Hostile Saint Quotes

A man conscious of enthusiasm for worthy aims is sustained under petty hostilities by the memory of great workers who had to fight their way not without wounds, and who hover in his mind as patron saints, invisibly helping.

And this Saint was soon going to grow into a hostile motherfucker.

My ache for revenge replaced my fear. “I want to know how to use it.

I didn't mean to save him all my firsts. But it happened, and a part of me is glad that it did. Because he was the first boy to give me a gift. The first boy to kiss me. To want to become my friend not because I was popular, but because I was me. He was the first boy who noticed the injured animal behind the camouflage of hostility and tried to give it water and shelter.

For what harm can come to you even if the world is most hostile to you, persecutes and torments you? You still know that you have Christ the Lord as your Friend, and not only Him but also the Father, who assures you and testifies through the mouth of His Son that He loves and cherishes you because of your faith in Christ, and your confession of Him. Now, since you have this Lord on your side, together with all the angels and saints, why should you worry about or fear the world's ire?

I have come to realize that all the saints I’ve known have been accidental ones — people who inadvertently stumbled into redemption like they were looking for something else at the time, people who have just a wee bit of a drinking problem and manage to get sober and help others to do the same, people who are as kind as they are hostile.

The question concerning the origin of moral valuations is therefore a matter of the highest importance to me because it determines the future of mankind. The demand made upon us to believe that everything is really in the best hands, that a certain book, the Bible, gives us the definite and comforting assurance that there is a Providence that wisely rules the fate of man — when translated back into reality amounts simply to this, namely, the will to stifle the truth which maintains the reverse of all this, which is that hitherto man has been in the worst possible hands, and that he has been governed by the physiologically botched, the men of cunning and burning revengefulness, and the so-called "saints" — those slanderers of the world and traducers of humanity. The definite proof of the fact that the priest (including the priest in disguise, the philosopher) has become master, not only within a certain limited religious community, but everywhere, and that the morality of decadence, the will to nonentity, has become morality per se, is to be found in this: that altruism is now an absolute value, and egoism is regarded with hostility everywhere. He who disagrees with me on this point, I regard as infected. But all the world disagrees with me.

He was the leader of the Prophet David’s army,’ said the Sheikh. ‘David had him killed so that he could marry Nebi Uri’s beautiful wife. Two angels, Mikhail and Jibrael, appeared and asked David why he needed an extra wife when he already had ninety-nine others. You know this story?’ ‘Yes. I think we Christians know Nebi Uri as Uriah the Hittite.’ It was an unlikely tangle of tales: a medieval Muslim saint buried in a much older Byzantine tomb tower had somehow been confused with the Biblical and Koranic Uriah; perhaps the saint’s name was Uriah, and over the passage of time his identity had been merged with that of his scriptural namesake. More intriguing still was the fact that in this city, long famed for the shrines of its Christian saints, the Muslim Sufi tradition had directly carried on from where Theodoret’s Christian holy men had left off. Just as the Muslim form of prayer, with its bowings and prostrations, appears to derive from the older Syriac Christian tradition that I had seen performed at Mar Gabriel, and just as the architecture of the earliest minarets unmistakably derives from the square late-antique Syrian church towers, so the roots of Islamic mysticism and Sufism lie with the Byzantine holy men and desert fathers who preceded them across the Near East. Today the West often views Islam as a civilisation very different from and indeed innately hostile to Christianity. Only when you travel in Christianity’s Eastern homelands do you realise how closely the two religions are really linked. For the former grew directly out of the latter and still, to this day, embodies many aspects and practices of the early Christian world now lost in Christianity’s modern Western incarnation. When the early Byzantines were first confronted by the Prophet’s armies, they assumed that Islam was merely a heretical form of Christianity, and in many ways they were not so far wrong: Islam accepts much of the Old and New Testaments, and venerates both Jesus and the ancient Jewish prophets. Certainly if John Moschos were to come back today it is likely that he would find much more that was familiar in the practices of a modern Muslim Sufi than he would with those of, say, a contemporary American Evangelical. Yet this simple truth has been lost by our tendency to think of Christianity as a Western religion rather than the Oriental faith it actually is. Moreover the modern demonisation of Islam in the West, and the recent growth of Muslim fundamentalism (itself in many ways a reaction to the West’s repeated humiliation of the Muslim world), have led to an atmosphere where few are aware of, or indeed wish to be aware of, the profound kinship of Christianity and Islam.

