Pope Francis Wisely Affirms All Religions Are Valid Pathways for Reaching GOD.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Coelacanth55

"the genuine Christian is the only one GUARANTEED to get into heaven."

Absolutely not. Only the poor in spirit attain the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). The poor in spirit own nothing, desire nothing for themselves (especially heaven), know nothing. Their only desire is to unify and serve God. .

the genuine Christian IS poor in spirit. the modern pharisees strutting around in their $500 outfits are the ones about whom Jesus will say 'depart from Me, I never knew you.'

originally posted by: Coelacanth55

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Coelacanth55

"the genuine Christian is the only one GUARANTEED to get into heaven."

Absolutely not. Only the poor in spirit attain the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). The poor in spirit own nothing, desire nothing for themselves (especially heaven), know nothing. Their only desire is to unify and serve God. .

the genuine Christian IS poor in spirit. the modern pharisees strutting around in their $500 outfits are the ones about whom Jesus will say 'depart from Me, I never knew you.'

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst 1Tim1

For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence… and do judge them to be dung Phil3

Him God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins Rom3

the four and twenty elders fall down before Him that sits on the throne, and worship Him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne Rev4

24 ribs is the typical number of ribs that humans have, with 12 ribs on each side of the body

For as the lightning that lighteneth one part under heaven shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His day. Luke17

And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God Rev4

The Volcanic Seven Summits are the highest volcanoes on each of the seven continents

This makes Pope Francis an antichrist, denying that Jesus is the Christ.

It was Jesus who said, "I am the way and the truth and the life, noone comes to the father except through me"

a reply to: WeMustCare

We don't really know if we are following the correct religion until we die, so it's really hard to figure out the correct religion while we are still alive. Like others have said, the actual message from the pope seems slightly different than the title of this thread.

If the title of this thread was actually true, I hope somebody will let this guy know, because he was trying to practice all religions just to make sure he has the true path somewhere in there, and he looks pretty stressed out trying to follow so many religions:

I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case)

Frankly, one reason I've remained a die-hard Christian is to cover my behind in the afterlife. But I recently realized I need to worship ALL gods that might possibly exist.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Frankly, one reason I've remained a die-hard Christian is to cover my behind in the afterlife. But I recently realized I need to worship ALL gods that might possibly exist.

^^ That guy says he's worshipping all gods ... but that means he's insulting the GOD of Christianity. When you worship other gods then you are saying that the GOD of Christianity isn't really the one true GOD ...so you actually deny Him with each worship of another god. So he's not a 'die hard Christian' as he claims.

a reply to: FlyersFan
I agree, that's a problem when you try to do the right thing by worshiping all gods to make sure the right one is in there somewhere. Instead of rewarding you for your extra effort to be inclusive and get the right god in your praising efforts, they seem to do the opposite and get mad at you for including the other gods.

But let's say someone was born in a country that's predominantly a religion other than Christianity, like maybe India which is 80% Hindu. If Christianity is the right religion, but the Hindus in India just stick with the religion they were raised with, how will they ever find the true path unless they embrace something other than just what they were raised with?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice vid !

The only thing missing is a slide-ruler on the table, to represent a belief in Scientism.

The problem is that this Pope probably is part of the UN World Council of Churches,which waters down and sanitizes the Christian message.
I will try to find sometime later to look up some stuff about World Council of Churches.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Roma1927
If we followed a different philosophy, we would acknowledge Jesus was but one of many iterations of the Supreme Creator, typically tailored to the time period in question in order to bring humanity back into spirituality and that universal connection from which we have strayed. Now what sounds more hostile, a faith that is completely open to all of these possibilities, or one that says you will eternally suffer unless you listen to my one and only way??

Sounds somewhat like King Akhenaten(Amenhotep IV) of Egypt with his initial attempt to bestow Monotheism unto the world. I suspect that Jesus said nothing of the sort in His time, and the same scholars who threw out the inconvenient Book of Enoch around the 4th century AD added those words about Him being the only way , because well as we can see leaders write their stories favorable to them and those they support and who support them.

