home
RSS
Vatican calls for new global financial authority amid economic crisis
The new Vatican document cites Pope Benedict XVI's calls for putting ethical concerns over economic ones.
October 24th, 2011
01:35 PM ET

Vatican calls for new global financial authority amid economic crisis

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) - Against the backdrop of the European debt crisis and the birth of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Vatican on Monday called for a new “global public authority” to help reform the world’s finance and economic systems.

New ideologies are “reducing the common good to economic, financial and technical questions, (placing) the future of democratic institutions themselves at risk," said Roman Catholic Bishop Mario Toso at a Monday press conference.

The document, called "Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of a global public authority" quotes former Pope John Paul II in bemoaning the “idolatry of the market.”

The document calls for a new global economic authority that could impose penalties on member states as “way of ensuring that they possess efficient markets,” Toso said.

Some progressives embraced the Vatican’s call, arguing that it sounded many of the same themes as the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Thomas Reese, an influential priest at Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center, wrote in anticipation of the document’s release that it is “closer to views of the Occupy Wall Street movement than anyone in the U.S. Congress.”

“Not only will it be to the left of Barack Obama,” Reese wrote before the document’s release, “it will be to the left of Nancy Pelosi.”

Faith in Public Life, a progressive Washington-based group, applauded the document, calling it “a timely challenge to conservative political leaders eager to carve up the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law passed last year.”

The document is “far to the left of almost any politician in the United States (short of Rep. Bernie Sanders) and should also give pause to Democrats whose fundraising coffers spill over with contributions from a financial sector that has been allowed to run amok over the past three decades,” Faith in Public Life said in a statement.

Some conservatives pushed back on claims that the Vatican document aligns with the aims of Occupy Wall Street.

“There has been much hyperventilation from some quarters over the release of this document,” Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights President Bill Donohue said. “All of it is unwarranted.”

“Those who are comparing this text to the demands of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ crowd should first detail what exactly it is the urban campers want,” Donohue said in a statement.

Pope Benedict XVI has been following issues related to finance and global economy “with particular concern,” Roman Catholic Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson said on Monday.

The document was timed to help influence next week’s meeting of G20 nations, a group that comprises the countries with the world’s largest economies, Vatican officials said. It was released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The document echoes Benedict’s earlier pronouncements on the global economy, including a 2009 encyclical, or papal letter.

“Today's international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise," Benedict said in the letter, called "Charity in Truth."

"Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers," Benedict wrote, calling for “an ethics which is people-centered.”

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Money & Faith • Pope Benedict XVI

soundoff (344 Responses)
  1. Lets RevertBack

    It surely appears that if the world accepts the pope's rendition of what he believes should be happening to the economic world markets and crisis situations we would surely be reverting back in time to when the popes ruled with supreme authority and they were not to be opposed. Their word was LAW and FINAL! Remember, if you oppose the pope's declaration, you are not a Christian believer! Heed that, people, and repent NOW and become a Christian for the Number 666 is closely at hand in today's world!

    October 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • TheTruth72

      Don't forget to still pray for those that are being led by false teachers.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Reminder Thanks

      TheTruth72, Thank you for the reminder! I will surely pray for those oppressed by current Republican control in Congress! Thanks again.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  2. HotAirAce

    I don't trust Pope-a-Dope with spiritual matters – why would I trust him with something much more important such as finances?

    October 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • No Tea for Me Please

      Typical response from a GOP redneck.

      Doncha love the GOP tools? Feel like votin' with em' again??

      October 24, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @No Tea For Me Please, you could not be further from the truth! Here's a hint: I consider Pierre Elliot Trudeau to havecbeen our greatest Prime Minister.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • BG

      Careful, Ace. The Americans are going to build pipelines up your way to suck up all your fresh water. Then you'll really have something to bítch about.

      -slurp-

      Grass in Las Vegas! Hoo rah!

      October 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Why would you Americans build a pipeline into Canada for fresh water when you could just suck it up from your side of the Great Lakes? Or suck it up from the Red or Richelieu Rivers before they enter Canada and save us from almost annual flooding (of at least The Red River). You don't have to do everything the hard(est) way...

      That being said, if Ameica doesn't soon solve it's energy problem, I think it's more likely the USA will go after the Canadian Tar Sands, regardless of how dirty it might be.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • BG

      @ HAA

      The Red is brackish and the Richelieu is considered part of the Great Lakes aquifer territory subject to the Boundary Waters Agreement of 1909, the Niagara River Water Diversionary Treaty and the US/Canadian Great Lakes Water Agreement of 2005.

      Unless -you- want to give us the authority to just take what we need. We'll tell 'em that the 'Ace said it was ok. I guess we could use a copy of your 'ok' from this message board... Sure. That'll "hold water" with the Canadian government. We know that it wouldn't take much to convince them. We'll just build Ontario a new stadium or something... after all, who doesn't like a new stadium?

      And your oil sands? Forget 'em. We're going to make the Dakotas look like a pincushion in a few years.

      October 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @BG, sorry I assumed you were just going to take what you want. I suspect that no Canadian government will approve water pipelines (have to believe no public support) so the USA is probably going to have to invade. Shouldn't take you more than a couple of weeks to overwhelm us – unless you also try to shut down Canadian Tire or Tim Hortons in which case the true Canadian fighting spirit will be displayed and we'll be in Washington burning the White House (again!) before you know it.

      October 24, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • BG

      Overwhelm you? I hardly think you need any 'international' help with that. When I think of 'overwhelmed' Canadians, Bob and Doug McKenzie crushing Molson cans was the first thing that came to mind.

