You know pdill,

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply brain-washed and paranoid, rather than educated well beyond your intelligence. Whether I’m wrong or right about that, what is beyond question, is that your reading comprehension is well below that of the average “bigoted redneck dumbass” that you seem to believe that I am. I am left to conclude that simply seeing UN, Pope, and Antichrist in the same paragraph kicked in your unreasonable fear of fat, dirty old men in white sheets sitting around a bonfire drinking beer and roasting hotdogs. I suppose when that happens, weak (or non-existent) reading comprehension skills are negated in the chemical flood that demented and twisted minds must experience whenever some random association trips the lunatic trigger.

Try re-reading my post. S L O W L Y this time. Read the second sentence three or four times. It SHOULD be apparent to anyone with the reading skills of a third grader that the Pope as Antichrist is NOT a theory that I subscribe to. Is that clear enough for you now?

However, five to twenty five percent of the population are somewhere between leaving this open as a possibility to fervently vocalizing that the Pope is the Antichrist. I know it must be hard to believe, judging from your last post and perhaps a couple of others, but some of these people have even shallower levels of compression than you. Some of them are even more reactionary and vicious than you. That, pdill, puts them at a level of stupidity that is clearly dangerous.

That, pdill, makes this an area that should be discussed by reasonable persons. You have excluded yourself from that latter category, but the adults might like to have a discussion about how these people will feed off this statement and what, if any, effect that this statement might have on them (and therefore possibly us, through their actions).

You have confirmed the Protestant prejudice that Catholics spend so much time defending the indefensible that they can’t see the plain truth in front of their faces. I’m sure Catholics everywhere are thanking you as we write.

BTW, I just happened to find an orphaned window that still had this post up because I thought that this could turn into an interesting discussion on the reaction of persons who are paranoid about Catholics. I had no idea it turn up a Catholic who was so paranoid about Protestants that he/she/it would threat-kill the whole thread.

Gad, pdill, it’s a shame you’re such a reactionary idiot. When you could leave off the Anti-Catholic paranoid stupidity, you made some valid points. Speaking of deluded pdill, turn that finger around the opposite direction and you’ll have it right.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Aye Chihuahua

I did read it again, and I understood what you said. What I disagree with is how you are said it, which seems to dismiss the importance of the Preamble. Your followup statement, I do agree completely with:

“The Preamble does not grant, restrict, or establish any specific powers for the Fed Govt. ”

Which is of course is true, however the Preamble establishes the authority to grant powers as residing with “The People” (not the States,) who are the ones granting powers to the federal government. This is a key significant concept behind the forming of our government that should not be read lightly. Those words are not mere forms of art. (The original Articles of Confederation, on the other hand, established that it was the States granting powers to the Central Government, not “The People”.)

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Some may think I’m nit-picking here, but I think that this is an important distinction.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt can take it or leave.

Leave it….the only time I step in is if people become hostile with rude obscene insults and they do not stop once warned. Very few have been banned, but it does happen. Other then that its up to each individual author and the commenters themselves.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

For any still convinced that the pope is the Anti-Christ, I came across this:

July 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI’s supposed call for a “new world order” or a “one-world government.” These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.

The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations. Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world’s news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ.

As expected, ‘Truth in Charity’ appears to be getting it’s MSM anti-catholic spin.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Old Ez I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are more uneducated than bigoted.

Does no one care that the Pope encouraged putting some real power into the UN and basicly making it the “one world government” that the Bible warns about? What is this going to do for all the paranoids (of course you’re only paranoid if you’re wrong) that have been floating the “Pope as AntiChrist” theme for years? Was it brought up and I missed it? Wouldn’t be the 1st time, of course.

What all reasonable people care about Ez is the corruption of the UN, aka, “United Nothing.” Are you even aware of the bureaucratic cesspool it has become? Are you aware that many of the rapes in Darfur are from the UN workers, you know, the ones bringing the food? Do you also know that in the 90’s, it was so out of control the US stopped paying dues?

You are the epitome of my point of not only deaf ears, but biased ears, consequently, the world will never give ‘Charity and Truth’ the chance (and hope) it deserves.

