It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Death of Scalia and the Resulting Political Furor over His Replacement.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:15 PM
So it's un-Christian to not rubber stamp approve whatever nominee Obama picks for the Supreme Court? Wow, just wow. I believe this just made the top ten worst posts ever on ATS.

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:20 PM

originally posted by: masqua
What would Jesus say?

What did Jesus say?

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

“Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their evil, declares the Lord.

Jesus would tell the Pope "You're a man, an imperfect, sinful man, (paraphrasing here) so STFU."

As far as your original points, these types of arguments remind me strongly of the scribes and pharisees constantly asking Jesus entraping questions.

I would not choose Jesus as a SCOTUS justice for two reasons.
1. The court is of man and of the world, Jesus is not of either. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is Gods."
2. The position is so beneath the Son of God that to even consider it would be an insult to Him. The petty squabbles that court hears have no pertinence to Him...

There seems to be this ideology out there of people, on multiple sides, who seem to know what Jesus would have done or said in any given modern situation. I call BS on it all. The man was perfect, we are not and never will be. You'd be equally as productive asking how an ant would go about handling the burden of a loaded elephant or how an infant would compute Euclidian Geometry.

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:51 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I’m confused when you say:

Jesus would tell the Pope "You're a man, an imperfect, sinful man, (paraphrasing here) so STFU.”

And then say of Jesus:

There seems to be this ideology out there of people, on multiple sides, who seem to know what Jesus would have done or said in any given modern situation. I call BS on it all. The man was perfect, we are not and never will be.

Jesus WAS a man, born on earth and of a woman, like every one of us all. I never did buy into Paul's rearrangement of the Christ figure. I buy only into the teachings of Jesus, in particular the Sermon on the Mount.

Note: If Jesus was on a ‘learning curve’, does that not indicate an earthly education?

-And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and Man. Luke 2:52-

However, this thread is not just about Jesus. It is about the politicians who doll themselves up as Christian, but will do anything other than what Jesus taught. The Pope's recent admonition to Trump is part of that criticism.

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:57 PM

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So it's un-Christian to not rubber stamp approve whatever nominee Obama picks for the Supreme Court? Wow, just wow. I believe this just made the top ten worst posts ever on ATS.

Where was anything said about 'rubber stamping' an Obama pick for SCOTUS? My guess is that no-one put forward will ever get appointed until after the election. Then we'll see if a new Republican or Democratic president will have an opportunity.

I doubt Obama stands a chance in Hell at putting anyone in.

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:31 PM
a reply to: masqua

Jesus was all human and all God. He was what God had created with Adam, only Jesus never faltered. He took on the sins of man, but did not commit the sins of man. This is fairly obvious scripturally when you compare Him to the lamb. Lambs were chosen as preferred sacrifices by the Abrahamic faiths because they were perfect, unspoiled, innocent. Their deaths absolved the sins of those sacrificing.

I get it, man... some believe it all, some don't. What I'm saying is that based on standard Pentecostal teachings and beliefs, the pope is just a dude that's been elevated by other men to a position of authority. His opinions and voice means no more and no less than that of any other person in a position of leadership or authority and is equally subject to criticism, doubt, and even ridicule over it as would be the POTUS, Canada's PM, or even your local mayor. Hell, in many ways the pope is even more of a jackass because he claims modern divine provenance and rules over a sect which dogmatically states "if you question the pope, you're committing a sin." At least in regards to the POTUS, Americans are free to say "Hey dumbass, you're full of it!" with very little lasting effects.

So I'll say it, the pope needs to STFU and mind his own business. The man is sitting in a golden palace guarded by a massive security detail and walls the size of Jericho and has the sack to call out an American politician over increasing border security in the US!?!?!? Hell, the man's entire empire is under special protection from the Hague, making it a major war crime to attack the Vatican. America lacks this special protection... As far as "helping the poor" and tasking the west with being more generous, again, the pope can feel free to introduce his upper lip to his lower lip and stifle himself. Nobody knows how much wealth the Vatican actually holds, but their 2,000 years of plundering, fleecing, and money laundering has constructed an empire that sits on doubtless hundreds of billions of dollars, if not into the trillions.

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We agree on much, burd, in particular thoughts on those in positions of extreme power. From the very outset of Rome taking on the mantle of Christianity (Emperor Constantine), it did so by setting itself apart from Eastern Orthodox Christians, cutting the empire in two pieces.

It's the curse of the 'Modern Age' that we are divided by Logos (science) and Mythos (myth). The Trinity is mythos, but science is Logos and rarely the twain shall meet.

Those who accept Mythos are more liable to believe in God and the promise of life after death and all that entails, such as the Judgement, and wish to live their lives in the Way that Jesus taught, hoping for eternal reward.

Those who accept only Logos do not concern themselves with the 'Hereafter' and are less likely to 'Do unto others (etc.).

This is the Great Schism which humanity now deals with.

Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton both idealized science as that which would free humanity from the fallacious shackles of Myth and religion. How wrong they were. What it wound up doing was to throw modern mankind into despair. Consider the words of the French mathematician Blaise Pascal:

When I see the blind and wretched state of men, when I survey the whole universe in its deadness, and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe without knowing who put him there, what he has to do, or what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost, with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair.

We need a bit of both Logos and Mythos. There is nothing wrong with understanding the universe we live in, but there is also nothing wrong with trying to understand our place within it as well.

