanding or ignorance of Scripture.
The interesting thing about this is the number of protestants who reject tradition based on strict adherence to Scripture, which itself is a tradition.
Enter cognitive dissonance.

I understand the Orthodox position on tradition to be that it is what glues your faith together. Stuff that Christians tend to agree on but which isn't explicitly spelled out, like the trinity, tends to qualify.

Sola Scriptura just doesn't cut the mustard, and as a seriously straying cradle Lutheran I think I can say that. There's no definition of Sacrament in scripture, so adding the condition that Sacraments must be commanded by Christ is, to my knowledge, precisely what the Orthodox would call a Holy Tradition of Lutheranism. So is Sola Scriptura.

What tradition is not, to the orthodox, is an excuse to tinker. There never was a Limbo in orthodoxy. They still don't recite the Filioque in the Nicene Creed - this despite the orthodox I've heard say out loud that the orthodox probably would have accepted it if it was discussed in council. And that matter is nearly 1000 years old.

Even though the Filioque was the single material issue that the schism seemed to be about, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the only issue. For instance, no orthodox Christian is fond of Augustine. I've never heard them refer to him except to explain what "those other guys" think about an issue. So I suspect that things were festering for a while between east and west before the schism.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

Quoted for truth.

 

[jmdrake]

Like I said, T.E.R. is someone I consider an expert, not me. But here's something for you to consider regarding Sola Scriptura. How do you make sure that there is no "tinkering" unless deference is given to scripture over tradition? Take the whole "Limbo" thing. I suspect a Catholic would say "Well that doesn't contradict scripture because scripture doesn't say that it doesn't exist". (It does contradict Eccl 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten., but then a lot of commonly held belief about the afterlife contradict Eccl 9:5.) As for Augustine, his views on predestination, rejected by the Catholic church as a whole, seem to be the progenitor of Calvinism. So for the Orthodox church not to be too found of him isn't that different IMO.

This is America, they don't count.


I've not heard that before. My brother-in-law is an OCA priest and I'll be talking to him tonight, so I'll get a better answer.
My understanding is like this.
Nowhere in Scripture is the idea of the trinity totally spelled out.
There's no mandate to baptize infants, and no mandate not to baptize infants.
Celebration of the Eucharist every Sunday isn't in there either.

AFAIK these are all traditions in the Orthodox sense. There's ample evidence that these things should be done, but ultimately it's a particular understanding of the faith which calls for these.
Protestants of different stripes reject some of these things. Some of them do it in good conscience because of a misunderstanding or ignorance of Scripture.
The interesting thing about this is the number of protestants who reject tradition based on strict adherence to Scripture, which itself is a tradition.
Enter cognitive dissonance.

I understand the Orthodox position on tradition to be that it is what glues your faith together. Stuff that Christians tend to agree on but which isn't explicitly spelled out, like the trinity, tends to qualify.

Sola Scriptura just doesn't cut the mustard, and as a seriously straying cradle Lutheran I think I can say that. There's no definition of Sacrament in scripture, so adding the condition that Sacraments must be commanded by Christ is, to my knowledge, precisely what the Orthodox would call a Holy Tradition of Lutheranism. So is Sola Scriptura.

What tradition is not, to the orthodox, is an excuse to tinker. There never was a Limbo in orthodoxy. They still don't recite the Filioque in the Nicene Creed - this despite the orthodox I've heard say out loud that the orthodox probably would have accepted it if it was discussed in council. And that matter is nearly 1000 years old.

Even though the Filioque was the single material issue that the schism seemed to be about, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the only issue. For instance, no orthodox Christian is fond of Augustine. I've never heard them refer to him except to explain what "those other guys" think about an issue. So I suspect that things were festering for a while between east and west before the schism.

 

[donnay]

January 2, 2004 Pope John Paul II called for a New World Order.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/02/catholicism.religion

 

[low preference guy]

alternative title: Vatican Sells His Soul to the Devil

 

[ConvertedRepublican]

First of all, I am afraid this is a faction within the Vatican giving their own particular stand on forming a world economical entity.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=21986

What we must look at as Catholics are the papal encyclicals and our bishops in communion with the Holy Father. Catholicism has condemned usury....but that is not the same as the economic structure most of us live under that charge some interest on buying on credit.
This is not the first time people in the press have inflated individual and personal opinions by those at the Vatican.

What some priest or Cardinal says in the Vatican doesn't mean a hill of beans in regard to what the Church teaches or believes.
This just gives anti-Catholic bigots something to bitch about.

Divide and conqueror is what the enemy does. No matter what religion or non-religion you are. If you let them divide us, they win.

 

[Miss Annie]

I am simply wondering if we are going to make it to the 2012 elections?

When you look at all that is going on now....... it's hard to be hopeful.

 

[fisharmor]

Like I said, T.E.R. is someone I consider an expert, not me. But here's something for you to consider regarding Sola Scriptura. How do you make sure that there is no "tinkering" unless deference is given to scripture over tradition? Take the whole "Limbo" thing. I suspect a Catholic would say "Well that doesn't contradict scripture because scripture doesn't say that it doesn't exist". (It does contradict Eccl 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten., but then a lot of commonly held belief about the afterlife contradict Eccl 9:5.) As for Augustine, his views on predestination, rejected by the Catholic church as a whole, seem to be the progenitor of Calvinism. So for the Orthodox church not to be too found of him isn't that different IMO.

Well, full disclosure, I've got my feet in two worlds right now and I'm still only testing how firm it is in the one I'm talking about.
I've already found some squishy parts. For instance, liturgies used in the OCA contain some really sketchy things. One that stabs me in the pituitary gland every time I hear it is this: "Through the prayers of the Theotokos (Mary), o Savior, save us!"
Now, I ain't a fancy theologian, but I had always read that Christ's death and resurrection is what saves us.... so I don't have an answer for you.
I'm not saying that a tradition which recognizes that it is a tradition is better than a tradition which doesn't, or that it doesn't suffer from any problems.
I do think that the idea that RC or orthodox treat tradition preferentially to Scripture is not what they would say. It may be what they do, but it's what protestants do, too.

Whatever tradition I end up in, however, it's not going to be one which thinks it's ok to call for a world bank, or even has leaders who think this is more important to comment on than the gospel.

 

[pcosmar]

Divide and conqueror is what the enemy does. No matter what religion or non-religion you are. If you let them divide us, they win.

Most here oppose a One World Government, One World Currency, or One World religion.
Regardless of who's banner they are under. They Oppose them for several reasons.

I really don't care what your reason is for opposition. As long as you oppose them.

 

[devil21]

Looks like most of the Vatican has been covered in this thread so Ill just say that it's a financial institution first, a church far behind. A lot more financial power is wielded through the Vatican than most understand (Legatus...google it). It is the single largest corporation and land holder in the world and it's not even close.