banquet oifert à un député par ses électeurs reconnaissants. La cheminée est ornée d’une pendule d’un goût atrocement troubadour, représentant le templier Bois-Guilbert enlevant une Rébecca dorée sur un cheval argenté. A droite et à gauche de cette odieuse horloge sont placés deux flambeaux de plaqué sous un globe. Ces magnificences sont l’objet de la secrète envie de plus d’une ménagère de Pont-de-Arche, et la servante elle-même ne les essuie qu’en tremblant. Je ne parle pas de quelques caniches en verre filé, d’un petit saint Jean en pâte de sucre, d’un Napoléon en chocolat, d’un cabaret chargé de porcelaines communes et pompeusement installé sur une table ronde, de gravures représentant les Adieux de Fontainebleau, Souvenirs et regrets, la Famille du marin, les Petits Braconniers et autres vulgarités du même genre. — Concevez-vous rien de pareil ? Je n’ai jamais su comprendre, pour ma part, cet amour du commun et du laid. Je conçois que tout le monde n’ait pas pour logement des Alhambras, des Louvres ou des Parthénons ; mais il est toujours si facile de ne pas avoir de pendule ! de laisser les murailles nues, et de se priver de lithographies de Maurin ou d’aquatintes de Jazet ! Les gens qui remplissaient ce salon me semblaient, à force de vulgarité, les plus étranges du monde ; ils avaient des façons de parler incroyables, et s’exprimaient en style fleuri, comme feu Prudhomme, élève de Brard et Saint-Omer. Leurs têtes, épanouies sur leurs cravates blanches, et leurs cols de chemise gigantesques faisaient penser à certains produits de la famille des cucurbitacés. Quelques hommes ressemblent à des animaux, au lion, au cheval, à l’âne ; ceux-ci, tout bien considéré, avaient l’air encore plus végétal que bestial. Des femmes, je n’en dirai rien, m’étant promis de ne jamais tourner en ridicule ce sexe charmant. Au milieu de ces légumes humains, Louise faisait l’effet d’une rose dans un carré de choux. Elle portait une simple robe blanche serrée à la taille par un ruban bleu ; ses cheveux, séparés en bandeaux, encadraient harmonieusement son front pur. Une grosse natte se tordait derrière sa nuque, couverte de cheveux follets et d’un duvet de pêche. Une quakeresse n’aurait rien trouvé à redire à cette mise, qui faisait paraître d’un grotesque et d’un ridicule achevés les harnais et les plumets de corbillard. des autres femmes ; il était impossible d’être de meilleur goût. J’avais peur que mon infante ne profitât de la circonstance pour déployer quelque toilette excessive et prétentieuse, achetée d’occasion. Cette pauvre robe de mousseline qui n’a jamais vu l’Inde, et qu’elle a probablement faite elle-même, m’a touché et séduit ; je ne tiens pas à la parure. J’ai eu pour maîtresse une gitana grenadine qui n’avait pour tout vêtement que des pantoufles bleues et un collier de grains d’ambre ; mais rien ne me contrarie comme un fourreau mal taillé et d’une couleur hostile. Les dandies bourgeois préférant de

Was Pius X, a canonized saint, entirely wrong about Modernism? Was the First Vatican Council wrong to denounce the trend? If a Roman pontiff and an ecumenical council could be wrong a century ago, how can Catholics be confident that another pope and another ecumenical council are right today? Yet that is precisely the message that Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga delivered to an audience in Dallas in 2013. The Honduran cardinal, the chairman of the pope’s top advisory board, said that the Second Vatican Council had been convened to “end the hostilities between the Church and Modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council.” Lest anyone miss the message, he added, “Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.

Chritians' experience of persecution and their consequent hostility to the Roman Empire found its most passionate expression in the pages of the Apocalypse. Rome is Babylon, the great mother of harlots, drunken with the blood of the Saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, the Empire the kingdom of the Beast which seeks to destroy the Church.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, far from providing a template for an “us and them” brand of theology, actually provides us with the opposite. For the goats found themselves peering into the windows of the Kingdom from the outside, precisely because of their devotion to this “us and them” mindset. They did not perceive Christ in the poor, wandering stranger, or in the condemned man locked behind prison bars! They could not perceive His presence in the least of the least, and it was this inability that landed them on the “goat list”. They could not believe that Christ had “other sheep” from a Gentile flock, and so treated them with contempt and hostility.

