The Holy Land: The Ecological Turning Point Of The Three Religions

reply to post by burntheships

It makes perfect sense. They can't sell it with pseudo science, reason, and logic so they will incorporate it into religion where irrational beliefs are more easily accepted....

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

So the fix is in, and Global Warming is going to be used to reshape the world according to the ugly elite agenda. Religion, of course, steps up to the plate to do it's part, endorsing whatever our master's latest desire, as always.

But the die-hard religionist will never connect the dots. They may be able to see the evil of war, but can't recall why the Popes during the World Wars seem to be on everyone's side. Theology does it's part too, with so-called "Just Wars".

Some may recall when the Pope in Rome was anti-communist. Then, they elected one! JPII was just the perfect guy for the times, since the Wall was scheduled to come down already.

Now, they've got a "Nazi" as Pope! OK, to be fair, he was just a kid at the time

I do see this as a fix, they have tried everything else. As even Ron Paul says, Religion can do what Government can never do.

While I am not a religious person per se, I will seperate out faith in God from Religion, and a persons
"personal" faith.

In the end, I think that many people will leave these organized religions in droves, in the end...
It may be late, but better late than never.

This is a game changer, at least in my opinion. I would never support, or set foot in an otherwise
seemingly real group of good people over this.

Blindness to this degree can not be excused.

The major religions are going to start seeing more churches separating and becoming independent or non-denominational. It's just turning into too much of a political institution for people.... and I'm Presbyterian (perhaps one of the most political denominations of the Protestants there is). There are just too many political and socio-economic agendas being preached from the pulpit and 'ordained' by the religious denominations.

This is an example of it. People don't go to church to be alarmed - they go to church to be 'fed' - yeah, I know - I typically consider that something of a lame expression - but there is something you get from an active and engaged community focused on solutions to problems and exchanging ideas (likely why I always preferred Sunday School classes over the sermon - I preferred discussion over preaching). Church isn't the only place this happens - but it's one of the more common sources for people - and they tend to leave when they aren't getting what they need.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by burntheships

 

It makes perfect sense. They can't sell it with pseudo science, reason, and logic so they will incorporate it into religion where irrational beliefs are more easily accepted....

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.
www.dailypaul.com...

Well, at least until now.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by burntheships

 

It makes perfect sense. They can't sell it with pseudo science, reason, and logic so they will incorporate it into religion where irrational beliefs are more easily accepted....

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion:

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion:
www.dailypaul.com...

Well, at least until now.

I am not anti faith or god but religion has caused more war death and hatred then governments ever have. Promoted more irrational beliefs and stifled progress more then any government.... I think the use of the term religion by Dr Paul in those statements is a misnomer. It would have been better said using a term like "An honest belief in God" or "Godly morals" like treat others as you would want to be treated etc. in place of religion. What kind of morals did the catholic inquisition teach? Look at how bassackward the Muslim nations are still steeped in irrational religious dogma etc.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by burntheships

 

It makes perfect sense. They can't sell it with pseudo science, reason, and logic so they will incorporate it into religion where irrational beliefs are more easily accepted....

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion:

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion:
www.dailypaul.com...

Well, at least until now.

I am not anti faith or god but religion has caused more war death and hatred then governments ever have. Promoted more irrational beliefs and stifled progress more then any government.... I think the use of the term religion by Dr Paul in those statements is a misnomer. It would have been better said using a term like "An honest belief in God" or "Godly morals" like treat others as you would want to be treated etc. in place of religion. What kind of morals did the catholic inquisition teach? Look at how bassackward the Muslim nations are still steeped in irrational religious dogma etc.

edit on 23-7-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Really now? I could swear the most cause of suffering has been people killing/torturing you for having different beliefs. It would explain why secular governments also killed others in the 20th century.

It's like people who blame money for suffering when it's really because of the seven cardinal sins.

Originally posted by hawkiye

I am not anti faith or god but religion has caused more war death and hatred then governments ever have. Promoted more irrational beliefs and stifled progress more then any government.... I think the use of the term religion by Dr Paul in those statements is a misnomer. It would have been better said using a term like "An honest belief in God" or "Godly morals" like treat others as you would want to be treated etc. in place of religion. What kind of morals did the catholic inquisition teach? Look at how bassackward the Muslim nations are still steeped in irrational religious dogma etc.

I agree, there is never a war that is not a "religious" war. Then again, I also think that Government...man in political power...can fan the flame and use religion against its own people to elicit a fight.

ETA: to clarify I think Dr. Pauls statement was to the postive end of morality...
however...I think this is what this coalition hopes to accomplish, to use the power of religion to
impose a sense of morality upon the poeple...i.e. repent and be mindful of your sins concerning your
carbon footprint.

reply to post by 547000

Really now? I could swear the most cause of suffering has been people killing/torturing you for having different beliefs.

yeah usually different religious beliefs The Muslims are like the last hold out of this errant belief that it is ok to kill those not of thier belief. The Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland finally gave up killing each other in the 80's or 90's. But through out our history it has been mostly religion sparking the killing.