      Bob is walking down the street with a case of beer under his arm. Doug stops him and asks, "Hey Bob! Whacha get the case of beer for?" "I got it for my wife, eh." answers Bob. "Oh!" exclaims Doug, "Good trade."

      October 24, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
    • tallulah13

      I'll be pretty cheesed if you shut down Tim Horton's. Never had a doughnut there, but he was a worthy defenseman.

      October 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Psssssst! There's no ' in Tim Hortons!

      October 26, 2011 at 1:21 am |
  3. Central Scrutinizer

    What does the Vatican have to do with anything? Aren't they also seeking looser restrictions on child abuse? They should stay locked up in their "country", practice their arcane dogma, revel in their self-importance and leave the rest of alone. (Oh, and for my stalker, they should walk their bikes and shut their mouths!)

    October 24, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  4. CrazyPope

    THE POPE IS THE ANTICHRIST! Anybody familiar with book of revelation in the new testament? It calls for a one world financial system that is ruled over by the antichrist. So if this gets imposed, I'm claiming the pope (BENEDICT MIGHT I ADD-sound familiar-Benedict Arnold?) is the antichrist.

    October 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • JA

      i dont think he would be the antichrist. more like the false prophet. revalation talks about a beast that merges from the sea and one from the earth. The one from the sea would be the right hand man of the antichrist aka the false prophet. kinda makes sense with the whole perversion deal with the vatican and the catholic church.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • TheTruth72

      Many are quick to try to find out who the antichrist is. It most likely is not the pope. I'm 99% sure of this. The antichrist will swoon over the masses. Most non believers would not accept the pope as a leader. I believe the antichrist has not risen yet, but will use a massive event to usher himself in.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  5. Reality

    What do contemporary NT scholars conclude about the historic
    reliability papal infallibility

    (John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
    10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

    Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
    8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

    (from Professor Gerd Ludemann in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 198, (Matt 16: 18-19 "is inauthentic"

    1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See for example JD Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
    Francisco, 2004, p.105)

    2 Peter 1:20

    Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
    the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

    Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
    the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

    Covering all the issues:

    o “Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma (rather than metanoia) dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture nor an they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”

    October 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • TheTruth72

      Ctrl + V much? Now if only you knew what you pasted.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Reality

      What do contemporary NT scholars conclude about the historic
      reliability of papal infallibility:

      (developed from the studies of the following NT scholars,
      H.S. Reimarus
      R. Bultmann
      E. Kasemann
      Earl Doherty
      Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
      Alvar Ellegård
      G. A. Wells
      Gregory Riley
      Robert Eisenman
      John Dominic Crossan
      Robert Funk
      Burton Mack
      Stephen J. Patterson
      Marcus Borg
      Stevan Davies
      Geza Vermes
      Richard Horsley
      Hyam Maccoby
      Gerd Theissen
      Bart Ehrman
      Paula Fredriksen
      Gerd Lüdemann
      John P. Meier
      E. P. Sanders
      Robert H. Stein
      Karen Armstrong
      Albert Schweitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus)
      Mahlon Smith
      Karen Pagels)

      (John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
      10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

      Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
      8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

      (from Professor Gerd Ludemann in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 198, (Matt 16: 18-19 "is inauthentic"

      1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See for example JD Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
      Francisco, 2004, p.105)

      2 Peter 1:20

      Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
      the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

      Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
      the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

      Covering all the issues:

      o “Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma (rather than metanoia) dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture nor an they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”

      October 24, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • BG

      Personally, when it comes to discussions about the 'reliability of papal infallibility,' I prefer the works of Erich von Däniken.

      October 24, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • Guest

      Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste.....,,, ad nauseum again!

      October 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
  6. vincent

    Hypocrisy truly is boundless. The VATICAN BANK has more riches than many countries. How did it become so rich??
    GIVING TO THE POOR??. NO methinks it was more like taking from the poor

    October 24, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Shaun

      As a liberal, I'm finding myself more and more alienated by this idiotic College Freshman generalizations, that are being made by people on my side of the political spectrum. The Catholic Church is the second biggest provider of social services in America. Whose first THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Not to mention the fact that the church is the biggest charity in the world. Yes, there are some issues in the church but no organization is perfect. The church receives money from people who willingly give it to them. May I add Catholic church asks for much less than these fly by night evangelical churches.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • Spiffy

      @Shaun.

      As a white American I am getting tired of blah blah blah.

      You see how I added that I was white and that made what I am about to say no less or more valid?

      If the church were so concerned with the poor they would sell their gigantic cathedrals and all their other monetary wealth and give it to the poor. Seeing how they haven't and continue to hold the largest amount of wealth in the world I find the Roman Catholic Church to be hypocritical.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  7. Jose

    Again conservatives are unable to refute or contradict the premises and message of the Occupy Movement. They can only call names, use straw man's fallacies and insults such as the "urban camper" slur used by this conservative Wall St. apologist in an attempt to discredit the protesters to compensate his lack of logical arguments. Conservatives, are you going to call the Pope any dirty names to distract the public from his powerful message: That Corporations and the privileged class are using governments and legal instruments to keep an advantage over the working class, to obstruct the efforts for equal opportunity, fairness and moral and ethical precepts in market exchanges?

    October 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  8. Reality

    Christian economics/Greed 101:

    The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

    Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

    Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!