The last century taught us that science alone does not nurture mankind, it also gave us the tools for our own suicidal tendencies (WWI and II and all the great ways of killing ourselves up to and including MAD).

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:34 PM
here are some examples of jesus from the bible,
by healing the sick and not demanding payment he offered universal healthcare.
He told people not to pursue vast riches (Luke 12:15), because it would make them unhappy,
and that the "love of money is the root of all sorts of evil."
He did not praise the rich, and said that they should give their money to the poor. (Matthew 19:21)
He told people to forgive rather than punish, because they themselves were guilty of many things.
He told us that "peacemakers," not hawks or warmongers, were blessed. (Matthew 5:9). He made up for it later,
though, by saying that he came not to bring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
In Luke 14:13, he told people to bring the poor and maimed around for dinner.
He denounced big public displays of religion, which would presumably include televangelism today. (Matthew 6:7)
so jesus was clearly leaning to the left, totally against the ideals of the right, however coming from the middle east and being olive skinned, wouldn't be allowed entry under trump.

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:28 PM
a reply to: masqua

Well... it's in my hands. I'll update any naughty revelations as I read them.

So far, the introduction has been quite revealing.

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:32 PM
American Right Wingers would stone Jesus and piss on his corpse.

He is the antithesis of what right winger believe.

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:58 PM
a reply to: masqua

...because Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, Buffett, and Omidyar and their combined BILLIONS of dollars of donations to liberal candidates and policymakers over the past 20 years (the number exceeds $5 Billion) and all the blue at the top of this list doesn't matter so long as the Koch Brothers are donating a hundred million a year to conservative causes, right?

The above reflects the reality of pretty much any Democrat who whines about the GOP's phantom "dark money billionaires."

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:02 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah... like I didn't know that.

Does that make it OK for both parties?

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: masqua

The morally sound answer is "No, that doesn't make it right." Unfortunately, we're in a climate where one side can't stop doing it because the other side would gain a massive and catastrophic advantage. The only answer is real and total campaign finance and political donation reform laws with teeth. Laws that don't pander to unions while handcuffing corporations and laws that don't give free passes to PACs while roadblocking private advertising campaigns. They all need to be shuttered by Congressional action through an Amendment which the SCOTUS cannot touch. Until that happens, I can't really blame either side for what they're doing (though the mock outrage against the Kochs amuses the hell out of me coming from a side which sees more billionaire money donated to their party than the GOP does. The "party of the elite and wealthy" isn't the GOP... at least not anymore.)

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:32 PM
And then there's laws like Citizens United, brought to you by The SCOTUS.

Tell you what, burd... you scour the Democratic heresies and I'll do the same with Republicans.


posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 01:59 PM
Well, I hope everyone had a good time in Palm Springs at the weekend retreat (January 30/31) trying to raise a couple of dollars for the Republican campaign.

“Given the trends we’re seeing, we wouldn’t be surprised if dark money spent on direct advocacy [in the US 2016 election] hit half a billion dollars,” said Viveca Novak, the editorial director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. “Spending by these groups in the 2016 cycle is way ahead of previous cycles, and [dark money groups] are more integrated into campaigns than we’ve seen in the past.”

In 2012, the center has reported, dark money groups spent over $300m, of which more than 80% came from Republican-leaning outfits.

Dark money is a term which is applied to donations from unknown sources.

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 02:09 PM
Well, if Jesus came back today, I think He might be inclined to overturn a few tables in the temple of Citizens United. In fairness, I’ll include this Bloomberg article:

There are also a number of pro-Democratic nonprofits associated with party leaders and leadership-directed committees that make extensive use of dark money. David Brock, a one-time prominent critic of Hillary Clinton who now is a prominent supporter, is involved with several political organizations including nonprofits that don't have to disclose donors, and political action committees that do. They all seem to comingle legally.

The biggest dark money practitioners, however, have been the Chamber of Commerce and one of Republican strategist Karl Rove's political arms.

The Federal Election Commission could force these organizations, with their heavy campaign involvement, to register as political committees, requiring them to name their donors. But the FEC, almost from its inception 40 years ago, has been toothless.

There also is a risk that foreign money could be surreptitiously funneled into the presidential campaign because it wouldn't have to be publicly disclosed.

(bolding mine)

I wonder if ISIS is pumping money into the party of their choice.

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:02 PM
a reply to: masqua

Likely China money to Hillary the same way China funded both her husband's campaign and his legal defense fund against prosecution for perjuring himself.

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:16 PM

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: masqua

Jesus Christ would be totally rejected by these American Christians.

He couldn't be elected dog catcher let alone a Jurist

I have already quoted numerous versus in the Bible that denounces the kind of mentality these " Christians" have towards the poor

They'd call him a communist, socialist, or bleeding heart liberal

And a *SNIP* for not owning a AR-15 and a preaching peace

edit on 2/20/2016 by Blaine91555 because: word that some find offensive removed

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That certainly is possible with 'Dark Money'.

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 06:36 PM
So... is America a secular nation or is it a Christian nation?

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 06:40 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Christianity is not mentioned once in the Constitution. America is a secular nation, but does not have a secular population. There's jews, Muslims, Wiccans and lots of other religions allowed. They're not Christians.

I suppose The Donald should kick them all out of America, right?

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in