|
|
Post by watchman on May 7, 2009 12:15:07 GMT -5
You really are enamored with Obama huh? Speaking the truth against this guy is like insulting you mother. (this is the impression you give at least) You should read what I write more carefully. I have no problem with anybody speaking the truth against him. It's when they lie and do it with a collar on that especially dissappoints me. The truth is that the Pope did speak out against Notre Dame for asking Obama to speak there, and Obama refuse to speak at George Town unless they cover the picture of Jesus. You defended him as if someone was attacking the integrity of your mother. I have read your post concerning Obama, and am in shock, it seems to contradict everything you claim to be. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 7, 2009 14:10:17 GMT -5
Touche watchman. I have to say I'm on your side with this one. (and on the Pope's side too!)
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 7, 2009 14:51:30 GMT -5
He wanted to cover up the picture of Jesus....?
I mean...I'm not fond of pictures of Jesus, but what's the point in covering it up?
I can say almost with 100% certainty it wasn't because he thought it classified as a graven image....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:32:00 GMT -5
The truth is that the Pope did speak out against Notre Dame for asking Obama to speak there, Post your proof. What I heard is that The Pope spoke out against President Obama being honored, not his speaking there. Where did you get this information? Yeah, when he gives a political/social speech, that's the M.O. for the White House to not have religious symbols in the background (unless he's givine a religious speech). They didn't have to allow him. They could've rejected or they could've just given him a "religion" free space from which to speak. Don't forget, he went to Catholic School for 3 years as a child. He knows what's up. You have it twisted Teresa...I attack those who wear a collar and who lie! When a Priest lies, whether it's against Obama or Bush, it's not the person I'm defending, but the lieing Priest that I'm exposing! You are putting your politics over my religion to insinuate that Teresa. You seem a little bit too passionate and it's clouding your vision. Why didn't you see the dissappointment in my posts directed at the lieing clergymen? Question: If a Priest outrightly lied and slandered and misrepresented someone you opposed for any reason, would you stay quiet about it just because it was against someone you opposed? You wouldn't express your concerns with a man of the cloth lieing? I'm sorry, but I can't sit by and allow a Priest to lie without me saying something. I love my Church more than I love Political Correctness. The day that we allow Priests to slander anybody is the day that we become what The Pope speaks against...complacent. See that? It seems contradictory because you read it from the angle of Obama instead of the angle of the lieing, slanderous Priest that is supposed to be representing our Church. Your focus is on the Politician, not on The Priest. Now, flip the focus and re-read my posts. And another thing, anybody who knows me that I am 101% against President Obama on his Pro-Life stance, so I would never disagree with anybody that is against him on that. But that's not a free pass to lie about The President. That doesn't discredit The President...that discredits The Priest. And mark my words, no matter how wrong Obama is on Pro-Life issues, God would NEVER allow one of His Priests to lie or to slander. You cannot have it both ways. Thinking like that led to the Inquisition where it was ok to lie about people to convict them falsely and you know the rest of history. I'll ask you this T...when that Priest lied about and slandered President Obama, who was the author of those lies? God or Satan? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:42:54 GMT -5
Touche watchman. I have to say I'm on your side with this one. (and on the Pope's side too!) peace teresa How about you T, do you have proof that The Pope spoke out against Obama speaking at Notre Dame? Would somebody please post evidence of this accusation?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:44:03 GMT -5
Obama and Notre Dame: courage to say the obvious
May 3, 2009, 8:44 pm Posted by Paul Moses www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3136An editorial in America makes a notable contribution to the debate over the University of Notre Dame’s decision to invite President Obama to speak on campus and to honor him. It contains this reality check:
The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.
Pope Benedict XVI has also modeled a different stance toward independent-minded politicians. He has twice reached out to President Obama and offered to build on the common ground of shared values. Even after the partially bungled visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Pope Benedict, Vatican officials worked quickly to repair communication with her. Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty … Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church’s policy positions … Finally, last March the pro-choice French president Nicolas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope’s own cathedral.[/i]
Wow...according to you guys, should we defrock The Pope for appearing with and meeting with Pro-Choice Catholics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:45:53 GMT -5
Today, the Pope is meeting with Muslim leaders (remember that religion that rejects Jesus Christ is The Son of God and who's extremists issued an order of death recently against The Pope).
What do we do with him now?
Renounce him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:48:58 GMT -5
He wanted to cover up the picture of Jesus....? I mean...I'm not fond of pictures of Jesus, but what's the point in covering it up? I can say almost with 100% certainty it wasn't because he thought it classified as a graven image.... The point is the separation of Church and State Em. It's reasonable for him to not seem like he (being the leader of a diverse country with Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc...) is in anyway affiliated with any specific group (even his own). To me, that's idolatry to get upset that he covered an "image". Images, statues, artwork...it's nothing within itself. One does not disrespect Jesus by covering up a picture. Now, an Altar or a Tabernacle? That's different. But a picture? That's ridiculous. Pictures (unless relics) aren't holy objects. They are inanimate objects and imposing such importance on them is idolatry. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 8, 2009 9:13:30 GMT -5
I have a feeling he wasn't doing it for religious reasons. Now me, I won't allow a picture of Jesus in my house...for religious reasons. But him...I don't think so.