    The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens/Evangelicals et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

    An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

    "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

    Some of Paul's money gathering activities some of which resulted in buying the Gentile entry into the then mostly Jewish version of Christianity:

    Paul claimed almost total independence from the "mother church" in Jerusalem.[12] and yet was eager and diligent to bring material support from the various budding Gentile churches that he planted to the mother church at Jerusalem.

    When a famine occurred in Judea, around 45–46,[24] Paul and Barnabas journeyed to Jerusalem to deliver financial support from the Antioch community.[25] According to Acts, Antioch had become an alternative center for Christians following the dispersion of the believers after the death of Stephen. It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called "Christians."[Ac. 11:26]. This act basically "greased" the entry of non-circu-mcised Gentiles into Christianity.

    "Paul collected the money from his four provinces, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia but, for obvious reasons, of propriety, had representatives take each province's own contribution".

    October 24, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • Guest

      Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste..... ad nauseum

      October 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  9. Kali

    Uhm... hmmmm...The Vatican tried this before. "Templar Knights"

    October 24, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
  10. mikey

    One world currency will happen, might not be paper though maybe a marking perhaps a microchip?

    Can put my life on it.

    October 24, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
  11. John_Antidote

    I suggest everyone reading this addy area themselves or reminds themselves of the facts discussed in these films:
    "Zeitgeist Addendum" and most recently "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" after the information discussed is understood then we can talk...

    $ < Love

    October 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  12. KK

    This HYPERVENTILIZATION of those that have seen this on 'wallstreet' seems to be a 'ruse'. If the CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY WANTS to make things 'right with the people'...then why not OPEN UP THE COFFERS OF THE RIDICULOUSLY RICH CATHOLIC CHURCH AND FEED THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD! Don't create more 'sanctions' for poor countries! The Occupy movement isn't the PROBLEM HERE...the KONTROL ON THE PLANET STARTING WITH ALL RELIGIONS and BOUGHT POLITCIANS IS THE PROBLEM!

    October 24, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Scott

      yeah, ridiculously rich...

      They have an estimated 1.8 billion USD in assets (land, art, etc) and 60 million in income per year. Their budget is usually between 50-100 million. Of that, 66% is spent on charitable and philanthropic ventures, and the rest on running what effectively amounts to a global company.

      Harvard has 37 billion dollars in assets, and had a budget in 2009 of 650 million dollars.

      Go bug a university, not a religion based around giving back to others, ok?

      October 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
  13. Inevitable

    Ethics and Business? Oxymoron indeed!
    What else can we expect from a market that worships 'Greed'
    Thanks Pope for that sage advice.

    October 24, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • Equation

      When you start taking God out of moral codes what else do you expect?

      October 24, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Brian

      When you remove God out of capitalism then there is no higher authority that the rich need to answer too.

      First we took God out of schools, so now it's only logical that greed should rule. After all it would be illogical to not be greedy if there wasn't a God. After all, it would be about survival and about how much you can get. In this scenario the only charity that exists is charity that serves to benefit the giver more then the receiver.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • What

      "When you start taking God out of moral codes what else do you expect?"

      Less genocide, more Caananites?

      October 24, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Ralph

      @Brian: “First we took God out of schools” Typical Christian over exaggeration. What we took out of schools was forced indoctrination into your cult by removing mandatory prayer. Most Christians are such spoiled brats, if they can’t have the whole pie to themselves they through a temper tantrum and claim everything has been taken from them

      October 25, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  14. hippypoet

    the pope can ask for whatever he wants...like a child, that doesn't mean he is going to get it. I have said many times over again that the planet would be a better world if we had a global currency, but hey what do I know!

    October 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • J.W

      That would never happen. It would take away from certain countries ability to manipulate the global economy.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • Samwise

      I think the planet would be better off without the satanic cabal plotting to takeover the world and introduce the New World Order. The very same cabal was spotted worshiping Molek in the woods of California, and performing a "cremation of care". In other words, offering a mock child sacrifice to an owl god in order to remove their empathy or caring. These are the same people who run Wall Street, work in the government, and run the media. Don't believe me? Look it up!
      Alarm bells going off yet? Are you people going to wake up soon? You better wake up real fast because time is running out, and the cabal's plans have almost reached fruition: bring America to her knee's by purposely crashing the economy and introducing the NAU (North American Union), and a new currency called the Amero. This satanic cabal wants to reduce the worlds population down to a more manageable level by instigating a nuclear war and then hiding in underground bunkers they created under the Denver International Airport. Google the "Georgia Guidestones" to see what they have planned. Remember, their philosophy is – the best place to hide is right out in the open.

      So no, we don't need a new global currency. We need to find root-out these people and put them in jail for the rest of their days. If we don't, we're all dead. Literally.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @J.W. whats the need to manipulate the global economy? if every country is only out to manipulate then we all are selfish littler beings on a big planet without the reckonnigtion of such truths. Once a group of country leaders are put in place to ensure that no other country is outted due to lack of contribution then the global currency can start. also the group would be making sure every country contributes in one way or another. revolving doors is the only way government can work properly.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Samwise

      Was this revealed to you by the Lizard King?
      The evidence of teh true consipracy is on your crot/ch right now.
      Look at your zipper and you'll most likely find that it was manufactured by the YKK people.
      For decades, they have been showing the world that they would have us all by the balls by the year 2,000 (Y2K) and so they have!
      To escape the doom that shall be wraught upon every man, woman and child by the Zipper Cabal, you must remove your pants at once!

