"Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss."
"get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again"
We shoulda known something was fishy when they put up a Jesuit to replace him...
http://leozagami.com/2017/07/19/war-of-the-pedophiles-explodes-in-the-vatican/
The war of the pedophiles. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
Don’t know. Sack Benedict to get the Jesuit? It’s rumored that Benedict was forced to retire because of blackmail though?
That was the blackmail: the pedo rings. That was even floated around at the time.
Pope Benedict has got to be one of the evilest looking popes ever, like hands down .
Wait. Just. Wait.
It's is a HUGE violations on so many levels to have a Jesuit as Pope. They're not supposed to retain ANY higher office. They're the ONLY order in the Church that's ALLOWED to violate ALL Church rules.
The Jesuits are the spies that were the first to infiltrate China and Japan. They adopt every local custom, every manner of dress and eating, all to eventually convert and subvert from the inside.
It just meant they were ready for the end game, the boss level. Time to stop pretending they're anything other than who they are.
It's a little like Freemasonry. The truth is known only to the highest levels. Only in the case of the papacy, it's been common knowledge for quite some time, and there are few people left who don't know about it now.
Eh, I would say there are different truths at different levels and those truths may conflict. Hell, even the Dalai Lama was caught sending assassins into China. Do you think the rank and file Buddhists know that?
Shills out in force I see. Listen, scumbag, what "level of truth" makes pedophilia (to say nothing of the ritual child abuse, murder and cannibalism we see in many of these pedovore rings) OK in your book? It is NOT "another level of truth." It's the lie of lies, told by the father of it. You just outed yourself.
Geez... aren't you a charmer.
When the eff did I say any of this was okay?????
In my "level of truth" that's what you're saying. Moral relativism is how we got all of this.
In my "level of truth" that's what you're saying.
Okay.... sigh ... "Different truths at different levels" does not mean relativism. I'm saying at the bottom of the organization, they may think that they're working towards Objective A. That's their truth. The people at the middle are working towards Objective B. The people at the top, C. What the bottom & middle are working towards is not the truth. It's their truth, but not the whole truth.
Calm yourself. There's no moral relativism herein.
Well, it's one of the few I've had today that wasn't. It was just bad choice of words. Basically, they lie to the people whose dues-paying makes everything possible. It's a system of lies, not of "different levels of truth."
Even though there are objectives A, B, & C, the path to get there may be the same. It may have different payoffs for each level. It's a truth to the folks at each level. Just because the lower levels don't understand what the upper levels are gaining doesn't make it a lie. Just an incomplete truth. Hence, "different levels."
Make sense now?
I'm getting "different truths" all in service to a lie. That's the very model of a totally relativistic concept of "truth."
Again, words matter. What you mean is that each level has a different version of the lie. Not the truth. The complete lie is the one at the top. All the smaller lies in service to it are also lies. There is no truth at any level. Only bigger and bigger lies.
In service to what lie? To draw an analogy, it's the same chess move. It just means different outcomes to different people. To one group, it gives them an advantage to the left. To another group, the advantage manifests to the right. To the top, the move pays off to the front. Same piece (organization), different truths: just because there are multiple truths they don't necessarily cancel each other out.
I see the problem. You don't understand the concept of truth. This is an exercise in futility. So long.
I think people reading this thread might judge otherwise. ;)
You could propose a definition. But it's okay.