I believe when the Creator returns to this world in its next form, it will not be recognizable or associated with Jesus. But it will be doing its thing to try and get us all back into our spiritual connection with Earth and the universe.

For those who are zealously convicted unto the Christ mythology, I suggest being a bit more open minded and less judgemental of other paths.

The Catholic Church as an institution has quite a bit to apologize and make up for throughout history, especially in the name of Christ. Perhaps this is a step forward, back into the kind graces of the Almighty?

Ah but here is a little known part of the bible. ALL will have a chance to know Jesus and decide before the throne judgement who had not known him before. Its overlooked alot.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: WeMustCare

I refuse to listen to mere mortals who claim to know the mind of God and speak for Him. They are all evil personified, IMHO.

There is no greater evil than to use the Name and word of God for Evil .

a reply to: yuppa

Check out your inbox, please. U2U.

a reply to: yuppa

U2U again.

originally posted by: Tolkien
a reply to: WeMustCare

Completely anti-Christ messaging.
Shocking, coming from someone suppose to be the pope.

Jesus is the way.

This still shocks you?

Satan is “the ruler of this world,” “the god of this system of things.” (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4) Part of Satan’s world is the earth-wide system of false religion he has built up for centuries, including Christendom and her clergy. The Bible calls this worldwide system of false religion “Babylon the Great, the mother of the [spiritual] harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.” (Revelation 17:5) The roots of today’s false religions go back to the ancient city of Babylon, which was steeped in false religion and in God-dishonoring doctrines and practices. That is why the counterpart of ancient Babylon is called Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion.

Regarding religious Babylon, God’s Word says: “In her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Revelation 18:24) How are this world’s religions responsible for the blood of all those slaughtered? In that all these religions​—Christendom’s churches and non-Christian religions alike—​have supported, condoned, or even taken the lead in the wars of the nations; they have also persecuted and killed God-fearing people who disagreed with them.

For example, Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic, as were many of the leaders in his government. Why weren’t they excommunicated? Why didn’t the Catholic Church condemn the horrors that these men were committing? Why did Protestant churches also keep silent?

Did the churches really remain silent? Is there proof that they supported Hitler’s war efforts?

Catholic historian E. I. Watkin wrote: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. . . . Where belligerent nationalism is concerned they have spoken as the mouthpiece of Caesar.”

When Watkin said that bishops of the Catholic Church “supported all wars waged by the government of their country,” he included the wars of aggression waged by Hitler. As Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Friedrich Heer, admitted: “In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.”

Catholic Church leaders gave such unqualified support to Hitler’s wars that the Roman Catholic professor Gordon Zahn wrote: “The German Catholic who looked to his religious superiors for spiritual guidance and direction regarding service in Hitler’s wars received virtually the same answers he would have received from the Nazi ruler himself.”

That Catholics obediently followed the direction of their church leaders was documented by Professor Heer. He noted: “Of about thirty-​two million German Catholics​—fifteen and a half million of whom were men—​only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians.” More recent evidence indicates that a few other Catholics, as well as some Protestants, stood up against the Nazi State because of religious convictions. Some even paid with their lives, while at the same time their spiritual leaders were selling out to the Third Reich.

In contrast, the Bible states regarding true Christians:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

As noted above, Professor Heer included Protestant leaders among those who “welcomed the alliance with Hitler.” Is that true?

Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity said: “Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time.”

Similarly, Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant church leader who himself had been in a Nazi concentration camp, later confessed: ‘It may be truthfully recalled that Christian churches, throughout the ages, have always consented to bless war, troops, and arms and that they prayed in a very unchristian way for the annihilation of their enemy.’ He admitted: “All this is our fault and our fathers’ fault, but obviously not God’s fault.”

Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals.

