It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Ghost375
I don't like his policies.
Isn't that allowed?
Or do we have to love everything about the man.
*shakes head at this thread*
Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Here I am ranting again (tiring for me and everyone else).
Please realise that most people who call themselves "Christian" are not, in fact, followers of Christ.
So do not link Christ to so-called "Christian" things.
In fact Jesus would be so against most of the so-called "Christian" things that we have.
Also - here is my view of Obama, as a kiwi, so I am not there.
I think the man is as trustworthy as any president - which means, not very.
Originally posted by Ghost375
Why is it that the most hate comes from these so-called Christians?
Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
All I know is the Jesus has nothing to do with elections.
It will be the richest and most influential - in other words, totally corrupt.
Good luck, America.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by Ghost375
Isn't it Ironic? Don't you think?
How can the people who claim to be followers of the man who said to love everyone as yourself, hate anyone?
Why is it that the most hate comes from these so-called Christians?
If you were really a Christian, you'd love Obama. There's a difference between disagreeing, and hate. All you show is hate. There's no "I disagree with Obama, but I respect his views and love him as a person."
All I see from so-called Christians is the exact opposite of what they preach. All I see is judging, hate, and greed. I don't see unconditional love from any of them...
How about you practice what you preach?
I disagree with his views, but I respect and love him for his continued murders of the citizens of sovereign nations for their natural resources.
How's that sound?
Seriously, think THEN post.
/TOA
It does not sound very Christian.
Think, then post.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by Ghost375
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Ghost375
I stand by my posts.
His policies suck.
Something vile and disgusting that I once stepped in would perform better and have better policies than Obama.
But I don't hate the man.
Just his policies.
Some religious folks would say, "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin."
Well, in the world of politics, Obamas' "sin" is described in his policies.
I think we all know Beezer is not a real christian. You clearly hate the man. Calling someone worse than "vile and disgusting" is showing hate very visibly.
When did I ever say I hated him?
You can't find it, can you.
His policies stink on ice.
I comment on his policies, his actions as president.
Labeling me incorrectly will get you nothing but heartache, puddin'.
Originally posted by Ghost375
bedtime for me...and no stars or flags for a very important topic that I've spent years thinking about, and analyzing people's behaviors...TBH I didn't expect any S+F from a conservative leaning, fear mongering, and hate mongering, site like ATS.
But I didn't expect 6 stars to be given to someone who only gave a thumbs down emoticon. That's a little much, and I wouldn't have written this post if that hadn't happened.
Embrace Ignorance, right!
Embrace Ideas that only support your thoughts!
There's no way at all my signature could apply to you, am i right?
"You are too controversial!" "Why don't you be a little more mainstream?" "You are raising too much hatred!" We are receiving more and more of these liberal and progressivist exclamations with regard to TIA stances on religion, history, international affairs, the environment, etc
We are just trying to express Catholic thinking on these topics. If such thinking is controversial, then so be it. It is difficult for a true Catholic not to be controversial, since he is following the steps of his Divine Master, Who did not come to bring peace, but the sword. The words below by the famous commentator of the Gospel, Fr. Louis Claude Fillion, could not be more opportune to answer such objections.
.
Fr. Louis Claude Fillion
Our Lord Jesus Christ affirms in the Gospel of St. Matthew:
“Do not think that I come to bring the peace upon earth: I came not to send peace but the sword. For I come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and the man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He, who loves father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he, who loves son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me. And he, who does not take up his cross and follow Me, is not worthy of Me” (10: 34-38).
The sword, this terrible weapon that symbolizes war à outrance [to the extreme], is placed by the Messiah into the family, into the entire world. Is there anything that can appear stranger and more unexpected than this? Wasn’t the One anticipated by the Prophets supposed to present Himself as a Prince of Peace carrying an olive branch, the pledge of happiness and security? Wasn't He the One at whose birth the Angels sang "peace be on earth" (Luk 2: 14)?
If Jesus Christ affirms, however, that He came to bring war and not peace, it is not because His coming was a direct cause of fighting and dissension for the world , but rather that fighting and dissension would be the natural consequence of the establishment of His kingdom. Christ Himself cannot offer the kiss of peace until the passions and vices have been cut down with the sword.
The Symbol of the Sword Atila Sinke Guimarães
When one considers the principle characteristics of the Conciliar Church, one see that among them tolerance stands out. The basis of ecumenism is the concept that one should have tolerance for the errors of the false religions. The basis of aggiornamento – that is, the adaptation of the Church to the modern world – is also the notion of tolerance in relation to the revolutionary principles represented by the modern world. One can safely say that tolerance is the foundation of the two principal initiatives of Vatican Council II and the reforms that were applied in the post-Conciliar period.
Another important action of the New Church in the political-social ambit is its effort in favor of peace. Any war – by the fact of it being a war – is considered evil.
This is expressed in the Encyclical Pacem in terris by John XXIII, as also in important excerpts of the conciliar document Gaudium et spes. I recall that on the visit he made to the Holy Land, Paul VI planned a trip to the Valley of Armageddon. The ladies and gentlemen here present certainly will remember that, according to many interpreters, the last battle of History will take place at The Valley of Armageddon. It would be the battle between Our Lord and the Anti-Christ, the battle of the final victory of Jesus Christ.
Paul VI, however, wanted to walk through the Valley of Armageddon crying out in Hebrew: “Shalom, shalom!” Or, that is to say, the Vicar of Christ wanted to go to the site of the last battle and express symbolically that there should not be another war.
Thus, tolerance is a keynote of the new religion that is being instilled by the followers of progressivism.