Posted on 05/24/2011 4:07:08 PM PDT by ken5050
As we enter the GOP primary season, I'm starting to notice more and more an annoying trend here in FR. It seems as though everytime there's an article, or someone posts a comment about Romney, either pro or con, it nearly always devolves into an extended, and acrimonious discussion about the Mormon faith. Those who defend it, and those who, for whatever reasons, can't abide it, both sides seem determined to wage an "end of times" batte on all the FR threads. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and just wish it would stop. I think that probably 99% of others here feel the same way.
They're not questions; just rhetorical nonsense. And you haven't address the substance of what I've said. So, same to you, mutatis mutandis.
Ah yes, this coming from the guy who cites ufo sites as valid bom info eh. Just shows all that you are unable to address the fact, so you must obfuscate.
It's right next to the exhibit showing Jesus' resurrection...
Yet the Smithsonian acknowledges the Bible as a historical document, while the bom it identifies as a work of fiction. Hmmmmm Yet they produced a documentary on the resurrection -
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/video/player/history/related/miracle-of-the-resurrection/9448493001/
But nothing about the bom. . . . .
keep scratching in the dirt for nothing du.
Is Catholicism a "false religious worldview"?
Is Judaism a "false religious worldview"?
Is Unitarianism a "false religious worldview"?
Is Calvinism a "false religious worldview"?
Are you in charge of making these determinations??
Well, here's my concerns Grunthor. With you, Ken & other lurking FREEPERS.
I get the distinct feeling that you & Ken are not pro-Romney -- at least as far as your first pick. But you'd be willing to settle for him as a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice.
For some, it may not even be #4 -- but they wouldn't give a 2nd thought. They'd vote for Romney in a flash if he got the nod.
My concerns are these:
#1 We have a lot of spineless conservatives if they're telling us that they'd use situational ethics to vote for Romney.
#2 Let me give you an illustration: If an employer knew you wanted $80,000, but knew you'd eventually be willing to settle to work for $38,000, all he has to do is to wait you out til you agree to his price. When your other "job offers" just didn't "work out," hey, that's "OK" -- 'cause in your heart of hearts, you were willing to compromise from the get-go.
Likewise, if certain GOP leaders know that there's Romney resistance, but not ultimate resistance, then they are willing to just bide their time, knowing that spineless GOP voters will eventually cave. They know such voters have at their base a spirit of compromise.
#3 Romney is Obama lite on healthcare; he's said he wants states to let homosexual employees become protected class status; he's favored parents giving up their embryos for "research" as late as Dec of '07'; he's waffled so many times on abortion, his word is anathema to the pre-born! And I still have a hard time believing that so many otherwise God-fearing people would actually vote for somebody who claims they'll be a god someday. (As the Bible says, Satan has blinded the world...2 Cor. 4:4)
If you're saying you'd vote for such a pre-born wolf in sheep's clothing, I actually would challenge your so-called "conservative" credentials.
This also, though, goes beyond Romney. As I said in post #496, it's irreparable harm to the GOP. Conservatives will feel permanently betrayed and leave the party in droves, only to give potential permanent reign to the Dems.
If you think Obama's bad, wait til the anti-Christ heads the Dem party! (And no, I wouldn't do what you & many so-called "conservatives" would do and vote for bin Laden or a Hitler type to defeat an alleged Anti-Christ!)
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I do not agree with with LDS theology? I've stated that repeatedly. I do not accept Joseph Smith's private revelation as worthy of belief. I do not accept the Book of Mormon as canonical.
All I'm asking is that people stop the monomaniacal nonsense and treat the LDS as actual human beings, mistaken, but nevertheless political allies.
Your attempts to paint me as some kind of psuedo-Mormon simply because I would like the bigotry to stop is disingenuous. It does not follow.
Like it or not, our Constitution protects their right to believe as they wish, and to express that belief publicly. Religious tolerance is part and parcel of the American philosophical position. Raking the LDS over the coals serves no purpose whatsoever. As I've said, by all means oppose Mitt Romney on his record, but do not engage in the bigotry of opposing him simply because of his religious opinions.