Il ne faudrait tout de même pas que les musulmans soient insidieusement invités à comprendre que la seule alternative au terrorisme serait de se conformer aux normes antitraditionnelles prônées par l’Occident. Lorsque, sous la menace, les Occidentaux exigent de musulmans qu’ils "reconnaissent l’État d’ Israël et renoncent à la violence", ils formulent une exigence qu’aucun croyant ne peut accepter. Il est faux d’affirmer que ceux qui opèrent cet amalgame ne sont pas hostiles à l’islâm : ils le sont, et il ne leur appartient pas, alors qu’ ils ignorent la religion islamique de manière systématique, de décider ce qui est conforme ou non à la shari‘a, à la loi traditionnelle propre à l’ islâm. Le devoir de tout musulman, et même de tout croyant, est de ne pas reconnaître la profanation inhérente à l’existence de l’État sioniste. Si on lui enjoint de reconnaître ce faux "Israël", en menaçant de l ’affamer s’ il refuse, c’est pour la défense de sa foi qu’ il devient un martyr, au moins en ce sens qu’ il accepte une souffrance pouvant éventuellement le conduire à la mort. On invite les musulmans à renoncer à la violence, tout en utilisant l’ intimidation pour les amener à agir contre leur volonté, c’est-à-dire en leur faisant violence. C’est dans le terme "violence" que réside l’ambiguïté. Il a été ordonné au Prophète Muhammad de "combattre les hommes jusqu’à ce qu’ ils disent : lâ ilâha illa Allâh (il n’y a pas de Divinité si ce n’ est Allâh)". Cet ordre divin concerne évidemment la communauté islamique et justifie le jihâd, la guerre sainte menée pour défendre le Droit d’Allâh et les droits de l’islâm. D’autre part, le Très-Haut a enjoint aux musulmans d’être "des témoins à l’encontre des hommes", c’est-à-dire à l’égard de ceux qui, sans avoir rejoint l’islâm, se réclament d’une révélation divine et d’une norme traditionnelle. C’est en vertu de cette injonction que les musulmans peuvent aujourd'hui interpeller l’Église catholique pour lui rappeler qu’ elle avait le devoir de ne pas reconnaître l’État juif et qu’elle s’est rendue coupable d’une faute, aux conséquences néfastes pour elle, en manquant à ce devoir. Nul ne peut reprocher à l’ islâm de combattre cet État et de mener une guerre sainte contre les égarements de l’Occident moderne. La seule question qui peut se poser est celle des moyens utilisés pour mener ce combat, étant bien entendu que le terrorisme est antitraditionnel par définition et que toute violence implique une brutalité contraire aux "bonnes manières d’agir" (makârim al-akhlâq) qui doivent prévaloir, même dans la manière de combattre et de faire la guerre. Cette question est alors de savoir s’ il est encore possible de mener une guerre vraiment sainte (jihâd) à notre époque où la force est exercée le plus souvent au moyen de la brutalité, de la violence et du terrorisme. L’immense hypocrisie de ceux qui accusent l’islâm d’être terroriste, c’est d’inverser les rapports et de les accuser en fait ... de se comporter comme des Occidentaux, ce qui est bien le comble de la contradiction !

40. Let us use peace in the right way: repudiating our evil alliance with the world and its ruler, let us at last break off the war which we wage against God through the passions. Concluding an unbreakable covenant of peace with Him by destroying the body of sin within us (cf. Rom. 6:6), let us put an end to our hostility towards Him.

We are impressed that some eight hundred years ago Saint Francis urged that all forms of hostility or conflict be avoided and that a humble and fraternal “subjection” be shown to those who did not share his faith.