      October 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @hippy

      I think having a global currency seems like a good idea in theory, but look at the Euro right now, it was strong but the eurozone is tanking because the smaller nations with bad fiscal policy (like Greece) are basically making the entire eurozone implode. There's also the problem with the PPP of this currency, would one global dollar by me the same thing in London as it would in NY, what about Johanseburg or Beunos Aires? Until we can all unite under a global hegemony (peacefully) and start running the globe as a singular nation, a global currency does not make sense if you keep national borders up.

      @Samwise
      *Faceplam*

      October 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • J.W

      You will never get a large group of countries to work together for a common good. Different countries and different leaders have their own agenda. Some countries know they can manipulate the value of their currency for their own advantage and they are not going to give up their ability to do that. That is like their way of gaining power.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • hippypoet

      as much as i agree that it will most likely fail like the euro at this moment...i will ask you this – is it better not to try at all if failure is the end no matter of how one has lived? i find that by at least trying one gains wisdom to be used later.

      old proverb- one thousand mistakes and still equal one perfection.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Samwise

      @Doc – You are hopelessly lost. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @hippy

      as much as I would love to give it a whirl and see how it works out or not, apart from the insurmountable obstacle of actually doing it, I don't think attempting to experiment with a global currency that will most likely fail really works will lead people to say "ok, check that one off the list" while places fall into economic ruin.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • hippypoet

      the idea of the euro is exactly what i mean...the north american note is the same idea....once we start doing stuff along those lines we are on the right path to a global currency. these are the testing days so the hopeful furture!

      October 24, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
  15. donnamarinchekmarn01

    Wrong Place for a Religion "Blog"....

    October 24, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • Sean

      Belief not religion. Feel free to look usp the definitions for further explanation.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  16. donnamarinchekmarn01

    "20"

    October 24, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  17. Colin

    Ten signs you are a Catholic.

    1. You believe that the pope has personal conversations with God (that nobody else ever hears) and is infallible when he elects to speak “from the chair” on matters of Church doctrine. You then wistfully ignore the fact that Church doctrine changes and that former popes therefore could not possibly have been “infallible”. Limbo, for example, was touted by pope after pope as a place where un-baptized babies who die go, until Pope Benedict XVI just eradicated it (or, more accurately, so watered it down as effectively eradicate it in a face saving way). Seems all those earlier “infallible” Popes were wrong – as they were on Adam and Eve v. evolution, heliocentricity v. geocentricity, immaculate conception, the nonsense of the bodily asendence of Mary to heaven, and a host of other issues that required an amendment of official Church doctrine. You also ignore the innumerable murders, rampant corruption and other crimes committed over the centuries by your “infallible”, god-conversing popes.

    2. You reject the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours. You are blissfully (or intentionally) blind to the fact, that had you been born in another part of the World, you would be defending the local god(s) and heralding the incorrectness of Catholic beliefs.

    3. You begrudgingly accept evolution (about a century after Darwin proved it and after accepting Genesis as literally true for about 2,000 years) and that Adam and Eve was totally made up, but then conveniently ignore that fact that your justification for Jesus dying on the cross (to save us from Original Sin) has therefore been eviscerated. Official Church literature still dictates a belief in this nonsense.

    4. You disdain native beliefs as “polytheist” and somehow “inferior” but cannot explain (i) why being polytheistic is any sillier than being monotheistic. Once you make the quantum leap into Wonderland by believing in sky-fairies, what difference does if make if you believe in one or many?; nor (ii) why Christians believe they are monotheistic, given that they believe in god, the devil, guardian angels, the holy spirit, Jesus, many demons in hell, the Virgin Mary, the angel Gabriel, thousands of saints, all of whom apparently make Earthly appearances periodically, and all of whom inhabit their life-after-death lands with magic-sacred powers of some kind.

    5. You bemoan the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don`t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees or the 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf (or the dozen or so other slaughters condoned by the bible). You also like to look to god to for guidance in raising your children, ignoring the fact that he drowned his own – according to your Bible.

    6. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that God impregnated Mary with himself, to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself to “forgive” an ”Original Sin” that we now all know never happened.

    7. You criticize gays as sinners, but have no problem when Lot got drunk and committed father-daughter in.cest (twice) or offered his daughters to a mob to be gang ra.ped, or when Abraham, time and again, offered his wife as a $ex toy to save his own skin.

    8. You believe that your god will cause anyone who does not accept your Bronze Age stories to suffer a penalty an infinite times worse than the death penalty (burning forever in excruciating torture) simply because of their healthy skepticism, yet maintain that god “loves them”.

    9. You will totally reject any scientific breakthrough that is inconsistent with your established doctrine, unless and until it is so generally accepted as to back you into a corner. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you of the deep inanity of your silly faith, some priest doing magic hand signals over bread and wine is enough to convince you it is thereby transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus because of the priest’s magic powers (or “sacred powers” to the extent you see a difference).

    10. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to Lourdes, Fátima and other magic places and prayers in general. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. The remaining 99.99% failure was simply “god moving in mysterious ways”. The fact that, if you ask for something repeatedly, over and over, year after year, sooner or later that thing is bound to happen anyway, has not even occurred to you. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

    11. You accept the stories in the Bible without question, despite not having the slightest idea of who actually wrote them, how credible these people were or how long the stories were written after the alleged events they record occurred. For example, it is impossible for Moses to have written the first five books of the Old Testament, as Catholics believe. For one, they record his death and events after his death. In fact, the chance of the Bible being historically accurate in any but the broadest terms is vanishingly small.

    Heavens, I could not fit them into ten.