The reason the churches were silent becomes clear. It is because Christendom’s clergy and their flocks had abandoned the teachings of the Bible in favor of supporting the political state. In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Roman Catholic cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing. . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”

Indeed, the Catholic Church and other churches as well became handmaidens of the evil Hitler government. Even though Jesus Christ said his true followers “are no part of the world,” the churches and their parishioners became an integral part of Hitler’s world. (John 17:16) As a result, they failed to speak out about the horrors against humanity that were committed by the Nazis in their death camps.

True, a few courageous individuals from the Catholic, Protestant, and various other religions stood up against the Nazi State. But even as some of them paid with their lives, their spiritual leaders, who claimed to serve God, were serving as puppets of the Third Reich.

Christendom’s clergy are more reprehensible in shedding blood than other religious leaders. Why? Because in addition to taking God’s name upon themselves, they have taken Christ’s too. They thereby obligated themselves to follow the teachings of Jesus. (John 15:10-14) But they have not followed those teachings, thus bringing great reproach upon both God and Christ. The responsibility for bloodshed by the clergy has been both direct, in the Crusades, other religious wars, inquisitions, and persecutions, and indirect, in condoning wars in which members of the churches killed their fellowman in other lands.

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.”

During World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed. But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war? [continued in next comment]

a reply to: Tolkien

For example, from the 11th to the 13th century, the clergy of Christendom introduced the Crusades. These resulted in horrible bloodshed and pillage in the name of God and of Christ. Hundreds of thousands were killed. The Crusades included the senseless deaths of thousands of children who were induced to participate in the Children’s Crusade of the year 1212.

In the 13th century, the Roman Catholic Church officially sanctioned another God-dishonoring horror​—the Inquisition. It began in Europe and spread to the Americas, lasting for over six centuries. Originated and backed by the papacy, it was a murderous attempt to torture and stamp out all who disagreed with the church. While the church had previously persecuted non-Catholics, the Inquisition was far more extensive in scope.

Peter De Rosa, who states that he is a “patriotic Catholic,” says in his recent book Vicars of Christ​—The Dark Side of the Papacy: “The church was responsible for persecuting Jews, for the Inquisition, for slaughtering heretics by the thousand, for reintroducing torture into Europe as part of the judicial process. . . . Popes appointed and sacked even emperors, demanded that they impose Christianity on their subjects under the threat of torture and death. . . . The cost to the Gospel message was horrendous.” The only “crime” of some who were murdered was that they possessed a Bible.

Regarding Pope Innocent III of the early 13th century, De Rosa states: “It has been reckoned that in the last and most savage persecution under [Roman] Emperor Diocletian [third century] about two thousand Christians perished, worldwide. In the first vicious incident of Pope Innocent’s Crusade [against “heretics” in France] ten times that number of people were slaughtered. . . . It comes as a shock to discover that, at a stroke, a pope killed far more Christians than Diocletian. . . . [Innocent] had no qualms about using Christ’s name to do everything Christ objected to.”

De Rosa notes that “in the pope’s name, [the inquisitors] were responsible for the most savage and sustained onslaught on human decency in the history of the race.” Of Dominican inquisitor Torquemada in Spain, he says: “Appointed in 1483, he ruled tyrannically for fifteen years. His victims numbered over 114,000 of whom 10,220 were burned.”

This writer concludes: “The record of the Inquisition would be embarrassing for any organization; for the Catholic church, it is devastating. . . . What history shows is that, for more than six centuries without a break, the papacy was the sworn enemy of elementary justice. Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine. The mystery is: how could popes continue in this practical heresy for generation after generation? How could they deny at every point the Gospel of Jesus?” He answers: “Pontiffs preferred to contradict the Gospel than an ‘inerrant’ predecessor, for that would bring down the papacy itself.”

Also noteworthy was the part that the clergy played in the violent institution of slavery. The nations of Christendom kidnapped many thousands of Africans, took them far from their own lands, and for centuries brutalized them physically and mentally as slaves. Relatively few of the clergy class actively opposed. Some of them even claimed that it was God’s will.​—See Matthew 7:12.