I wouldn't say that at all, but I sure know some of the reasons that it must come up sometimes.
Mitt Romney is a leading, powerful person in that religion, his family migrated here to serve the organization and has always been powerful within it. Mitt himself was a Bishop, Mitt sought a personal, private meeting with the religion's "prophet" to get permission to run for President.
For much of his life Romney has been a Priest, Bishop, Stake President, and teacher and implementer of Mormon religion, that means that what he has been teaching is important, for instance teaching that blacks were a lessor race that could not be equal to him in the church, he was teaching that while you were at the movie theater watching "Star Wars", Romney has stated that the Mormon religion is not pro life, the relationship of Mormonism to the United States has been aggressive, militant and violent, Mitt Romney believes that he is destined to become a God, and Romney is the Mormon Golden Boy, there is no way to pretend to separate Romney from his greater role as "Mormon".
Are YOU in charge NS of ensuring no input is given on the truth or falsehood of such worldviews?
Do you fear posters who inject either revelation from God or even their own opinions on such subjects?
How long have you had this "issue" with First Amendment expressions?
Aren't you really countenancing relativism with such questions?
And isn't relativism to you an absolute?
And if it's "A-OK" for you to embrace one absolute -- that of relativism -- then why do you harbor concerns when someone else has one or more absolutes?
Is it because it challenges and threatens the only or one of the only absolute(s) you might have left? (That being relativism)
But there are also a lot of Mormons (not Mitt, not Harry) out there who are real, bred in the bone conservatives. And I would vote for one of those Mormons over a liberal opponent without blinking an eye.
Like it or not, Cantabile, our Constitution protects those who oppose Mormonism to believe as they wish, and to express that belief publicly. (Some say) Religious tolerance is part and parcel of the American philosophical position. Raking over the coals those who oppose the LDS serves no purpose whatsoever.
Hmm...somehow what I just said above had a eerily familiar ring to something I've just read...if only I could put my finger on it.
Of course, like too many other FREEPERS, this shows you're aren't very adept at applying your own preaching of "tolerance" to yourself, are you?
You know, I've found the liberals who preach "tolerance" to often be the most intolerant of all. If they were truly "tolerant," they'd simply put up with stuff. But they don't. They want tolerance for "me" for not for "thee."
I'm afraid you're beginning to sound a bit like them. Tossing out words like "bigotry" freely (like liberals do). And yet not very tolerant yourself about religious free expression being exercised on FR.
Where's your tolerance level?
Are we suppose to believe what you say are these so-called American "ideals"? Or should we instead observe how you don't practice them very well yourself?
That’s fine with me. And I have nothing against individual Mormons as long as they don’t try to push their false beliefs on me or mine. And I’ll be damned if they’re going to push it on FR and not be criticized. And if they push too hard, they will definitely get the zot.
Notice here Syncro how the du spins the subject. The RF rules were clear about caucuses, yet the mormon violated the spirit and function of those rules, then got mouthy to the OWNER of the site because he felt the mormon 'rules' superseded FR rules. See how du manipulates the story line.
However, the comments made by JR on that thread and the subsequent removal of the Mormon Caucus were not in keeping with even handed and fair treatment. One poster gets an entire religion in trouble and get's opponents of that religion a free pass to break other rules?
As JR has already warned you - this is his house - you can leave any time. Further, du hasn't learned that life isn't fair - time for him to get over that. However, this board is orders of magnitude fairer than any mormon board on the planet.
I also make no excuses for JR, he was wrong too.
I disagree du - PD was abusing the system and was ignorant to push back at the rules laid out. JR was well within his rights to put a stop to it. You don't like it - take it up with the man.
So, JR can make rules that allow the ambushing of Mormons, but getting people to come to anther site to be ambushed that's just evil mean and nasty! Hypocrite much?