It would explain why secular governments also killed others in the 20th century. It's like people who blame money for suffering when it's really because of the seven cardinal sins.

No one said governments don't kill people they just have a ways to go to catch up with religion...

Religious reasons are difficult to separate from other reasons. A group of people with a single religion in common will always use that religion to try and garner even more justification for their actions. In that respect, the true reasons for combat become rather muddled - some people need the religious rationalization - others couldn't care less and are simply happy to make loud noises - and still others choose to fight mostly out of the struggle for resources.

When you lack a deity of superhuman origins - you simply elevate a human to the status of a deity - Stalin, or Kim Jong Il, for example (or, at least, the attempt has been made to raise those individuals to the status of a deity within their nation).

Defining a 'religion' gets rather blurry when you start comparing the similarities between organized praising of leaders to organized worship. It's probably best to just consider religion a natural set of social behaviors humans are subject to. About the only people that could be considered 'resistant' or even 'immune' to the draw of religious behavior would be considered quite anti-social.

But this is getting a bit off topic.

It's a bad policy to get religion - and even one's personal faith - involved in politics. Sure - I ask for some kind of guidance when I am researching my voting options, but I don't do like a few of my friends did and welcome Obama as some kind of messiah. It really kind of turned my stomach to see people praising God that Obama got elected to office. And I don't mean "Oh, thank God he got in..." - you would have thought these people were having an epiphany on Zion or something.

It's just a messy business and serves only to cloud one's judgement. I've been to quite a few church social functions and various structured retreats - and I know how a lot of these people operate. Anyone effective at communicating a dream/goal for the future can whip these people up into a tizzy in no time. It's this simplicity that is both admirable and dangerous - they accept almost anyone with a clear goal as being filled with the divine. Which was Obama's campaign - "We're going to change things."

Anyway - I'm digressing yet again.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a number of religious leaders buy the 'climate change emergency' scenario. It is a very popular idea that has been repeated so many times that it's regarded as fact in much of the public's eye. Indeed, were we actually faced with such a crisis - it would be the noble thing to do to begin organizing and making every effort possible to avert catastrophe. This sort of action and agreement would be all but mandated by the comprising populations ... and, considering the way this concept is held in regard, many within the various religions are making motions for the religions to get involved in addressing the climate change issue.

Believe it or not - the masses of mostly ignorant people actually do have power in some cases (something of a conspiracy in and of itself).

So... whether or not this is a plan by the "upper echelon" or just a set of events that only serves to give them more influence (planned/orchestrated or not) - I can't say it bodes well either way.

reply to post by hawkiye


Okay, but you can further break down the reason why religions caused conflict to people being intolerant of other beliefs. This is a general thing, and it explains WHY religions cause conflict.

walter veith a 7th day advents cult member talking about Rerum Novarum



Rerum Novarum summarys
www.shc.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

Pope calls for 'God-centred' global economy
www.usatoday.com...

Laborem exercens
www.vatican.va...

Laborem Exercens qualifies the teaching of private ownership in relation to the common use of goods that all men, as children of God, are entitled to. The Church "has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone."[16] en.wikipedia.org... But, says Pius, private property has a social function as well. Private property loses its morality if it is not subordinated to the common good. Therefore governments have a right to pursue redistribution policies. In extreme cases, the Pope recognises that the State has a right to expropriate private property.[3]

More here
en.wikipedia.org...

Christian Democracy, a political movement in numerous European countries, was significantly influenced by Catholic social teachings. They have influenced many other political movements in varying degrees throughout the world, including those in non-Catholic nations.

The subsidiarity principle which originated in Rerum novarum was established in European Union (EU) law by the Treaty of Maastricht,[citation needed] signed on 7 February 1992 and entered into force on 1 November 1993. The present formulation is contained in Article 5 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (consolidated version following the Treaty of Nice, which entered into force on 1 February 2003).

I have no problem with the idea of human solidarity, dignity ect in fact I fully support it, I don’t even have a problem with the idea of there been a one world state – what I do have a problem with is >who< is trying to bring these things in being and the pope’s version is an attempt at a world theocracy with him - as his gods mouthpiece on earth in charge

Originally posted by Aim64C

People don't go to church to be alarmed - they go to church to be 'fed' - yeah, I know - I typically consider that something of a lame expression - but there is something you get from an active and engaged community focused on solutions to problems and exchanging ideas (likely why I always preferred Sunday School classes over the sermon - I preferred discussion over preaching). Church isn't the only place this happens - but it's one of the more common sources for people - and they tend to leave when they aren't getting what they need.

I so agree with your comments! I am thinking that these "Religious Authorities" are counting on
quite the opposite from us common folks. I guess that they see a large congregation of people
gathered together willingly manipulated into an emotional roller coaster ride.

As you mentioned, people do tend to leave when they are not getting what they want...
lets hope so. I dont think we are going to stop these white washed "Authorites"...it seems they
are brainwashed, or set on a course of hypocrisy and there is no turning back for them.