Christianity’s relationship to the body and so to cleanliness was complicated. On the positive side, the body was intended to be a temple of God. Parts of it—the saliva of saints, for example, or the fluid that magically sprang from their breasts—could work miracles, or be worshipped, in the form of relics. At the same time, the body’s potential for temptation provoked suspicion, if not hostility.

the Voyage occurs in the second volume, an account of Islam as a religion.64 Volney’s views were canonically hostile to Islam as a religion and as a system of political institutions; nevertheless Napoleon found this work and Volney’s Considérations sur la guerre actuel de Turcs (1788) of particular importance. For Volney after all was a canny Frenchman, and—like Chateaubriand and Lamartine a quarter-century after him—he eyed the Near Orient as a likely place for the realization of French colonial ambition. What Napoleon profited from in Volney was the enumeration, in ascending order of difficulty, of the obstacles to be faced in the Orient by any French expeditionary force. Napoleon refers explicitly to Volney in his reflections on the Egyptian expedition, the Campagnes d’Égypte et de Syrie, 1798–1799, which he dictated to General Bertrand on Saint Helena.

For every saint in exile, this is the source of our song in the night. It’s not that all our hard questions have been finally answered but that God has made a way for us to be rescued from our sin and reconciled to him. Exile is not our eternal lot. All who are in Christ know that soon—very soon—we shall, like him, be home again, where we shall see the King in all his glory.

was still fighting for me.

It is easier to guard against one who professes hostility than to make head against an enemy who lurks under the guise of a friend.

my own experiences of personal rejection and my years of theological education, countless prayers, an ordination, and a life centered on serving the church, I still have the same personality I was born with. I am often impatient and cranky. And my first response to almost everything is “fuck you.” I don’t often stay there, but I almost always start there. I’m still me. Yet the fact that I manage to now move from “fuck you” to something less hostile, and the fact that I am often able to make that move quickly, well, once again, all of it makes me believe in God. And every time, it feels like repentance.

Some subjects are in themselves, perhaps, perfectly harmless, and any amount of discussion over them would not be injurious to the faith of our young people. We are told, for example, that the theory of gravitation is at best a hypothesis, and that such is the atomic theory. These theories help to explain certain things about nature. Whether they are ultimately true cannot make much difference to the religious convictions of our young people. On the other hand, there are speculations which touch the origin of life and the relationship of God to his children. In a very limited degree that relationship has been defined by revelation, and until we receive more light upon the subject we deem it best to refrain from the discussions of certain philosophical theories which rather destroy than build up the faith of our young people. . . . There are so many demonstrated, practical, material truths, so many spiritual certainties, with which the youth of Zion should become familiar, that it appears a waste of time and means, and detrimental to faith and religion to enter too extensively into the undemonstrated theories of men on philosophies relating to the origin of life, or the methods adopted by an All-wise Creator in peopling the earth with the bodies of men, birds and beasts. Let us rather turn our abilities to the practical analysis of the soil, the study of the elements, the productions of the earth, the invention of useful machinery, the social welfare of the race, and its material amelioration; and for the rest cultivate an abiding faith in the revealed word of God and the saving principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which give joy in this world and in the world to come eternal life and salvation. Philosophic theories of life have their place and use, but it is not in the classes of the Church schools, and particularly are they out of place here or anywhere else, when they seek to supplant the revelations of God. The ordinary student cannot delve into these subjects deep enough to make them of any practical use to him, and a smattering of knowledge in this line only tends to upset his simple faith in the gospel, which is of more value to him in life than all the learning of the world without it. The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth. "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy," said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the Saints, "but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men we do not accept, nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense, but everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us, no matter where it may be found.

Question 2: Who is most likely to succeed from our class? Delilah Baker: Oh, come on. Everyone knows it will be Macon. Not that he'll deserve it. Macon Saint: Me. And Delilah Baker. She's like a barnacle; she'll cling until she gets where she wants to go. Question 3: Who do you want with you if there's a hostile alien invasion? Macon Saint: Delilah Baker. She'd yap so much and so loudly the aliens would turn around and flee. Delilah Baker: Macon Saint. I'd toss him in their path and gain valuable seconds running for my life.

Bertie, for his part, was trying hard to be affectionate and ‘do what is right’, but Victoria still found his idleness and inattentiveness ‘trying’, as too his joie de vivre; his noisiness gave her bad headaches. She had been particularly anxious that he should be suitably ‘Germanised’ in time for his marriage, for she had been alarmed to discover that he wrote to his fiancée in English rather than his sainted father’s native tongue: ‘the German element is the one I wish to be cherished and kept up in our beloved home,’ she told Vicky. To lose it would be a betrayal of Albert; it never occurred to her that to keep it would feed into already hostile feelings about the excessive favouritism of things German by the British monarchy.