    October 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • Scott

      I had to stop reading after you made the jibe about Papal Infallibility, correctly stated that it only applies when the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra" (from the chair/throne) but then proceeded to point to a bunch of decisions as "changeable" that were never spoken "ex cathedra" to begin with. As far as known, there are only two decisions that are definitely "ex cathedra" and those relate to the position of Mary. There are a few others that *might* qualify, but it is disputed. In other words, all those examples you specified: limbo, heliocentricity, etc. were never considered infallible.

      If you have a problem with the issue of Papal Infallibility, you're not alone, but at least understand where it has actually been applied. When you bother to post that much, you could at least do some fact checking.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • J.W

      I think the pope should make every statement from the chair, because that is the only way we will know it will be infallible. If he makes the statement away from the chair he may make a mistake.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Colin

      Scott, I am pointing out areas where the popes were wrong, both when purporting to be infallible and when simply purporting to know everything when they obviously didn't.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Carlos

      As a once atheist now catholic seminarian young adult, this sounds like the top 10 signs that you are ignorant about Catholicism; pretty common views of someone that has something personal against Catholicism (bad personal experience perhaps) or any other faith they protrude such strong opinions on. While it is good and necessary to point to the bad of any group/culture (religious or not), you must also be rational about the totality and not get stuck in your emotion. Maybe I’m just being naïve, you be the judge.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • UltraAtheist

      you sir, are a genius

      October 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • HellBent

      @Carlos,

      Then why not actually point out where Colin is wrong. He posts this often and people often scream about the ignorance of the post, but almost never backs those claims up with counterarguments (@Scott's argument is probably the first I've ever seen that does).

      October 24, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Scott
      Papal Infallibility extends beyond when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra.
      For example, The Congregation for The Doctrine of the Faith stated that Pope JP II's assertion that the priesthood be male only is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

      Before he became Pope, Benedict wrote an article laying out some (though not all) of the Catholic tenets considered to be infallible. You can read it here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

      October 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • HellBent

      @Scott – regarding the argument that only two statements have been made under the veil of infallibility – the weakness of this viewpoint is that the church didn't officially solidify what was formally infallible until the 19th century, though the notion had been around nearly 800 years prior. When you redefine the concept its easy to restructure your definition around previous pontiff's obviously incorrect claims. That it took the church over 1800 years to figure out what was infallible and what wasn't should be enough to raise one's eyebrows.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Colin

      Doc, thanks for the cite.

      Scott et. al., it says the following with resepct to church doctrine that one must believe.

      "Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda". Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."

      Indeed Benedict XVI just wrote to a bishop in Toowoomba, Australia, declaring hthat Benedict's views on the ban on female priests was "infallible".

      October 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      Colin, you idiot.

      The Holy Roman Catholic Church, by arrangement between Jesus of Nazareth and his friend Peter, runs things on earth on behalf of God.

      They are thus allowed a little leeway to make things go in the overall correct direction.
      God does not bother much with details.

      Consider God owner of The Company.
      He has ofcourse employed people to run it.

      And God does generally not micro-manage.

      The Holy Roman Catholic Church are thus the Herdsmen of God.
      Wether they take the sheep to grass on this pasture or that, matters fuçk all to God.

      And whatever transgretions The Church happens to make or not make, are ofcourse forgiven by God. This is Earth and people are complete idiots, and God knows this.

      If The Church has to make adaptations from time to time in order to save anyone at all, so be it.

      God deals directly with The Pope.
      The rest of you can, by and large, go phukk yourselves.

      Hope this cleared matters up for you, you filthy little sinner.

      G.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Colin

      So Gabriel, care to point out anything I got wrong, or are you happy just to vent?

      October 24, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • J.W

      Gabriel do you think that historical Jesus would be in favor of what the Catholic church has done?

      October 24, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • J.W

      Oh I think maybe he was just joking. I cant tell.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "If The Church has to make adaptations from time to time in order to save anyone at all, so be it."

      Just like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, right?
      Once in a while, a divine revelation comes down that renders moot any unpopular tenets, like polygamy and insti/tutionalized racism.
      They are the arbitors of the Third Testament, known as the Book of Mormon, just as the Vatican rules the New Testament.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • Sam

      @Colin...Stupidity and ignorance have no bounds and you proved it by your comments.....You have just made a fool of yourself with your ignorant and uneducated comments....Here is a tip before you go about posting something: READ UP and educate yourself first......And before we go about talking about your obvious ignorance why dont you first state what do you believe in and where you 'belong'

      October 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      @ Colin: I did not bother to read all of what you wrote.

      @ Some other dude (cannot remember his name) who asked about the historical Jesus:

      Yes, the Historical Jesus is in general very happy with the Holy Roman Catholich Church. The only sad thing is that they gave up burning witches and blasphemers.

      Allthough it is understandable that they did not have the stommach for it, it is still sad.
      Had they kept it up, major problems like Feminism (A.K.A The Whöre of Babylon) could have been avoided.

      But then again, it was prophesized to come and thus had to, so all in all He is very happy with His Church.

      G.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Chuckles

      It's actually shocking that after you (Colin) post this all over the place you generally attract a lot of people who call you ignorant, foolish, sinner and so on yet most people do not try and refute your statements or even engage in debate on why one or all are wrong. Maybe its a testament to how ridiculous religious practice sounds when actually stated out loud, or the fact that they believe that since you aren't a catholic there's a special thing about your list that you don't understand.... in any case I challenge just about any catholic out there to really after the points Colin is making instead of attacking the poster himself. Scott did an admirable job though has since gotten equally valid responses, but at least hes trying!

