@shinyblurry:

The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

Um - No...,
Visual media and propaganda of Heaven and Hell was around long before Television and motion pictures. Artisans through the ages have depicted them throughout history. At one point, the Catholic church controlled what could be painted and what could not. An artist had to have the churches stamp of approval before they could release the painting and/or profit by it. To go against this edict was by default blasphemy. The Catholic Church commissioned and controlled all visual media the people saw and used it as a tool of control. (much like corporations use modern-day media)

If anything, the prophesying of Hell for sinners and the horrors within hell was more effective before modern cinematography. People are always more afraid of what they can picture in their own mind than fear someone else's depiction. I think the Satire of modern day cinema has softened the blow and made many people re-examine Hell, what it is and what it represents, and look on it as a man made experience instead of a wrath of God/Devil experience.


>> ^sfarias40k:

I really believe that most peoples view of hell don't come from a church but from TV & movies, like almost everything else.

shinyblurry, the flaw in your thinking is that somehow this Bible is a perfect work and completely true word of God, and yet there are so many different versions. You can't even come close to agreeing on the basic concept of what is God. How is your Trinity correct, but the Catholic church is wrong, and the apostles are wrong, but somehow YOU are correct.

The central truth of the gospel is what is important, and that is what has nigh universal agreement, throughout the church, and throughout history. That is, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and through Him we are saved and reconciled to God. Anyone who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses that He is Lord will be saved.

The real problem with your nonsense is that a child molester who murders old ladies and is also a serial killer... just has to say a few words and poof, he is as pure and spiritual as you are. I'm not sure how that sits well with you.

The reason you have a problem with this is because you see yourself as a good person. Yet, the bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you only sin 5 times a day, by the time you are 70 years old you will have sinned over 100k times. There is no one good but God, and God doesn't show partiality between sinners.

>>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only -- James 2:24

Only a faith that produces works is a justifying faith. A faith that produces no works is dead.

Also, Jesus likes to contradict himself even from the same author within mere paragraphs of one another:
>>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. -- John 5:31
>>Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true -- John 8:14

John 5:32

There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.

He is saying, if it were only Him that testifies, His testimony would not be valid. Yet, His Father also testifies on His behalf. Now let's look at the rest of John 8:14 that you ommitted:

John 8:14

Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

He is now saying that His testimony about Himself is valid, because He heard it from His Father, He told Him where He came from and where He is going. There isn't any actual contradiction, but just a lack of study.

>> ^joedirt

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

shinyblurry, the flaw in your thinking is that somehow this Bible is a perfect work and completely true word of God, and yet there are so many different versions. You can't even come close to agreeing on the basic concept of what is God. How is your Trinity correct, but the Catholic church is wrong, and the apostles are wrong, but somehow YOU are correct.

God spoke to me and told me that when Jesus, God (the old cranky Jewish one), and the Holy Spirit get together, they (like Voltron) form a being know as Thor. It is true and indisputable. There is no way you or the New Testament can dispute this revelation. You may call it the Trinity or something, but I have seen the true form and name it takes, it is know as Thor (head of Jesus, body of the spirit, mighty smiting arms of father God)

The real problem with your nonsense is that a child molester who murders old ladies and is also a serial killer... just has to say a few words and poof, he is as pure and spiritual as you are. I'm not sure how that sits well with you.

>>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only -- James 2:24

Also, Jesus likes to contradict himself even from the same author within mere paragraphs of one another:
>>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. -- John 5:13
>>Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true -- John 8:14

That silly Jesus, he is like a quantum Jesus, true and untrue at the same time.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, I agree people have used the message for personal gain..but your statement confuses me. Since you admit the gospel was the sincere account of the disciples who wrote it (it would have to be for them to martyr themselves over it), and they preached a resurrected, glorified Christ who is the Savior of the world, why don't you believe them?
>> ^enoch:
i think you misunderstood who i was refering to when i spoke of those who sought power perverted christs message.
the disciples didnt and nor did those early christians who suffered and died for their beliefs.
but there have been many who have used christs message to garner power,influence and to line their own pocket.
this can be traced back to only a few 100 yrs after christs death all the way to present day.
if you would like to call that a conspiracy theory,i guess thats your choice but i think the evidence is overwhelming.



remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.
simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

No they didn't. Almost everything you have said here is wrong. For instance, the earliest version of the New Testament that could be considered "canonized" consisted of ten of pauls epistles and a version of the gospel of Luke. It was only around 200 AD that the 27 books of the NT were decided to be the likely candidates for being wholly inspired works, which became agreed upon by the whole church by the middle of the 3rd century. There were 3 other books which were included in 397 as reading material, but they were not thought to be inspired. The catholic church included 11 more books in the 1500s, but no one else considered them inspired, including the jewish people who wrote them. They were finally taken out of bibles around the end of the 1800s, as you said.

These uninspired works were known as the apocrypha, and none of them ever belonged there in the first place. The fact is, the bible today matches what the early church had decided upon as inspired as early as 200 AD. Which brings us to the mormons, who claim that they have a special revelation from Jesus Christ, that He came and visted America and the indians, etc. The problem is, not excepting that there is no evidence for the claims it makes, or any precedent or prophecy that predicts it, that the claims of the book of mormon fundementally alters the truth of the gospels. It preaches a much different Jesus, as does Islam. Paul said this:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Both the mormons and the muslims received their revelations from angels. Scripture also says this:

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Scripture rejects it, and that is why they are considered a cult and not Christian.


>> ^joedirt:
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website.
from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it. You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT. So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.

Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country though religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should eb a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

You think you are showing that the protesters were wrong to not get up and leave when the cops told them they were going to be peppersprayed if they didn't run along home.
Instead--you are highlighting their bravery and commitment.
FAIL!

No, I am showing that they were warned, contrary to the liberal outcry that they were sprayed without warning, which we now know to be a lie.

So, if you were a sixteenth-century protestant and the Catholic church told you you were going to be burned at the stake--you'd quietly submit and go home--Right?

I mean they were the lawful rulers--you would be breaking their laws--it doesn't matter if you believed you were in the right--Does it?

I believe in rule of law, and that all authority is ordained by God, however, if that authority contradicts the direct commands of God, we have a right to disobey them.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

You think you are showing that the protesters were wrong to not get up and leave when the cops told them they were going to be peppersprayed if they didn't run along home.
Instead--you are highlighting their bravery and commitment.
FAIL!
So, if you were a sixteenth-century protestant and the Catholic church told you you were going to be burned at the stake--you'd quietly submit and go home--Right?
I mean they were the lawful rulers--you would be breaking their laws--it doesn't matter if you believed you were in the right--Does it?

You think you are showing that the protesters were wrong to not get up and leave when the cops told them they were going to be peppersprayed if they didn't run along home.
Instead--you are highlighting their bravery and commitment.
FAIL!

So, if you were a sixteenth-century protestant and the Catholic church told you you were going to be burned at the stake--you'd quietly submit and go home--Right?

I mean they were the lawful rulers--you would be breaking their laws--it doesn't matter if you believed you were in the right--Does it?

Very eloquent speech. I'll upvote this kind of rational dialogue on religion that actually takes the counter-points into account any day.

I don't disagree with most of what she's saying here. A lot of where we differ in opinion would be in terms of nuance and perhaps semantics (i.e. definitions of religion and anger). She crafted a very strong argument. I admire how she invoked King and Ghandi at the end--almost implying that these religious and spiritual leaders would somehow approve of how the anti-theist movement [I can't really call them atheists anymore--they've gone beyond just denying a god exists to demanding everyone else denies it too] is going about its movement (I don't believe either King or Ghandi would, though).

I don't have time to write a lengthy post about this video, so I'll simply say this: I feel the anger of the anti-theist movement is misplaced. Targeting "religion" makes about as much sense to me as targeting "government." "Governments" are responsible for the suffering of millions (if not billions) of people around the world. But we wouldn't think of tossing the idea of government out the window on that basis.

Governments can be improved and my position is that religions can be too. Reality checks can be built into religion: is your religion spreading peace and happiness in the world, empowering people and bringing them together, providing social and psychological support in tough times, and promoting equality and justice? No? Then you need to make changes.

