What is the monetary value of vatican city?

1. 59

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   Is "christianity" devoted to the accumulation of wealth and power?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Qwark!!   (no hi-jacking today, I promise!!  lol)
      
      No, Catholicism is.
      
      
      Oh!  and Mormonism.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hahaha..Hi Raf..:-)
         First question first:
         What is the value of vatican city?
         Now 2nd question.
         Catholics claim to be the only christians.
         Mormons are naught but a crazy cult.
         My father was a mormon. I know it first hand.
         From the council of nicea to today, has and is,  power and wealth been the aim of christianity?

         replyreport
         1. 50

            paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            From Paul to nicea to today, has and is, power and wealth been the aim of christianity?
            
            Thanks

            replyreport
      2. 61

         JethroHigginsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The Catholic Church is the greatest  force of social justice on the planet, feeding more hungry, clothing more naked and giving more of the homeless shelter than any other organization on the planet.  And the Church is responsible for keeping Art and History alive through the ages.  Saving the planet is not a cheap endeavor.  The Catholic Church is pretty much #1 in everything that is good on Earth. 
         
         It takes money in this world to do things like this it's not like the Church is hording money.  Having money and hording money are two very different things, and without money organizations like Catholic Relief Service, and the Knights of Columbus or Catholic daughters could not offer the services and benefits to the needy that they do.
         
         If the Church wants to continue to be a force of good in the world for another 2000 years financial stability does a lot to help that.  ALso you are making the error of assuming that "The Church" is bishops and Cardinals.  It is not The Church is the people.  Who have freely given their money to a pool for the purposes and needs of others in our greater community. 
         
         Somebody was making a big deal of the number 100 Billion as if that were a lot of money, but if that were the amount of money that the Church has in the bank which I'm not sure that would be a relatively insignificant amount.  That would be roughly $80 for each person who is Catholic.  In my opinion each individual Catholic should consider increasing their donations to the general pool of money we use to do good in the world so that we can reach a greater number of people with basic human needs.

         replyreport
         1. 54

            (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            According to the John Jay Report:
            
                * Of the 11,000 allegations, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1000 which could not be substantiated.
                * 56% of the priests were accused of a single allegation. 44.4% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. 3.5% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations.
                * Just under 6% of victims were 7 years of age or younger. 16% of the victims were between age 8 and age 10. 78% of the victims were between age 11 and age 17.
            
            

            replyreport
   2. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Is "christianity" devoted to the accumulation of wealth and power?
      
      It always has been and nothing more.
      
      As for the monetary value of the Vatican? Going up in value in property only, each and every, day.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         TY Cags:
         I've spoken to many priests and catholics who adamantly claim to be the only christians.
         It seems to me, from my seminary studies that jesus was an ascetic who alledgely preached wherever he could find those who would listen. Whether it's true of not is of no concern.
         What is of concern is that vatican city is the very heart beat of the richest, capitalistic theocracy on earth and it claims to represent this fellow jesus christ.
         I seem to remember that this jesus didn't have a pot-to-piss in, let alone a city worth billions of dollars which could be spent caringly, relieving, so much pain and suffering in the world!
         It seems to me that it's CEO: the pope, exists among riches that only the pharoahs could enjoy!
         It seems to me, that "IF" the myth of "satan" were a reality, he, would fit snuggly into the clown robes of this religious criminal...the pope!
         I visited vatican city. I have never been witness to such oppulence and unmitigated riches!
         It seemed to me to be the antithesis of everything this fellow jesus stood for.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            blue parrotposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, the Vatican owns the greaest art made by its artists all along the centrueis and partly financed by selling  papal pardons for all your sins.
            
            However, could you tell me, please, what the Vatican could do with all those riches? Sell them for some lousy dollars? Swiss francs? Euros? Sell to whom?
            
            You'll say: no matter what currency, give it to the poor.
            
            Hm.
            