      October 24, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • fred

      @Gabriel
      You seem to be a Catholic so perhaps you could help with a question. The Bible says christians are not to talk with the dead. How does this square with Catholic prayers that go to Mary, and all the various Saints? Thanks

      October 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • J.W

      How could the historical Jesus be happy with it? It did not exist in its current form if it existed at all back then. The controversial events had not happened yet either. I do not think that Jesus commissioned Peter to start the Catholic church. There is little in scripture that is evidence of that, unless you use the far-fetched interpretation of the Matthew 16 passage.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      @ Fred: Mary is alive and well.
      @ J.W: and so is the historical Jesus.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • Sam

      So outta curiosity JW....May I ask if you are you a Christian? If so, what is your source of doctrines? Where does your faith come from?

      October 24, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • J.W

      OK well you still have not answered the question. After all that has happened how could he still be happy with it. Would approve of the Crusades, Inquisition, financial corruption, and s.exual abuse? I know some of that stuff happens in other churches but not nearly as much.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • J.W

      Yes I am Christian. The doctrines of my church come from the Bible.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • fred

      Chuckles
      Colin
      I did not respond because I do not know enough about the Catholic faith to even ask a question yet alone make a comment. I was blown away when Gabriel says Mary is alive and well....................? It has been 2,000 years so she cannot be alive and well. Then again I talk with Jesus so I best just lay low for while.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      @Sam,

      Can you actually point, specifically, to where Colin is wrong? Your response is typical of this post – lots of accusations, no substance.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • Sam

      The response to him depends on whether the person asking the question is an atheist, agnostic, fellow christian or believes in a different religion.

      If as an atheist you ask me proof that God exists, then I will ask you to prove evolution....You are assuming that a lightning struck a puddle and hence the first cell was formed...Isnt that what Darwin said? So if you can believe that although scientists have proven evidence that the probability of that happening is close to 'zero', why cant I believe that a God exists and he created this world.

      And the next point is how will you explain origin, destiny, purpose and where your morality comes from? If you believe that everything is left to subjective relativism, then our conversation will not make sense and heck....LIFE will not make sense...So Why would you even ask for an explanation from me

      October 24, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      @Sam,

      When you completely dodge the question it exposes the fact that you have no counter argument. Take a single one of Colin's points listed above and refute it. Easy enough. I won't be holding my breath.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Sam

      @JW...The bible that you talk about was not even put together till 392AD....And it came from the church...So how can you base your doctrines on the bible alone....Infact the bible itself says that the foundation and pillar of truth is the Church...So how can you prove that the bible ALONE is the authority for doctrines.....It was a heretical teaching taught by Luther and Calvin....Sola scriptura is a man made doctrine that is NOT found in the bible...The bible does not come with a table of contents saying what books belong to the bible....The church had to tell you that....The bible came from the church...It was not the other way around.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Sam

      You do realize that evolution and the origin of life are two very distinct things right? Evolution only deals with the life that existed and currently exists, it has nothing to say on the matter of HOW life first began. For your first question about proof of evolution, look at the fossile record, look at the animals around you now. We have many different specimans showing a progression from complex to more complex versions of themselves. You an start huffing and puffing about missing links (like our dear friend chad) but the point he fails to miss (and I hope you don't miss this is) is that the principal of evolution is accepted, its just the specific "how's" that we're looking for.

      As for origin of life, I can believe that life can about my meteor impacts that brought liquid water and maybe some other type of organism to earth, or that lightening strikes caused the electrification of cells who then started moving and became life. You can believe god pointed his finger at the earth and said "zap" and everything came to being. They're both theories, mine just happens to be more logical (which, doesn't that say something about the craziness of YOUR belief?) the real heart of the matter though is that we can both believe what we want, but if you want to make little children believe your side so much that you won't allow them to study both theories critically, without bias and furthermore try and remove all the theories that are accepted by a great many people simply because it clashes with your religion, then we do have a problem.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Matthew

      1. The Bible doesn't praise Lot but rather puts that into the Bible to show his sinfulness. You have several points in here which illustrate your lack of understanding of theology or the Bible.

      2. My sister is a scientist and she can tell you that there is plenty of evidence to support the account in Genesis.

      3. Deuteronomy (the book Moses died in) was co-written by Joshua. Also Genesis was mostly stories of the Hebrew race passed down that Moses wrote down into an account.

      4. I do not believe in the Pope, I am protestant. However, please learn more about people's beleifs before you criticism them.

      October 24, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @matthew

      Please, give me at least one instance where science actually supports the accounts of genesis and reconciles all the contradictions, maybe like the earth being created before the sun, or light being created before the sun as well, or plants living for a full day (however you define what day means) before the sun was created, or the order of animals?

      Please, at what point does Gensis dip into scientific fact?

      October 24, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      @ Fred: Mary is just fine, don`t worry about Her.
      @ JW: The historical Jesus, is as I have mentioned a couple of times now, very happy with His Church.

      As for the Crusades and the Inquisition, He has no trouble with that.
      As for the financial corruption, and the s.exual abuse, those are unfortunate.

      But all in all He`s happy with The Church, apart from a few minor mishaps.
      You see, were I come from we have a saying.

      It goes like this:

      One must always take into account a little spoilage in big corporations.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Gabriel

      Wow...... just.....wow. First of all, it may just be me but I'm pretty sure most people can safely say that Mary is in fact dead and has been for quite a while now. Do you have a 2,000 year old woman locked up somewhere that no one knows about?

