The straightforward answer is that you are almost certainly a whining, lying little tool who wants Obama to win the election.
I'd love to get straightforward answers to those questions from Romney supporters.
Posted on 07/04/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Onyx, God bless, friend. :)
I know I wouldn't. I'd be voting third party at the least and very possibly voting for the Dem.
And that's what I mean about firing a president this November not picking one.
Based on what he has done since taking office, Obama has to go regardless of who he is going to be replaced with.
“
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:28:03 PM · 253 of 484
rogue yam to dragnet2
Ya think anyone sits there and reads all that hogwash?
If you are asking me whether I think that the Mitt Haters are without a shred of integrity then my answer is yes, the members of the FR He-Man Mitt Haters Club are, to a man, all completely devoid of integrity.”
Oh! The intelligence and rationality of your words! I am all a’flutter. What a positive contribution to conservatism you make....you freaking phony.
That’s not a secret, trisham.
Well, actually ... I don’t think this site is pro-Catholic ... :-) ... but it’s not anti-Catholic either. I believe it’s neutral in terms of theological doctrines - as far as the site itself is concerned.
This is mainly a political site and in reality - many different religions can exist in the “political realm” and cooperate with certain bills and electing certain representatives - who represent certain values and traditions in society in which these differing religions have “common interests”.
BUT ... that’s as far as it goes - just down to the political level. When you get into the area of THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINES - then that’s another story. Here in the USA we’ve done a better job of separating out the political cooperation from the religious doctrines and keep things in their own “sphere of influence”.
Thus ... that’s why there is a religious forum which is separate from the general news and activism (in the political realm).
And there on the Religious Forum ... you can argue all day long about the theological doctrines and what the Bible says and who has the authority over what and what the views are.
You’ll also NOTE that there is a DIFFERENCE between attacking simply INSTITUTIONS and their “teachings and doctrines” - versus - personally attacking a person.
Of course, many times a person FEELS like they are being attacked personally when someone attacks the “teachings and doctrines” of a religion. And that’s really the fault of the person “feeling attacked” - as along as that attack is based on just those teachings and doctrines and what that “institution” has done and what it’s practices are and what it’s history is.
And all that is open for discussion.
NOW ... I might say that there is a fine line here - because if people are to cooperate for political purposes (which is the aim here on this board) - then the people who run the board don’t want to alienate people who might “cooperate together” otherwise.
SO ... that’s why the Religion forum was split off to itself and it’s not for attacking people but for honest disagreements (and hopefully based on the BIBLE, itself) and attacking FALSE DOCTRINES and CULT GROUPS.
But, of course, as we all know in real life ... one person’s truth is another’s “false doctrines”. Thus we must all appeal to some HIGHER AUTHORITY ... and thus that’s where you see the battle with the Catholic Church - over “who has the higher authority” on deciding these issues.
As for myself, I take it SOLELY based on the Bible (which the Catholic Church itself has criticized as NOT VALID) ... however ... you’ve got a huge number of “honest-to-goodness Christians” who totally disagree with the Catholic Church and its doctrines and teachings - and thus TOTALLY REJECT their “higher authority” that they use to give it differing doctrines than Christians in the USA.
Well, anyway ... it’s a balance here and the main rule, I think, is to not attack people PERSONALLY ... but only deal in the DOCTRINES and TEACHINGS and expose them. That is basically what the bottom line is.
And in the end — on the political level — many people will completely put aside “religious doctrinal teachings” and just cooperate on a VERY LIMITED BASIS on very specific legislation or a particular legislator that various “religions” can agree upon (i.e., their members can agree upon).
Would yo agree with that premise?
I don't care what people in general do or do not assume. I have simply stated the facts as I know them to be, just like I always do. I have discussed the situation in more detail with people here who I happen to know personally (i.e. who I have met face to face). In those latter instances there is more involved than anonymous posts on web forums.
If so, there is also no evidence that any FReeper created a false identity on TBL just to screw you over. Yet, you have already tried to imply that that is what happened and have already discounted the idea that the false identity could have originated right out of TBL.
I look at the facts I know and make estimations about what I don't know, just like every other human being. I stand behind everything I've written on this board.
You really should give the same respect to FReepers,regarding this issue as you are demanding from them.
I am doing exactly that, as always.
Jim, I'm there with you with all my heart and soul. God bless you, God bless Free Republic, and God bless America.
If Gunner was the nominee I would crawl over glass to vote for him over Obama!!
Quix has been a blight on FR for years with his loopy baloney. I, for one, am not unhappy to see him gone.
Actually not a disciple of Quix ... but for a theological doctrinal stance ... I can give you a “basis” which has been put forth by leading Evangelicals in the USA. It’s the following “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” and many Evangelicals adhere to it and it forms the real basis for the authority of Scriptures and the recognition of where God’s word is applied today.
This is very well respected and is adhered to by a large number of Christians in the USA and world-wide.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986.
The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219.
The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Well, Mr. Attorney, present your "evidence" for all to see.
SHEESH...what a lame defense.
So why do you think it impossible that some snake masquerading as a Freeper went over there to try to get rid of him by making vile posts under his name?
Anything is possible, but Rogue Yam lies every single day on FR by accusing those who refuse to vote for Romney as being Obama supporters. That is "evidence" of HIS lying in black and white.
Recent example:
The straightforward answer is that you are almost certainly a whining, lying little tool who wants Obama to win the election.
Until you can "prove" that he isn't lying about this also, you are uselessy spinning your wheels.
This whole conversation is hilarious...you're defending someone who has spent the past several weeks denigrating Jim, FR and everyone who refuses to be bullied into voting for Romney on this site, and the "evidence" available shows his doing exactly that on another site.
I really don't care what is posted on the laughable site except for the hypocrisy of dual posters (and Quix was one of them) jumping up and down on FR in their "outrage" at being outed.
I see you have no response to my post #696. How surprising.
Well.. that might be a bit of a stretch. ;-)
Good. Because everyone on this thread should be aware of it.
Or so the MSM, democrats and the GOP-e says.
The nominee is chosen at the convention in August.
Neither Obama, Hillary, Carville, Palin, Gingrich, Rouge Yam are candidates yet.
I say we continue the process of making the GOP more conservative.
Continue? The GOP has been swinging left for some time, it is NOT becoming more conservative.
Good luck.
The GOP had it 's chance with the Tea Party, and they did all they could to destroy it and the Conservative Movement
With the most despicable, underhanded, backstabbing methods imaginable.
And Romney and his henchmen were right in the middle of it. He would lie if confronted with that fact.
As I posted on another thread, these people are no better than leftists, because they will not allow you to have an opinion that is independent of their own. If you refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, you are the enemy, and from that point on their only mission is to mock you, shout you down and do everything in their power to keep your ideas from being heard.
Very sad, really. And they claim to call themselves conservatives.
As I noted earlier ... here’s a well-respected and widely held statement and position among leading Evangelicals in America (and it’s also adhered to by very many Christians world-wide, too).
This would address the issue of authority ... and the position of Christians on where that authority comes from.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986.
The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219.
The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Likewise, I’m not voting for Romney [and to clear it up, not voting for Obama either and never have ... :-) ...]
But, I’m pretty sure that this issue wasn’t about Romney with Quix, because from what I’ve seen in the past, he would be against Romney, too.
SO WHAT?
Interpretations by other humans: Evangelicals who received the scripture from whom? The Roman Catholic Church.
This is NOT the religion forum and your post last night to STAR was vile.
I’d advise you to stop it right now today.
Christian squabbling serves no useful purpose and I’ll wager God is not pleased.
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.