            How much have the US been spending these last few years on their wars?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Irish:
               c'mon!
               Catholicism is still collecting tithes! For what? to get richer and more powerful?
               They are always seeking more converts to bring more $ into the vatican cache!
               It is the "mafia" on a much grander scale!
               If they were so onclined, they could be of much greater assistance to humanity than they are...but their main interest since 300 AD has been power and riches..
               They represent mankind at its absolute worst!

               replyreport
      2. 61

         JethroHigginsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Qwark your mind is backwards on the way those to things are connected... The Church uses their money to reach more people not their people to reach more money...  It's not like somebody is living fat on Vatican Cash... the Pope lives in a mostly empty room much like an apartment or cell.  This thread is filled with people that have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Church and money.  And to be honest if you are against the Catholic Church then your opinion about what we should or shouldn't do with our money is pretty useless.  Who are you to tell me what to do with my money.  If you want to bring down a selfish money grubbing organization then watch the new movie "Blood Money"  Here's the trailor - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaTywSDmls

         replyreport
   3. 71

      seanorjohnposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      A bent farthing.( the lowest common denomination in English currency)Ok, I should have said a bent Italian coin.

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   Just for the record, I like Jesus' work. I just do not like his message mixed up in religious text.
   
   And you're right, he had no desire to be wealthy, because it wasn't something he felt he needed. Besides, he saw the corruption wealth brings to those who have it.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Cags:
      This,of course, is "presumption:"
      
      "And you're right, he had no desire to be wealthy, because it wasn't something he felt he needed. Besides, he saw the corruption wealth brings to those who have it."

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         A "presumption"? No. His life is recorded, regardless of whether or not, you believe it is true.
         
         People, like you- distort the facts- the bible is a written document, some history and some mythology. To discern truth, you need to know which is history and which is mythology.
         
         Many people say that it is hear say, because all the information is second hand. However, if you rip it Jesus' work from religion's grasp, you get a much simpler message than the garbage in the bible.
         
         Incorporating everything known to humanity, since recorded time and now, can you depict what his life was like and what his intentions were from his message spoken to his followers.
         
         However, as I have said before, my own research into religion has bared fruit, because hundreds of people before me, had done similar research and when everything is taken into account, truth is revealed.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Cags:
            ...and after reading that, my comment remains the same.
            What you offer is trite, hopeful presumption. Nothing more.   :-)
            Prove me wrong pls...

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Hey Qwark,
               
               Answer this one question, before I attempt to prove you wrong.
               
               Is there truth in a lie?
               
               You have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer.
               
               
               Edit: btw- I am curious what "truth" is to you also?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  CAgs: There is no relevancy attached to that question.
                  My last response stands.
                  Prove me wrong..

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually, you would be wrong on the relevance of what I asked you.
                     
                     DUH!
                     
                     There was a reason for it, as I also edited my post. You're one of the people who seems to think that truth is subjected to one person individual perspective.
                     
                     So, since you are unable to see outside your own little box you built for yourself, then opening your mind isn't an option.
                     
                     Therefore I conclude I would not be able to show you or explain enough for you to understand it. And, on that note, I'll leave it alone.
                     
                     Therefore, you can feel your win, that I cannot prove you wrong.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        CAgs:
                        End of chat.
                        My comment stands.
                        You offer naught but trite, hopeful presumption.
                        TY tho for making a forgetable try.  :-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           You know, you can be difficult from time to time and it can be fun to watch, but when you decide that you will no longer learn, then you've lost my respect.
                           
                           I did have some respect for you, up to this point. You can add me to your growing list of people not to talk to. I willingly go on it.
                           
                           So much for your respect for me, as you claim to have?
                           
                           Have a nice life Qwark.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Hahaha..Cags,... my goodness such a passionately personal response! So emotional!
                              No problem at all tho.
                              I expected, at least, a respectful, dispassionate, logical exchange of thought, with you trying to prove a point and me making mine.
                              Instead I get an "irrational response!
                              Seems to me we've discussed the subject of "irrationality."  :-)
                              Didactics takes patience and understanding which, it seems to me, you lack.
                              I have always considered your comments.
                              Lets agree to disagree.
                              I will no longer consider your comments of value and you do the same for me. Fair?...:-)
                              I'm looking straight at you, smile on my lips and an accepting, knowing wink of the eye....:-) chuckle!

                              replyreport
3. 67

   awareposted 14 years ago

   1 dollor?

   replyreport
4. 59

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   Gosh! This must be a hard one!
   Not even any guessers 'cept "aware" at 1 dollar.....lol

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I can not write  that high of a number. 
        Never thought about it in this respect before
         I'd bet ya a nickel that their liquid assets are greater that the combined assets of the rest of the world.
      
         Am I close???
      
        Maybe I should have said liquid and debt free realistate.
      That is a lot.

      replyreport
5. 81

   Rafiniposted 14 years ago

   Any monetary value attributed to Vatican City then equals the value of the Catholic Church and nothing more.  So, for me, I don't really care - I have faith in God above, not in the greedy people on earth.
   