When the apostle Paul was inspired by God to foretell the coming of a “man of lawlessness,” he said that it was beginning to appear even in his day. Paul was talking about a class of individuals who would take the lead in apostatizing from true Christianity. That turning away from the truth began late in the first century, especially after the death of the last apostles. The lawless class introduced doctrines and practices that were in opposition to God’s Word.​—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7; Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 4:3, 4.

In time, this lawless class developed to become the clergy of Christendom. Its power was solidified by Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century when the apostate churches were wed to the pagan State. As Christendom continued to fragment into a multitude of sects, the clergy continued to lift themselves above the laity and often above the secular rulers too.​—2 Thessalonians 2:4.

What would be the fate of the man of lawlessness? Paul foretold: “The lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with . . . and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence.” (2 Thessalonians 2:8) This means that the clergy’s destruction will take place when God brings Satan’s entire system to its end. God uses his heavenly King, Christ Jesus, to lead the angelic executional forces. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Revelation 19:11-21) This fate awaits the clergy because they have dishonored God and Christ and have led millions of people away from true worship.

Jesus gave the principle by which the man of lawlessness would be judged, saying: “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. . . . Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.”​—Matthew 7:15-21; see also Titus 1:16; 1 John 2:17.

The foundation for fine Christian fruitage is noted at 1 John 5:3, which states: “This is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments.” And a basic commandment is this: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39) Thus, God’s true servants must have love for their neighbors regardless of their race or nationality.​—Matthew 5:43-48; Romans 12:17-21.

Especially must God’s servants have love for those who are their spiritual brothers. “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that the one who loves God should be loving his brother also.” (1 John 4:20, 21) That love, Jesus said, would be an identifying mark of true Christians: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”​—John 13:35; see also Romans 14:19; Galatians 6:10; 1 John 3:10-12.

Brotherly love is the “glue” that binds God’s servants in unity: “Clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union.” (Colossians 3:14) And true Christians must be at unity with their brothers worldwide, for God’s Word commands: “You should all speak in agreement . . . There should not be divisions among you . . . Be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) To maintain this love and unity on a global scale, God’s servants must be neutral in the political affairs of this world. Jesus said: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.”​—John 17:16.

Jesus demonstrated the extent of what he had in mind when Peter used a sword to strike off the ear of one of the men who had come to arrest Jesus. Did Jesus encourage such use of force even to protect the Son of God against opposers? No, but he said to Peter: “Return your sword to its place.” (Matthew 26:52) Thus, true Christians do not engage in the wars of the nations or in any other shedding of human blood even if refusal results in their being martyred for their neutral stand, as many have been over the centuries and even in our time. They know that only God’s Kingdom under Christ will eliminate war and bloodshed forever.​—Psalm 46:9; Matthew 6:9, 10; 2 Peter 3:11-13.

History confirms that the first-century Christians would not shed human blood. A former professor of theology from England, Peter De Rosa, writes: “Shedding blood was a grievous sin. This was why Christians opposed gladiatorial combat. . . . While war and the use of force were necessary to preserve Rome, Christians felt unable to join in. . . . Christians considered themselves, like Jesus, messengers of peace; in no circumstances could they be agents of death.” On the other hand, the disunited religions of Christendom have violated the commandment of love and have shed an enormous amount of blood. They have not been messengers of peace but have repeatedly been agents of death. [concluded in next comment]

a reply to: Tolkien

The bloodguilt of the man of lawlessness reached a peak in the 20th century. The clergy have backed wars that have taken tens of millions of lives, the worst wars in all history. They supported both sides in the two world wars, in which people of the same religion, “brothers,” killed one another. For instance, in World War II, French and American Catholics killed German and Italian Catholics; British and American Protestants killed German Protestants. At times, they killed others who were not only of the same religion but also of the same national background. The two world wars erupted in the heart of Christendom and would not have been possible had the clergy obeyed the commandment to love, and taught their followers to do the same.

