Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.
But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.
And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.
And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.
That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.
Lastly, we're having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon "bigot" on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.
I don't know of any ABOers who claim that anything you do in states like CA, NY, or MA is going to make any difference at all this November. I certainly don't.
That said, it's true that I have never qualified every single one of my statements with "unless you live in a deep blue or a deep red state..." because I assumed it was 1) understood and 2) therefore potentially insulting to other peoples' intelligence. What I'm hearing from you is that both my assumptions were incorrect.
And, speaking of insulting, I think it's presumptuous of you to assume that ABOers like me believe you guys in the deep blue and deep red states are going to hand Obama the WH simply because we don't put an "unless you live in a deep blue or a deep red state" qualifier each time we say anything. You might not agree with my vote in November, but I am not a freaking moron.
BTW, I live in a toss-up state which could be razor tight this November.
I take it then that perhaps you've NEVER read the following passage from the Apostle Paul's letter to the church at Corinth...a church, btw, NOT known for their spiritual maturity:
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit MAKES JUDGMENTS ABOUT ALL THINGS, BUT SUCH A PERSON IS NOT SUBJECT TO MERELY HUMAN JUDGMENTS, 16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2)
Comparing the facts of Christianity to Islam? No, you don't need to "go on." You should stop now.
"Although in the past Romney has these worng positions, he indicates he has changed and now for the last 6+ years has been advocating conservative positions. People are using his past to judge him now. But his [POSTIONS NOW] make it clear what he is running on in 2012...as it did in 2008 when Jim supported him against McCain."
I concur that you are right about Romney, BTW.
JR endorsed Mike Huckabee. I agreed with him 100%
Seven good reasons to support Mike Huckabee [be sure to read reason number seven]
The dark and jumbled recesses of my aging feeble brain | January 31, 2008 | Jim Robinson
Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:09:25 PM by Jim Robinson
Speaking to your mischaracterization of romney’s view on homosexuality Jeff, as recently as the past couple of weeks, particularly following the BSA decision to exclude homosexuals, romney’s campaign confirmed that mitt disagreed with BSA and said homosexuals should be allowed to be leaders in scouting. Thats pretty pro-homosexual if nothing else - to endorse allowing sanduskyites loose among our children.
#1, God doesn't hate tax collectors, prostitutes, Jews, Mormons, or even the Pharisees.
(Yet that didn't stop Jesus from labeling the Pharisees as "children of the devil" -- see the latter part of John 8...and as whitewashed sepulcres whose inner lives reflected that of a dead graveyard. In fact, that comes from Matthew 23, where Jesus literally RAILS on the legalistic Pharisees...even telling them they traverse the earth to make converts "twice the son of hell." )
There is no greater legalistic religious widespread group that I know of than Mormonism.
God/Jesus don't "hate" Mormons. Lds are of so great worth to Jesus that He died for them.
But Jesus said He didn't come to save "the righteous" (those who think they can "bootstrap" themselves to righteousness); he came to save sinners.
You have made the discernment error of failing to see how Jesus addressed different types of people. For the tax collectors and the woman cohabitating and the prostitutes, He comforted them...For the religiously legalistic "comfortable," He afflicted them.
What else can religious freedom mean other than the government cannot force it upon you and you are free to pursue whatever religion you want or none at all.
Well, here's where YOU -- and many like you -- tred upon ground where you wind up refuting yourself. If Mormonism has some "religious freedom" zone that somehow protects their religious expressions from being publicly critiqued, then that VERY SAME "religious freedom" zone applies to the critiques of Mormonism that I've made on this Web site.
You can't hypocritically claim that some "license" exists that "teflon proofs" Mormon religious expression; but doesn't apply to religious expression that critiques Mormonism!
That is 2-faced...hypocritical nonsense.
Why is it that posters like yourself that attempt to use "freedom of religion" as some sort of "fallback" NEVER seem to be able to rise up to my defense as a poster and defend my religious expressions? Is it because you and others are extremely "selective" over picking who and when it's convenient to raise the "religious freedom" banner?
Even if so: they still owe Jim a full and public apology -- here, in the very same forum where said misstatements were originally made.
That's how genuinely honest men and women always have (and still do) conducted their affairs, at any rate... agreed? ;)
Knock off the lying! I don’t encourage anyone staying home! I encourage all to get to the polls and vote straight CONSERVATIVE!!
Yes, thank you, I was going to post that if needed,it was from that thread that my post 2594 came from.
JR endorsed Thompson on 1/3/2008, and then when Thompson dropped out, JR endorsed Huckabee on 1/31/2008, Romney dropped out on 2/7/2008.
JR never supported Romney, on the day he endorsed Huckabee, he said this about Bishop Mitt Romney, “I beg your pardon, but I haven’t seen him redeem himself to the thousands and thousands of innocent children that were murdered in the womb on his watch and due to his pro-active support of Planned Parenthood and unwavering defense and preservation of Roe v Wade, abortion and the culture of death. It takes a truly evil man to do what he did.”
Oops. I never meant to suggest that you were encouraging people to stay home. I apologize if my post came across that way.
Dear Jeff,
Who is Robert Millet and does he speak officially for the LDS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54xTKfGRJ0
Does he or does he not officially encourage Mormons to evade the truth to outsiders and even to the youngsters within the flock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zA-rZQB-xQ
Let's start with this last claim first -- that given views "are no better or worse than the views of any other person of faith (or no faith)."
Well, if that's "so," why should we take that and run with that?
If all views are somehow the "same," then you've just admitted that 100% of your claims with this post aren't anything "special." Why should ANYBODY take what you say as worth anything if it's the same as Hitler's religious beliefs that Jews were inferior?
You've committed the fatal error of "equivalency." -- That all views are somehow "equal." If that was true, the "religious" views uttered by Satan would be no worse than what Jesus taught!
Bottom-line...you've admitted your post is "no better" than anything I've written...and if it's "no better" in reflecting "truth," why would anybody want to stop at your doorstep to "acquire" truth?
All religion is based on faith and NEVER fact.
Is that a "fact?"
More self-refutation...and hilariously so. You present that statement as if it was "factual," yet you just told us that ALL religious statements -- including this 9-word statement you made -- is "based on faith."
If you're telling us something "factual," then you've just admitted that the statement "All religion is based on faith and never fact" has an "exception" when it comes to YOUR religious conclusions. (A self-refutation)
If you're telling us something that resides in your "faith" alone, why should we believe it? You started off asking me, "I don’t know what authority you believe..."...Well, by Whose authority is this statement of "All religion is based upon faith and not fact" actually so?
Did that originate with you, or are you quoting somebody?
The apostle Paul concluded in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Jesus didn't (factually) rise from the dead, then Christianity as a faith is EMPTY. If the tomb wasn't empty because of Jesus rising, then a person's Christian faith IS empty.
Jesus appeared to about 500 witnesses post-resurrection. Witnesses have sent people to their death via their testimonies before judge & jury. Eyewitnesses report "facts."
You imply every eyewitness testimony is just "blind faith." Really? Is our criminal justice system based 100% upon "blind faith?"
Oh; I am SO sorry!
I forgot to claim that "I got a revelation from GOD" first!!!
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
HUH?
How can you be on one hand and say "IF" on the other???
Placemarker
Even if so: they still owe Jim a full and public apology — here, in the very same forum where said misstatements were originally made.
***Well, not so much to Jim, but to Ansel. Jeff has already been chastised by Jim.
On the overall sense, I think the last paragraph of the article for this thread was a mistake. It should have had its own article in the religion forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.