Who says I support seperation of church and state?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 8, 2009 18:58:37 GMT -5
Separation of church and state was supposed to protect believers from the government not the government from believers. Satan has really twisted that around huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 9, 2009 10:10:08 GMT -5
Separation of church and state was supposed to protect believers from the government not the government from believers. Satan has really twisted that around huh? Didn't you forget "why" this country was founded? Because Protestants were escaping persecution by other Protestants (The Puritans escaping Episcopalianism). Jesus also advocated separation of the believer from the state... (Remember, that Ceasar is not a name, but a title...Caesar represents the government) Matthew 22:15-22 15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.(I love Jesus! Just when I think that I get a little carried away with my apologetics, I'll read something like this and think to myself...Wow!) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 9, 2009 10:47:27 GMT -5
Oh yeah, Teresa and Watchman, where is you "proof" that The Pope spoke out against President Obama giving the commencement speach at Notre Dame?
Still waiting!
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 9, 2009 12:12:50 GMT -5
The arc bishop spoke against it, saw it on cnn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 9, 2009 12:54:05 GMT -5
The arc bishop spoke against it, saw it on cnn. There are a ton of bishops that are speaking on it. But it is The Pope himself who is being accused of this sentiment. The question remains: Where is the proof that The Pope spoke against President Obama speaking at Notre Dame? I'll just wait for the proof. I have no reason to believe that Watchman would purposely lie about this and fully expect him to provide proof of this allegation against The Pope. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 9, 2009 23:30:21 GMT -5
well, just googled and cant find where pope has said anything negative about it....
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 10, 2009 11:50:08 GMT -5
Well, I can't sit by and allow the President to promote his pro-abortion agenda without saying something.
I can't judge the motive of some one's heart. I was just giving the Priest the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he didn't mean to lie. He teaches the catechism, and I'm sure that he is well aware that slander is wrong, so that's why I was hoping it was an accident.
But being openly and adamantly "pro-choice" and promoting greater availability and taxpayer funded abortions really couldn't be by accident, could it? I pray that the President and all "pro-choice" people will make the intentional decision to defend life.
Obama can speak for himself and defend himself against slander. But how can babies defend themselves?
11If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
12If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
(Proverbs 24)
8 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
(Proverbs 31)
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 10, 2009 12:20:46 GMT -5
I never said that. I just said I was on the Pope's "side". I meant that as a general statement, and esp. in regard's to the issue of Abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 13:29:39 GMT -5
I never said that. I just said I was on the Pope's "side". I meant that as a general statement, and esp. in regard's to the issue of Abortion. Well, ok. Watchman, it's on you to post proof that The Pope of The Catholic Church spoke out against President Obama speaking at Notre Dame. Still waiting...  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 13:34:29 GMT -5
Well, I can't sit by and allow the President to promote his pro-abortion agenda without saying something. I can't judge the motive of some one's heart. I was just giving the Priest the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he didn't mean to lie. He teaches the catechism, and I'm sure that he is well aware that slander is wrong, so that's why I was hoping it was an accident. But being openly and adamantly "pro-choice" and promoting greater availability and taxpayer funded abortions really couldn't be by accident, could it? I pray that the President and all "pro-choice" people will make the intentional decision to defend life. Obama can speak for himself and defend himself against slander. But how can babies defend themselves? 11If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
12If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Proverbs 24) 8 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31) That is "not" the issue here T. We aren't talking about Obama's Pro-Choice stances, but about a Priest (or several) and lay people who LIE in the name of Catholicism! Don't be diverted! I'm 101% with you on Obama being wrong, but again, not the topic here. How do you feel about laypeople in the service of The Church and Priests literally lieing and slandering and misrepresenting President Obama's positions? One of the Priests who was talking about Obama was actually challenging him to go get him in the studio himself when The President only said that Abortion Clinic Bombers and those who murder abortion doctors are terrorists (which by definition is true). He never (like the Priest represented) said that "Christians who oppose abortion" are terrorists! That's a blatant lie! And anybody who spreads lies like that is serving Satan's cause, not God's even if they are tricked into believing that just because it's against abortion, it's God's. Abortion is wrong 101%, but don't think that God would allow anyone to lie in His name. And just as abortion is wrong, so is lieing in God's name...I don't care how much of a scholar they are whether in scripture or the Catechism. Knowledge doesn't make one truthful. I'm sure Satan could quote the Catechism back and forth...but he'd still be a lier. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 13:37:07 GMT -5
well, just googled and cant find where pope has said anything negative about it.... True. In fact, when asked for a position on it, The Pope's spokesman said that they never had a problem with him speaking at the commencement and that The Church welcomes opposing views so that they can have open debates (but Obama would NEVER engage The Catholic Church in such a debate because that would be one debate he knows he'd lose). But, I can't say that The Pope himself didn't say anything, just that I haven't heard of it and even that no one representing him has said it. The only person that I've heard that from has been Watchman. And I'm still waiting for the evidence. |
|