And on the lighter side, I wont believe that any of these Religious Leaders really believe this
load of carp untill they start painting the chruch roofs white.

Originally posted by racasan


what I do have a problem with is >who< is trying to bring these things in being and the pope’s version is an attempt at a world theocracy with him - as his gods mouthpiece on earth in charge

Yes, and if i might add, when the Pope joins with the Chief Rabbinate of Isreal, The Palestine Court of Sharia Law, The WAQF, and leaders of all Christian Churches in Jerusalem its a clear indication
that the cause has now superceeded the Religion.

reply to post by burntheships


I suspect the leaders of the Abrahamic religions believes in the dogma of their faith less than Richard Dawkins does
and It has been suggested that the very top people of many of the world religions acknowledge the pope as their head – I don’t know if this is true but it wouldn’t surprise me.

This might be why:
There’s some very good evidence that all the Roman emperors did back in the day was change hats – the empire at that time was facing serious social problems caused by the different religions in the empirer, to try and solve these problems Roman leaders recreated themselves as the holy Roman Catholic church
(Catholic meaning an all-embracing faith, this is why the bible is such a mishmash of Jewish/ Babylonian/sun worshipping creeds of that time- its simply lots of different dogmas rammed together in one book and then belief in it is enforced)
this was an attempt to contain the different faiths of people in the Roman empire under one umbrella belief system with the emperor (pope) in control

the Roman emperors still meddling:
There is also a suggestion that the Catholic Church was involved with the Russian revolution.
Consider the timing:
May 15, 1891 - RERUM NOVARUM
www.vatican.va...

Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor
That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortune

The start of the Russian Revolution - 1905
en.wikipedia.org...

There is also good evidence the Catholic Church was implicated with National Socialism in Germany in the 1930’s



So the possibility that the pope is once again trying some kind of “social experiment” using trickery/picked men/and fear - doesn’t surprise me in the least

Now where is that "All roads lead to Rome" thread.

Proto I miss you.

Glad to see BTS keeping it real

reply to post by pianopraze


This is one case that appears to lead directly to Roman conspiracy.

Thanks for your comments, and ya, I will be keeping a close eye on this one.

:

Here is another really interesting tie-in I was not aware of until a few moments ago.


The Tony Blair Faith Foundation

watch the flash pictures. It shows BILL CLINTON with an arm around TONY BLAIR at a podium!!!! the caption is:

Why does faith matter in a globalised world?
Tony Blair speaking at the launch of the Faith Foundation

" You cannot understand the modern world unless you understand the importance of religious faith. Faith motivates, galvanises, organises and integrates millions upon millions of people."
www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org...

A listing of articles is under Faith and Globalization News

Tony Blair was the Chair of the FABIAN SOCIALIST SOCIETY: centurean2.wordpress.com...

Another interesting site Naming NAMES: vigilantcitizen.com...

reply to post by racasan

I suspect the leaders of the Abrahamic religions believes in the dogma of their faith less...

This is a great thread on the Romans and their continued control through the "Church" among other masks. It is probably the greatest thread on ATS.
All Roads Lead To Rome

reply to post by crimvelvet


I think its clear that humanitarianism/atheism/agnosticism – “none belief” as a movement is growing rapidly, there is at the very least a move away from the organised religions; and this is very noticeable in Europe.

If the above is true then it must have an effect on the old power structures that are based around the idea of religion being a defining social force – it will be interesting to see what the Catholic Church does about this situation

I don’t know if it means anything but there have been a number of politicians such as Blair who have unexpectedly declared themselves as now following some religion, here in Finland we have one who is now a member of opus dei and another who is a member of Share International - it might be a useful project to track these “miraculous” conversions of European politicians

This is from the Blair site:

Though many Enlightenment thinkers assumed that religion and faith were on the wane, to be inevitably replaced by rational, scientific insight, this theory looks increasingly implausible today. Rather than Europe leading the way, it is now clearly the exception to the rule. The world is becoming more religious. Rather than the ‘secular age’ many envisioned, it appears we have in fact entered into a ‘post-secular age,’ if ever such a secular age actually existed. But in this “post-secular” age, a number of pressing questions emerge. How does a “disenchanted” Europe, with no settled opinion about religion, deal with a world in which religion plays an important, and in some cases, a dominant role? How should Asian states with their vibrant religious diversity handle their competing demands for recognition? How should religious minorities be treated? Is the way forward through multiculturalism, through a Republican assertion of shared civic values, or some mixture of the two?

This just looks more like someone whistling in the dark given it comes from a European politician

Now this might be a bad time to get into this but:
There is an obvious case to be made for allowing people come away from dangerous situations an example being Middle Eastern Muslims – but are we in fact seeing a controlled influx of deeply religious people into Europe in an effort to water down a very secular society?

reply to post by crimvelvet


Yes thanks I have it book marked and I intended to look at it but its 201 page long