Wow, man up and address JR directly on that issue DU
Before JR zotted SPAMLDS, 'ol spammy was bad mouthing freepers on his website. spammy also gave his camp followers heads up that he was bringing fresh meat over from FR. A large part of JR's zot was in defense of freepers. Now are you claiming that JR's site is set up to ambush mormons? Perhaps you should address it to the man.
There was indeed a schism in the church about it, but you can't find a thing written by the apostles or in the bible that does not have to be interpreted with circular logic to get to the Trinity.
As there have been other schisms when heretical teachings have tried to force their way into the main stream. That doesn't negate the doctrine nor the fact. Further, at no time was the early church polytheistic - so much for mormon restoration.
Read the links from my page here, many go straight to the Catholic encyclopedia on line. I guess that is part of the "Facts not agreeing with me" part...
Your interpretation of the Catholic Encyclopedia has been refuted many times DU - you lie about the meaning of the words used, you lie about what the writers meant when they wrote it and you live in a fantasy world thinking that the writers were coerced into writing what the did write.
Do you even realize what an oblique threat you made toward 'the management' of Freerepublic and thus we who voluntarily support this website and its management? Chill out, n00b. Have cup of tea and a cookie, and try to get prespective. Opposing a Romney because of his loopy religious beliefs isn't bigotry, Mormon assertions notwithstanding. It is common sense application of data which indicates what resides at the heart of the man.
Of course not. I welcome disputation as to whether a worldview is true or false.
Do you fear posters who inject either revelation from God or even their own opinions on such subjects?
Likewise, of course not. I suspect that in many cases (not least that of Joseph Smith and his followers) it may prove difficult to separate the former from the latter.
How long have you had this "issue" with First Amendment expressions?
By all means, say whatever you want, as long as you can take criticism of your worldview along with dishing it out.
Aren't you really countenancing relativism with such questions? And isn't relativism to you an absolute?
I don't think I am taking a position for or against relativism here. But it's easy to be against "relativism" until someone says that you are the one whose truth is, in fact, falsehood.
You can oppose the Mormon position as you wish, and as I do personally, but to continually subject them to ridicule, mockery, and antagonism, does not advance the stated goals of Free Republic. Perhaps the management no longer believes in those stated goals, but they were the reason I signed on here.
If your purpose is to convince the LDS that they are wrong, then comporting yourself as Jesus did is the most effective way of accomplishing your goal. If you do not interact with them with authentic Christian love, then you are, as St. Paul said, nothing more than a "noisy gong and a clanging cymbal." People like you have been clanging on this forum for years. It's time you stopped, if for no other reason than that it is ineffective.
I would like to see FR return to its position as a viable, influential political forum, not the refuge of certain privileged bigots. If it doesn't wish to do that, then the logic of its position will eventually catch up to it, and it will become nothing more than a memory of its former self. Which is a development I will regret.
Oh, so the DU is admitting that this mormon god came down from Kolob (mt olympus) and committed incest with his 'daughter', using his physical body to physically impregnate Mary, lest any other man do it - as a mormon teaching.
But notice the condition that du tries to force upon the discussion - not just "the holy Ghost did it". Now why would he want to do that? Because once again, mormons deny the authenticity of the bible on the matter. For the bible states very plainly -
Mt 1:18* Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
20* But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
So note du's first fallacy - heavenly father didn't have anything to do with this - it was a work of the Holy Ghost/Spirit - a personage of spirit according to mormons with out a body of flesh and bone. Definitely NOT heavenly father bedding Mary and having sexual intercourse with her.
So what is du left with? Greek mythologies of course. Now he demands that we finite mortals provide a detailed biological explanation for a supernatural act of the Holy Ghost. The chromosomes were created ex nihlo du and joined to the egg in Mary's body. No act of sexual intercourse occurred nor was necessary.
Rick Santorum (among others) belongs to a church which teaches that God is embodied as a disc of pressed flour, and that it's important that we periodically eat Him.
This would not stop me from voting for Santorum.
Never saw Star Wars.
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.