      As for Jesus..... well, you think he would be completely fine with the inquisition and the crusades? Really? Even after all that "turn the other cheek", "love thy enemy" crap? Have you been having conversations with him that others should know about?

      Gabriel, you're starting to make fred, HeaveSent et al seem really sane right about now.....

      October 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • J.W

      The books that are in the Bible were decided on by the Catholic Church, but the Catholic church was not the one that wrote the books. I am not saying that churches should not have their own tradition, but there are Catholic traditions that contradict what is in scripture. And when the Bible says the church that does not mean the Catholic church in the sense of what the Catholic church is now. To say sola scriptura is heretical is basically saying that the Bible is heretical by the way.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Sam

      @Chuckles...wow wow wow...hold up...you are getting ahead of yourself.....You are assuming that your way of thinking is logical and everyone else is foolish if they dont agree with you......Firstly, you have no idea what the Catholic church's stand on evolution is.......The church does NOT disagree with evolution....You can go and search for material on where the Catholic church stands as far as evolution goes......The disagreement is more on the Origin of life....You say that life arose due to a lightning striking a puddle and ZAP life was born.......And you say thats logical.....Here is a reality check...Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe......So is that LOGICAL? You are going by an assumption and I am basing my assumption on a faith that there was a creator.....I feel that is more logical to me and most people who believe in God.....You can reject it and I respect your point of view.....but you are not winning over anyone by disrespecting people who dont agree with you.....According to me you are feeding your children lies about origin of life even though there is proven evidence that your theory has a zero chance of occurring

      October 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      @Sam – the church most definitely disagrees with evolution. The church states that there was one person who was actually named Adam and one person who was actually named Eve and we are all descended from these two people. This is entirely inconsistent with the theory of evolution. The church can claim all it wants that evolution is a valid hypothesis (which is about as far as it goes) – but it wants to make special exemptions for the human race. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

      October 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Sam

      So JW...How do you know that who wrote John and who wrote Matthew? The bible doesnt tell you that...I am just refuting to the fact that you cant determine it yourself...So how can you go about believing that the doctrines it teaches is true.......Isnt it logical to ask that? You say the bible is your authority....I am asking you to prove it.....You defense cant be 'because the Catholic church is not what it was back then'...Prove your stand based on what you believe in...Why is the bible your sole authority? Where does it say in the bible?

      October 24, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Sam

      @Think for yourself...Its an irony that you use the name 'Think for yourself'.......First read for yourself what the Catholic church has to say about evolution and then think for yourself and then we can may be have a fruitful conversation.....What you think is NOT an indication of what the Church's stand is.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • HellBent

      @Sam,

      I'm really suspect of your probablility numbers – care to give us a reference.

      Just think about this. The odds of winning the lottery are, say, one in a million. That's many times greater than anyone's life span. But people still with the lottery. So your claim that 'proven evidence that your theory has a zero chance of occurring' is both illogical and false.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      @Sam,

      I posted a link to the Vatican's own website. I just reiterate what the Vatican says. Looks like you need to brush up on your catechism.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • J.W

      I am not saying it has to be the sole authority on everything. It does not bother me that you have traditions not found in the Bible. However some of your traditions are contradictory to the Bible. Just because the Catholic Church put together the original Bible does not mean that that could not have been done by any other church. And my point of what the Catholic church is valid when you claim that it is the one true church.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      @ Chuckles: Mary is just fine, thank you.

      As for The Church, they pretty much pray for forgiveness for their sins, I`d say on average, alot more than once a day, so why would He not forgive them?

      Does your servants never phukk up even the slightest?

      October 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Guest

      Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste, Cut & Paste..... ad nauseum

      This applies to you just as much as that other fool, Reality. You both are jokes.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Gabriel,

      Looks like I was duped by Poe's Law! Well done

      @Sam
      I have many different theories on the origin of life, any one of those could be right or they could all be wrong. Who knows (by the way your example with rybosomes only works if we didn't already identify that origin started with a single-celled organism – one single, simple cell). No matter if I'm right or wrong, I just know that I can't claime to be right because an ancient book told me so.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • J.W

      What is Poe's Law?

      October 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Sam

      @Chuckles.......both of our belief systems cant be proven explicitly....My logic says my way of looking at it is a safer option....although you may disagree.....So we can agree to disagree and not impose each others ideas on each other....and not disrespect the other persons point of view

      October 24, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • fred

      J.W
      Poe's law states that if you spend to much time on this topic instead of working you will become a very Poe man.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • J.W

      Really fred? that is strange.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      @JW: Poe`s law is just some internet crap some dude named Poe made up.

      It has nothing to do with the topic, so don`t worry about it. Just forget about it.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Sam

      @JW...Protestantism grew out of the idea of Sola scriptura.......everyone claiming that the bible is their authority......if you dont agree to that, you might have to disagree with your church on doctrines......Its not a surprise that there are 40000 protestant denominations each claiming that the bible is their authority......And that number is growing each day.....The bible itself says that the Chruch has the authority to bind and loose and is the pillar and foundation of truth.....If you say that the Catholic church that put together the bible is wrong, then in all probability Christianity might be wrong.....Think about it logically.....How can you believe that the people who put together the bible were not making a mistake...but then the church made a mistake later on......You cant have it both ways

      October 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • fred

      Chuckles
      Sam
      I can help you both out here. The Bible says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Then further on you see then "God made man from..." Note the difference between "Created "and "Made". That is the difference between evoution and origin of man. The good part is God created and made it was not a lightning strike.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • J.W

      The Catholic church did not sit down and write the Bible. The writings already existed. So just because I disagree with the Catholic interpretation does not mean I disagree with the Bible. Plus you assume that Jesus was talking about the Catholic church when he said the Church, but no such thing existed at that point.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      @ JW:

      It did exist. It just had fewer members.
      In the beginning it consisted mainly of family, friends and angels.

