Here's one for you that I find very interesting and hope you do too. The UN is apparently sponsored the latest in ecumania:
I hope you caught that, but in case you didn't, here it is again:
"Today on the URI North America blog, Reverend Leland Stewart summed up the need for a new religion.
"'At the beginning of every new cycle of life, a new faith is needed for its implementation. We are now entering into the global civilization, a worldwide community of all races, cultures, and religions. In order to give clarity and power to this transformation, a new faith is required. This is not to say that the existing faiths are no longer needed but rather that the coming together of the world’s faiths requires a “new testament”, a new view and understanding of life based upon the new consciousness that is arising in our time. Anything less will not heal the wounds being inflicted upon the world’s peoples.'
"Religion, however, is a very effective governing tool, and the United Nations has been quick to jump on the bandwagon to further the principles of Agenda 21."
Well, we've seen such schemes before. Not for nothing have major banking family dynasties sponsored the ecumenical movement, the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, the Consultation on Church Union (COCU). But we have to ask ourselves, why should HIndus, Buddhists, Jainists, give up their religion? More importantly, is it really necessary for them to do so?
As Dr. Scott D. de Hart and I pointed out in Yahweh the Two-Faced God, the real problem, from the standpoint of world comparative religious history, is that the three great Yahwisms have each produced exclusive and absolute truth claims - with the resulting violence and dialectical necessity of an apocalyptic vision of the future. One cannot expect them to go politely or quietly into the night just to fulfill some equally nutty UN agenda.
Equally disturbing here, however, is the wedding of a global institutional structure of power, with the call to create a "new religion", one that, presumably, one would be compelled to submit lest one be charged with unbelief or heresy. As we pointed out in our book, there really is no need nor reason for such a creation anyway, since there is an ancient cosmological metaphor that would readily serve the purpose. The problem with that metaphor, however, is that it permits of two broad interpretations - an "atheistic" one and a "theistic" one - and moreover, is ultimately empowering of the individual, and in need of no institutionalizations.
But what would a global religious power structure look like? Well, there is really only one in history that even claims such an universal status, and one which, moreover, has in recent decades sponsored its own kind of ecumenia: the papacy. It raises the prospect and possibility that, in the secretive councils of these world-religion planners, the papacy has a new role to play...
See you on the flip side...