For starters, the pope is calling for REFORM of the UN, not a world dominated “take over.” I’d bet the baby that you never even read the encyclical, but had you read it in “context”, you would clearly understand that the only “world order” the pope is calling for is in “brotherly love.” Imagine, a UN for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. Certainly, if that were ever to occur, with the security and non exploitation of the worlds’ neediest, it would require world political authority for it to have any teeth, but again, not at anyone’s gain except the needy. Benedict is calling for “teeth and accountability.”

What we have now Ez is a corrupt cesspool, and IMO, wasted NY real estate and US dues.

I also want to add that the Pope stresses it is best to keep “all things local”, government intervention only when needed, and of course, based in natural law.

So Ez I’m afraid you have been duped.

As for that anti-Christ, that’s more preposterous than the UN statement. Pope Benedict is arguably the most brilliant theologian alive today, with prolific illuminating writings on Christ. I won’t even challenge you to give me even one example that would indicate such an outrageous statement. I will however, suggest that you get your facts straight:

The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.

Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.

For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.

Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.
A Crack in the Door

Now that Protestantism has been in a state of separation from the Church for several centuries, psychological pressures have eased, and many Protestants today recognize the absurdity of the papal Antichrist theory and reject those portions of their confessional writings that endorse it.

This praiseworthy recognition provides the Catholic apologist with an opportunity to invite individuals to fundamentally reconsider the Protestant Reformation. If Protestants are prepared to admit that the pope is not the Antichrist and that the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon, then the questions may be posed: “Then what are they? How can they be otherwise explained?”

Most Christians are and always have been members of the Catholic Church. The pope and the Catholic Church are too central to historic Christianity to be dismissed as simply an accident. They must have some part in God’s plan. But if they are not the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon, then the logical alternative is to recognize them as the Vicar of Christ and the Bride of Christ—the very realization that drove the early Reformers to the papal Antichrist theory.

Lastly Ez, if there’s any ‘Anti- Christ’ we should be concerned about, look no further than in America, starting with the most perilous ones, (always the not so obvious) who actually ARE against the teachings of Christ. Do know that true evil always comes “nicely packaged.”

First we have Mr. President Obama, whose actions are about as anti Christian and divisive as you can get, while still giving lip service to being a “Christian”. Next we have Ms. Orpah Winfrey, teaching her new age, “Get off the cross we need the wood”, no sin, ‘FEEEEEEELING” version of Christianity, and dare I say, even Osteen, who packs them in at football stadiums teaching “Easter Sunday for everybody” without a good Friday (there’s no Christianity without a cross). And need I even mention the Kennedy/Pelosi/Sibelius et al “abortion loving” anti Christian politicians who dare call themselves Catholics.

And that’s how “Judeo/Christian American” elected to the presidency the closest man to the anti Christ (who knows, he may even be a precursor), this country has ever experienced. It’s also (real Christianity), that is the biggest reason behind the Sarah Palin and George W. Bush hatred.

The reality is, for Obama’s ultimate plan to succeed, Christianty (at least in it’s real form), simply cannot exist. It is without question, the “number one enemy” of the far left.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ditto:

Perhaps you should read my statement again:

“The Preamble has no value whatsoever in determining which powers are afforded to the Fed Gov’t which is what the US Constitution is designed to do.”

I stand by it.

The Preamble does not grant, restrict, or establish any specific powers for the Fed Govt.

Statements from the Preamble, such as “general welfare” are used by those who wish to push an agenda which is in opposition to the remainder of the document.

I agree with the remainder of what you posted but you’ll notice from reading your own post that all of your arguments and premises are found within the main body of the Constitution itself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Does no one care that the Pope encouraged putting some real power into the UN and basicly making it the “one world government” that the Bible warns about? What is this going to do for all the paranoids (of course you’re only paranoid if you’re wrong) that have been floating the “Pope as AntiChrist” theme for years? Was it brought up and I missed it? Wouldn’t be the 1st time, of course.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley

Ahh – that’s regulation. Still I only made a suggestion. Curt can take it or leave.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

We authors are the moderators of our own posts… and do occasionally remove spam and blatant racist assaults that contribute nothing on other threads. ’tis up to our own discretion.

The only “official” moderator is Curt. And you don’t want to get on the wrong side of our in house bad boy “FA Founding Father” unless you want to be thrown out the saloon doors… LOL

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Mataharley

You cannot mandate love of fellow man, and you cannot regulate civility and manners. Any attempt to do so here, and I’d be out the door.

In that case why have moderators? Don’t they regulate?

Like or Dislike: 0  0