The New York Times affirmed: “In the past local Catholic hierarchies almost always supported the wars of their nations, blessing troops and offering prayers for victory, while another group of bishops on the other side publicly prayed for the opposite outcome. . . . The contradiction between the Christian spirit and the conduct of war . . . seems increasingly clear to many, as weapons grow more brutal.” And U.S.News & World Report noted: “The prestige of Christianity in the world has been gravely impaired by the frequency with which the so-called Christian nations have used violence.”

Too, while there is no official Inquisition today, the clergy have used the arm of the State to persecute “prophets” and “holy ones” who differ from them. They have pressured political leaders to ‘contrive mischief under cover of law.’ In this way, they have caused or approved the banning, imprisonment, beating, torture, and even death of God-fearing people in our time.​—Revelation 17:6; Psalm 94:20, The New English Bible.

Truly, in false religion there is found the blood of prophets, and of holy ones, and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth. (Revelation 18:24) Since the worst bloodshed has arisen in Christendom, the guilt of the clergy is the greatest. How aptly the Bible labels them a “man of lawlessness”! But God’s Word also states: “Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.” (Galatians 6:7) So God will call the lawless clergy to account.

Jesus said: “Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:23) And he declared: “Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 7:19) The time is fast approaching for the fiery end of the man of lawlessness, along with all false religion, when the political elements with which they have played the harlot will turn on them: “These will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire.” (Revelation 17:16) Since such world-shaking events are soon to take place, God’s servants must make them known to others.

Context:

Current events-The End of False Religion is imminent! (playlist)

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane
The problem is that this Pope probably is part of the UN World Council of Churches,which waters down and sanitizes the Christian message.
I will try to find sometime later to look up some stuff about World Council of Churches.

Funny, I read satanizes instead of sanitizes the first time I read that sentence, which would be just as accurate.

Babylon the Great's support of the UN (and its proposed “New World Order”​) has been a staple since its inception as the League of Nations. (see also the video link concerning "current events..." from my previous comment at the end)

“And he [the angel] carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I caught sight of a woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns.”​—Revelation 17:3.

The great harlot is not alone. She is sitting on a monstrous wild beast. This wild beast has seven heads and ten horns. Is it, then, the same as the wild beast that John saw earlier, which also has seven heads and ten horns? (Revelation 13:1) No, there are differences. This wild beast is scarlet-colored and, unlike the previous wild beast, is not said to have diadems. Rather than having blasphemous names on its seven heads only, it is “full of blasphemous names.” Nevertheless, there must be a relationship between this new wild beast and the previous one; the similarities between them are too pronounced to be coincidental.

What, then, is this new scarlet-colored wild beast? It must be the image to the wild beast that was brought forth under the urging of the Anglo-American wild beast that has two horns like a lamb. After the image was made, that two-horned wild beast was allowed to give breath to the image of the wild beast. (Revelation 13:14, 15) John now sees the living, breathing image. It pictures the League of Nations organization that the two-horned wild beast brought to life in 1920. U.S. President Wilson had envisioned that the League “would be a forum for the dispensation of justice for all men and wipe out the threat of war forever.” When it was resurrected after the second world war as the United Nations, its chartered purpose was “to maintain international peace and security.”

In what way is this symbolic wild beast full of blasphemous names? In that men have set up this multinational idol as a substitute for God’s Kingdom​—to accomplish what God says his Kingdom alone can accomplish. (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 12:18, 21) What is remarkable about John’s vision, though, is that Babylon the Great is riding the scarlet-colored wild beast. True to the prophecy, Babylonish religion, particularly in Christendom, has linked itself with the League of Nations and its successor. As early as December 18, 1918, the body now known as the National Council of the Churches of Christ in America adopted a declaration that declared in part: “Such a League is not a mere political expedient; it is rather the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. . . . The Church can give a spirit of good-will, without which no League of Nations can endure. . . . The League of Nations is rooted in the Gospel. Like the Gospel, its objective is ‘peace on earth, good-will toward men.’”

