Mitt Romney For President… Anti-Christ Ascending

[CrunchyCon]

The US put a Catholic in office once. What's the difference?

Catholics are Christian, they are not secretive, they don't exert cult-like control on their parishioners, etc, etc.

Catholics don't believe Christ is their intercessor - only the clergy can absolve them. They don't see the Bible as god-breathed. Only the clerical hierarchy can interpret scripture.

You forgot to mention that on Christmas Eve we kidnap babies and young children from Protestant fundamentalist families, ritually kill them during Midnight Mass, and drink their blood at Holy Communion.

[Faramir]

The US put a Catholic in office once. What's the difference?

Catholics are Christian, they are not secretive, they don't exert cult-like control on their parishioners, etc, etc.

Catholics don't believe Christ is their intercessor - only the clergy can absolve them. They don't see the Bible as god-breathed. Only the clerical hierarchy can interpret scripture.

I hate to bash Catholicism but this thread started by bashing Mormonism so I figure it is fair game.

Don't worry Faramir, you are not bashing Catholics, only some ghost of what you think Catholics are. Which is wrong wrong wrong.

OK, then enlighten me.

[Faramir]

The US put a Catholic in office once. What's the difference?

Catholics are Christian, they are not secretive, they don't exert cult-like control on their parishioners, etc, etc.

Catholics don't believe Christ is their intercessor - only the clergy can absolve them. They don't see the Bible as god-breathed. Only the clerical hierarchy can interpret scripture.

You forgot to mention that on Christmas Eve we kidnap babies and young children from Protestant fundamentalist families, ritually kill them during Midnight Mass, and drink their blood at Holy Communion.

Remember the Huegonots. Plenty of blood on Catholic hands.

[fourhorses]

Organized Christianity is not all what it`s cracked up to be ...

[fourhorses]

let me keep talking `till I say what you want to hear .....

[Kate Shaw]

You have all lost your minds.

Thank you for the compliment. I have refrained from making similar comments about you in the past, because Mama taught me not to mock the afflicted. But she also taught me to preface statements such as you have made above with, "I think..." or "In my opinion."

[Kate Shaw]

The US put a Catholic in office once. What's the difference?

Catholics are Christian, they are not secretive, they don't exert cult-like control on their parishioners, etc, etc.

Catholics don't believe Christ is their intercessor - only the clergy can absolve them. They don't see the Bible as god-breathed. Only the clerical hierarchy can interpret scripture.

I hate to bash Catholicism but this thread started by bashing Mormonism so I figure it is fair game.

When did "disagreeing with" something become "bashing" it? Have we all fallen so far that we cannot even have different opinions any longer?

And you don't hate bashing Catholicism. You actually enjoy it -- if that's what you're doing. Personally I see your comments Except the last sentence as opinions, perhaps arguments from belief, and inviting other opinions and refutations or agreements -- what used to be called "dialogue" before we banned everything but pre-printed monologues.

[CrunchyCon]

You have all lost your minds.

Thank you for the compliment. I have refrained from making similar comments about you in the past, because Mama taught me not to mock the afflicted. But she also taught me to preface statements such as you have made above with, "I think..." or "In my opinion."

The reality is some Christians (like you and I, Kate) question how Romney can be marketed as a conservative Christian given his legacy of supporting Planned Parenthood and mandating $50 abortions. Others (won't name any names) see this as no big deal.

[Peter O'Donnell]

Well, one thing in Mitt's favour, he believes in the idea that "outside are dogs and fornicators," at least so far dogs.

[backhoe]

ABO...

[Edward Kennedy]

You have all lost your minds.

Really?

Read what Michael Riley has to say.

In his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” written in 1788, Edward Gibbon specified five basic reasons why that civilization withered and died. One wonders whether historians centuries from now will find a deadly parallel between the societies of the United States and Imperial Rome. The five basic reasons for the Roman Empire’s demise that Gibbon detected was:

1) An undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society.

2) Higher and higher taxes, and spending public money for “free” bread and circuses for the populace.

3) A mad craze for pleasure, with pastimes becoming every year more exciting, brutal, and immoral.