   Jesus wasn't interested in monetary gain for a reason - He knew it wasn't important.  What's in the heart is what really matters.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Raf:
      No you don't.
      You have faith in what you imagine to be "above."
      The vatican represents man at his lowest level of greed and tyranny!
      It uses what you "imagine" to be "above" and preys on the ignorant and easily led.
      It represents the epitome of "greed" and betrayal!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I can agree with you about the Vatican, but not about my faith.  
         
         
         I mentioned God above, but really God is everywhere and everything.  Do I have faith in 'everything'?  That depends on what is meant by 'everything'.  For my purpose, it means nature and what can benefit man the most in its most natural form.  Nothing in life is perfect, so I can deal with my cotton clothes being combined with another fabric - even if its an 'artificial' fabric.  I can deal with eating white bread but prefer wheat.  I can deal with some of my food being processed (pasta) but enjoy fruits and veggies more. 
         
         God created nature and mankind - I have my faith.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Raf:
            ...and I can agree with you if you consider this god thing to be "nature."  :-)

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               You mean we actually have some kind of understanding - or almost? 

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Raf:
                  Who truly understands anything?...:-)

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh, my!  lol
                     
                     um...understanding...um...doesn't everyone understand at least something?  lol

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        lol...Raf, we think we do, but who knows?
                        Everything we think we know could change tomorrow...eh? :-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           No!  Please, I'm happy with what I know...so far anyway.  

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              ...hang in there "happy one, regardless of what ya think ya know, time has a way of "shortly" tranferring you and what you think you know back into the realm of quantum eternity.
                              Don't take anything "TOO" seriously.   :-)

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 lol 
                                 
                                 
                                 Knowledge is but a temporary transfer of intelligence....

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 54

                                    (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    No, it isn't, by definition.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 81

                                       Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       my post is obviously not a definition....

                                       report
                                       1. 54

                                          (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yes, I know, it was a misunderstanding of a definition.

                                          report
                                    2. 81

                                       Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       Believe what you wish - it isn't up to me to teach you, what is up to me is to live my life as I see fit.

                                       report
                                       1. 54

                                          (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          Thanks, but I don't believe what I wish, that's the point.

                                          report
                           2. 54

                              (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Even your knowledge of the definition of "knowledge" is seriously lacking, are you sure there is nothing more for you to learn?

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 ???
                                 
                                 so far anyway....I'm sure I'll learn something new by the end of the day, every day.....

                                 replyreport
6. 78

   Michael Adams1959posted 14 years ago

   I don't know the value monetarily but I had heard it long ago. I do know it is more than enough to pay off entire nations debt. And yes it is enough that could actually pay off the debt of the United States.

   replyreport
7. 60

   theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

   Financially 100 Billion - morally 00000000000000000000

   replyreport
8. 51

   JOHNSTARposted 14 years ago

   money is needed in all churches to help keep needs a wants just
   like you need money in everyday life especially for your family
   and home.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Gosh, I wish I had a family like this:
      
         "The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc. At a conservative estimate, these amount to more than 500 million dollars in the U.S.A. alone.
      
            "In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953). It is not difficult to discover the truly astonishing wealth of the church, once we add the riches of the twenty-eight archdioceses and 122 dioceses of the U.S.A., some of which are even wealthier than that of Boston. "

      replyreport
9. 76

   schoolgirlforrealposted 14 years ago

   Interesting question lol
   But to me as a spiritual person, I would say,
   the amount of Splendour man gave to vatican city- this temple if you will- the center of the Roman Catholic Church........man builds Churches to honor God--so if this is the richest one in the world--must be the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ!!!! Anyways, if you find out let me know ;-)

   replyreport
10. 59

    Jeramiposted 14 years ago

    I find it intresting that God did not let King David build him a temple because he had blood on his hands. Soloman finished his temple for god in 966BC
       and God fortold of its destruction and that it would be rebuilt 70 years later.
       God also foretold of that temple being destroyed and not one stone shall be left one on top of another that shall not have been thrown down. Sounds like he had no intentions of it being built again.       
     
       I don't think that God liked the temple thing very much if he kept destrouing it.
    
    Rev 21:22  For the Lord God almighty and the lamb are the temple of it.
      Don't ask me EXACTLY what this means...  but it sounds pretty signifigant for some reason.

    replyreport