On January 2, 1919, the San Francisco Chronicle carried the front-page headline: “Pope Pleads for Adoption of Wilson’s League of Nations.” On October 16, 1919, a petition signed by 14,450 clergymen of leading denominations was presented to the U.S. Senate, urging that body “to ratify the Paris peace treaty embodying the league of nations covenant.” Though the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the treaty, Christendom’s clergy continued to campaign for the League. And how was the League inaugurated? A news dispatch from Switzerland, dated November 15, 1920, read: “Opening of the first assembly of the League of Nations was announced at eleven o’clock this morning by the ringing of all the church bells in Geneva.”

The dismal failure of the League of Nations should have signaled to the clergy that such man-made organs are no part of a Kingdom of God on earth. What blasphemy to make such a claim! It makes it seem as though God was a party to the colossal botch that the League turned out to be. As for God, “perfect is his activity.” Jehovah’s heavenly Kingdom under Christ​—and not a combine of squabbling politicians, many of them atheists—​is the means by which he will bring in peace and have his will done on earth as in heaven.​—Deuteronomy 32:4; Matthew 6:10.

What of the League’s successor, the United Nations? From its inception, this body has also had the great harlot riding on its back, visibly associated with it and trying to guide its destiny. For example, on its 20th anniversary, in June 1965, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, together with Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims​—said to represent two thousand million of earth’s population—​assembled in San Francisco to celebrate their support and admiration of the UN. On visiting the UN in October 1965, Pope Paul VI described it as “that greatest of all international organizations” and added: “The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace.” Another papal visitor, Pope John Paul II, addressing the UN in October 1979, said: “I hope the United Nations will ever remain the supreme forum of peace and justice.” Significantly, the pope gave very little attention to Jesus Christ or to God’s Kingdom in his speech. During his visit to the United States in September 1987, as reported by The New York Times, “John Paul spoke at length about the positive role of the United Nations in promoting . . . ‘new worldwide solidarity.’”

As demonstrated above, it's not just the Catholic Hierarchy that supports the UN/League of Nations either. Talking about Christendom's clergy, when the wild beast with two horns promoted the League of Nations after World War I, its many religious paramours immediately sought to give a religious sanction to this move. As a result, the new peace organization became “full of blasphemous names.”

“Christianity can furnish the good-will, the dynamic behind the league [of nations], and so change the treaty from a scrap of paper into an instrument of the kingdom of God.”​—The Christian Century, U.S.A., June 19, 1919, page 15.

“The League of Nations idea is the extension to international relationships of the idea of the Kingdom of God as a world order of good will. . . . It is the thing all Christians pray for when they say, ‘Thy Kingdom come.’”​—The Christian Century, U.S.A., September 25, 1919, page 7.

“The Cement of the League of Nations is the Blood of Christ.”​—Dr. Frank Crane, Protestant minister, U.S.A.

“The [National] Council [of Congregational Churches] supports the Covenant [of the League of Nations] as the only political instrument now available by which the Spirit of Jesus Christ may find wider scope in practical application to the affairs of nations.”​—The Congregationalist and Advance, U.S.A., November 6, 1919, page 642.

“The conference calls upon all Methodists to uphold and promote highly the ideals [of the League of Nations] as expressed by the idea of God the Father and God’s earthly children.”​—The Wesleyan Methodist Church, Britain.

“When we consider the aspirations, the possibilities and the resolutions of this agreement, we see that it contains the heart of the teachings of Jesus Christ: The Kingdom of God and his righteousness . . . It is nothing less than that.”​—Sermon by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the opening of the League of Nations Assembly in Geneva, December 3, 1922.

“The League of Nations Association in this country has the same holy right as any humanitarian missionary society, because she is at present the most effective agency of the rule of Christ as the Prince of peace among the nations.”​—Dr. Garvie, Congregationalist minister, Britain.