      But it grew. And now there´s a quite a lot of them.
      So there is good reason to be quite content with their efforts.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
    • Sam

      @JW...Jesus was talking about SOME Church......Lets take a walk back in history and see which churches fit the bill....Its either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church.....both of which are schismatic.....Their core doctrines is the same......And both of them believe in the bible and sacred tradition.....So now...How can you prove that your doctrines are correct and your church is correct? Jesus left us with a teaching authority and NOT the bible......You have to trust in the Church that not only put together the bible but ALSO wrote it......Jesus breathes on the apostles and gives them the authority of the church and the apostles passed on that authority to the early church fathers by laying hands on their heads and praying over them....Thats what the bible says......And btw Paul also says 'Hold forth to the teachings that have been handed over to you by writing or ORALLY'.......So how can you belive in the bible and reject sacred tradition.....All christians unanimously believed in sacred tradition until Protestantism came about

      October 24, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • J.W

      Why does it have to be the Catholic church? Isnt it most important that the church fit the teachings of Jesus, not necessarily the teacings of the church? The teacings of Jesus are found in the Bible.

      October 24, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      J.W:

      First of all, because it is The Original, like Levi`s 501.

      Secondly, because of practical concerns.

      As you may have read in the Book of Revelations the main object for Our Lord is world domination and absolute supremacy.

      Now, if everyone was part of The Catholich Church, the Son of God could upon His return, send the pope an e-mail announcing His return, and the entire world would be at His feet.

      Unfortunately, due to the fragmentations of The Church caused by Luther, the world is not currently ruled exclusively from Rome. That means The Son of God must deal with more than just The Pope.

      To deal with more than one person is a hassle.
      God does not like hassles.

      October 24, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • J.W

      Original doesn't always mean better. Judaism was here before Christianity, but we don't say well they are probably right because they were here first. I would agree that the church in Rome is more concentrated on power than any other church.

      October 24, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      J.W:

      Original means better in this case. Allthough there are many decent protestants about they do represent a problem.

      For many reasons, but the most grave is that they do not have a sentral organisation, so one would have to discuss matters with many of them, instead of just one.

      As of now, all the fractions of Christianity resemble this forum on CNN.
      Everybody`s got their own opinion, and that is bothersome.

      So from our conversation alone you will realise that it is much simpler for Our Lord to deal only with one person.

      So if you; J.W, were the head of all protestants and they all did like you told them to do, it would be practical for Our Lord to deal directly with you, and you could tell the rest what to do.

      But unless you do, this conversation serves no other purpose than making you aware of the problems facing a fractured Christianity.

      It is simply impractical.

      October 24, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
    • J.W

      That is kind of unfair to say that there must be an authority over all protestants. There are several different groups of protestants. Also, just because the Catholic church has a governing authority does not mean that all Catholics believe the same way. Many people who claim to be Catholic do not take all of the teachings of the Catholic church seriously. For instance, Catholics get more abortions than protestants, even though they claim to be pro life. And the only reason the reformation was necessary was because of the perversion of the Catholic church.

      October 24, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      J.W, you misunderstand.

      Christianity is about establishing The Kingdome of God. That means one day very soon, The Lord will declear to have returned and that His rules are now what goes.

      There are sheeps and there are wolves and the point at this stage is to gather the sheep in to one flock so that they can be hearded and protected..

      What I am saying is that it is both impractical for the Heardsman to have multiple flocks running around, as well as dangerous for the sheep.

      It would be better to have them all in one flock, so the Heardsman would not have to walk from flock to flock.

      October 24, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • J.W

      Some of the scariest wolves seem to be members of Catholic clergy, throughout history and today. If the Lord comes back today to gather his people, I do not think that is where I want to be.

      October 24, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • GABRIEL

      If you think the Catholic clergy is scary, wait until you meet God.
      He`ll make the clergy look like, well clergy, compared to Him.

      Besides, individual clergy can easily be removed if they do not do their job, but you do see the point. Having all the sheep in one flock would be better.

      Walking around looking for lost sheep like yourself is ofcourse part of the job-description, as you very well know, but by now you should realise that it is tiresome.

      But all the same, could you do me a favour JW?
      Could you Google "When love takes over radio 1".

      The lyrics are a bit different than in the other versions.
      Listen to it and tell me what you think.

      October 24, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • Ralph

      @Matthew: “1. The Bible doesn't praise Lot but rather puts that into the Bible to show his sinfulness.” You need to reread your bible. God saved Lot and his family from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra because Lot was rightchus and god’s man on earth while Sodom and Gomorra were naughty. Also read the end of the story where god blesses his daughters children.

      October 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  18. wait..

    why do they recommend getting a new authority? God not good enough for them?

    I thought they prescribe praying for every perceivable problem. Now they are putting limits on god's power? or.. um .. realizing something about their belief system ain't what they were taught it would be?

    October 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
  19. Rick

    Yeah, NWO. That's it.

    October 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  20. He_loves_me

    All part of the NWO

    October 24, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Are you trying to say that the financial crisis came Straight Outta Compton?

      October 24, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
    • J.W

      Doc you are so silly. That is NWA you are thinking of. NWO was a professional wrestling group. I do not remember any pope being part of it though.

      October 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.