My position has been and continues to be that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. It is the responsibility of both religious and non-religious alike to keep the pressure on religion so that it minimizes the chances of it doing harm and maximizes the chances of it doing good. Picking specific instances (the Catholic church abuse scandal for instance) as focal points is a great example. Religions do change over time, and I appreciate the anti-theist movement for "keeping things real" to some extent and exerting this pressure on religion. Ultimately, though, anger is a double-edged sword and I suppose only time will tell if the anti-theist movement ends up falling on its own blade.

>> ^marinara:

You miss the entire point.
Why would you concentrate on my characterization of the church, and ignore the fact that the elites in charge of this proposed bank would have unlimited money.
And the church is no stranger to power.
Yes, I love Ron Paul, Yes the Church is chasing power, Yes the Church will not care to use the proposed world bank to eliminate poverty.
Tell me how the Church is working to eliminate poverty now?
Tell me when the Church has given away power?
Tell me why I shouldn't love Ron?


Not really missing the point, just focusing on the part of your comment I find interesting.

Basically my read on all right-wing thought is that it's almost entirely motivated by fear. The modern, highly distilled version we have here in the American right is a particularly insane bunch who believe that every institution with any kind of power is evil. Not just too wrapped up in its own self-serving goals to meet the needs of ordinary people, but actually out to maliciously do harm to everyone else because they're all apparently inhuman monsters bent on our destruction.

That's what Ron Paul is a spokesman for.

The Catholic church is a lot of things, and it's made up of a lot of people. It's had a particularly awful history, but I do believe that in large part the modern Catholic Church believes what it preaches when it comes to social justice. I don't really see how or why they'd bother teaching social justice if their true goal was to abolish social justice. Take a look at right-wing churches in America for an example of how they could be twisting the teachings of Christ into some grand justification for Ayn Rand-style market fundamentalism, as well as hate and intolerance.

I also find the whole "fear the Fed" thing to be tiresome and quite misguided. If you think it's physically impossible for Central Banks to ever do any good, you simply need to go out and educate yourself on modern monetary theory. Read Milton Friedman if you think Keynes was some demon summoned straight from the bowels of hell. If you just think the institution is just being run by corrupt people, then presumably you're in the "fire Bernanke, and put a liberal conservative in his place" club. Or maybe you're like me and just want to modify the Fed's charter so there's more democratic accountability, and a clearer mandate.

Or we should just put the Pope in charge.

Mostly though I just find the very idea of a conspiracy amusing. The Pope isn't saying "the Catholic Church should be the Global Central Bank", he's saying "there should be a Global Central Bank whose mandate is to cure poverty". I like that idea! But, I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

But like I said originally, this seems tailor-made to get Ron Paul-style conspiracy theorists all in a tizzy, and apparently I was right!

>> ^marinara:

my head didn't explode. I can spot a Red herring.
Money = power. Unlimited banking = unlimited power.


Aha! So you're a Ron Paul supporter?

Also, you believe the Catholic church is bent on world domination by hook or by crook? And that their interest in poverty is just a red herring?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Well, this just confuses me.

It mostly made me chuckle. The Catholic church goes ultra-Keynesian in defense of social justice. Somewhere, there's a fleet of Ron Paul supporters whose heads just exploded.

As for the merits of the idea itself, I don't think we're at the point where a global monetary union would be useful. While the IMF doesn't have the same sort of dedication to social justice one would imagine a Papal Global Bank would have, it's not actually doing too bad a job given its limited resources and authority, and given the kind of ideological mindsets that tend to infest monetary institutions.

I'm also somewhat fascinated at the idea of the Catholic church putting out a statement about a need for expansionary monetary policy to ease poverty in the world. I wouldn't have expected such a scientific idea to come from them.

Well, this just confuses me.

A big central bank (i.e. a new IMF) seems like a really bad idea--but the CATO Institute (Pieces of Shit) is against it. A tax on global transactions is a good idea--for each country individually--not Globally (who would receive and enforce?).

And--the Catholic Church being against idolatry is hypocrisy at its finest.

I don't know what to think.

I mean to say that money is what the rich(ie kings and the catholic church) had so that they could afford to commission great works of art from genius artists and artisans. Very few "great artists" ever profited from their own work.

So, @hpqp I agree wholeheartedly but I just didnt word it right.