4) Building great armaments, although the real enemy was within — the decay of individual responsibility.

5) Decay of religion — faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life and losing power to guide the people.

Can any right thinking person fail to see in these flaws a frightening likeness to the society in which we are now living?




Now who have lost their minds, the stupid herd or those who see what is going down? Do not forget, we are talking history here, in conjunction with scriptural pretexts.

[richardson]

The US put a Catholic in office once. What's the difference?

Catholics are Christian, they are not secretive, they don't exert cult-like control on their parishioners, etc, etc.

Catholics don't believe Christ is their intercessor - only the clergy can absolve them. They don't see the Bible as god-breathed. Only the clerical hierarchy can interpret scripture.

You forgot to mention that on Christmas Eve we kidnap babies and young children from Protestant fundamentalist families, ritually kill them during Midnight Mass, and drink their blood at Holy Communion.

You really shouldn't say such things. Now that they know, we might have to kill them.

[Peter O'Donnell]

I still say b.s. to this thread, which man comes closer to being the universal deceiver with Satanic impulses, Romney or Obama? I mean really, c'mon, it's not that difficult to tell them apart, is it?

I have to admit, Romney looks a lot like the "third Antichrist" figure they show on the History Channel after Napoleon and Hitler. A white guy in a business suit addressing a large crowd, although he looks even more like that Hispanic character who was running for president at the final stages of the West Wing (Sanchez?) ... but in any case, I maintain that "Antichrist" is a misreading of prophecy, it's the rule of antichrists headed up by a figurehead "man of sin" and that makes it even more obvious.

Frankly, the Mormon church is not strong enough to influence politics in the way suggested by the Romney as antichrist paradigm. There would be so much opposition to any kind of advantage given that it would just never start moving in that direction, and Romney has generally shown a reluctance to mix religion with politics. He acts pretty much like an Episcopalian or Presbyterian and we have seen plenty of those in American politics.

[CrunchyCon]

I still say b.s. to this thread, which man comes closer to being the universal deceiver with Satanic impulses, Romney or Obama?

Definitely Romney. Most devout Christians are not fooled by Obama.

I mean really, c'mon, it's not that difficult to tell them apart, is it?

Obama is the black guy, while Romney is the white guy. Also, Obama is the guy with the more theologically orthodox Christology.

I maintain that "Antichrist" is a misreading of prophecy, it's the rule of antichrists headed up by a figurehead "man of sin" and that makes it even more obvious.

Well there are antichrists in Holy Scripture, and then there's THE Antichrist. One of the issues that bothers me, quite frankly, is the number of Mormons who suspect or believe that Romney is the fulfillment of Joseph Smith Jr's so-called "White Horse Prophecy." I mean, even Glen Beck and Orrin Hatch have been tossing around White Horse Prophecy lingo. Many Mormons have also tied the individual to the FIrst Horseman of the Apocalypse.

That being said, many ancient Christian sources believe that the FIrst Horseman is the Antichrist.

[free_life2]

I still say b.s. to this thread, which man comes closer to being the universal deceiver with Satanic impulses, Romney or Obama? I mean really, c'mon, it's not that difficult to tell them apart, is it?

I have to admit, Romney looks a lot like the "third Antichrist" figure they show on the History Channel after Napoleon and Hitler. A white guy in a business suit addressing a large crowd, although he looks even more like that Hispanic character who was running for president at the final stages of the West Wing (Sanchez?) ... but in any case, I maintain that "Antichrist" is a misreading of prophecy, it's the rule of antichrists headed up by a figurehead "man of sin" and that makes it even more obvious.

Frankly, the Mormon church is not strong enough to influence politics in the way suggested by the Romney as antichrist paradigm. There would be so much opposition to any kind of advantage given that it would just never start moving in that direction, and Romney has generally shown a reluctance to mix religion with politics. He acts pretty much like an Episcopalian or Presbyterian and we have seen plenty of those in American politics.

Just who is this? We do not yet know, but we will.

Matt 24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Dan 9:27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

and Rev 13 (whole chapter)

These describe a being not just the spirit of. I see clearly as being both a spirit of the antichrist and a person the antichrist and both are satan manifesting among people.