Posted on 10/23/2011 4:28:28 PM PDT by Ripliancum
“If this was written about Jews she’d be fired today. If it was written about Catholics she’d be in trouble today. Because it’s written about the Mormons it can be said,” Glenn said.
I want you to know I am a Mormon. I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and you may not like my theology. That’s okay,” Glenn said.
“I’m not asking you to join my church. I’m not asking you to join theologies or anything like that. It’s important that we keep our theologies separate and distinct. It’s important that you know what you believe in, and I know what I believe in. And we need to stand arm in arm.”
“Look, the wolves are coming for people of faith and they are coming for the weakest among and they will take down the ones that are weakest that have the least amount of protection it will be the Mormons, and Jews, and then who’s next. It will be all of us.”
(Excerpt) Read more at glennbeck.com ...
Actually, driftdiver said that yesterday. ;~D But, he’s continuing in the same vein today. Lol
some people think that the only way they can control the discussion is to threaten and try to get people to shut up and leave a thread.
Apparently they cannot handle the discussion here in the electronic town square.
BTW, a mormon posted the article and started the thread because it did address mormonism (albeit in a bad pr light)
You act like you have rabies whenever you talk about them, so I just naturally assumed...
Driftdiver refuses to produce much of anything so we might all be stuck with dead, silent, unappetizing Fried Crickets. Lol
And that’s about the sorriest explanation or excuse I’ve ever read on FR.
You ping me on a month's old thread because you are scouring for things to launch your vile attacks against.
Sick.
I didn’t ping you. And I’m not “anti-Mormon”. I just disagree with them on one subject. ;~) ~ just as they disagree with me on that same subject. Does that, then, make them “anti-Baptist”?
No onesaid anuthing about killing Mormons.
Christians are called to defend the faith and expose false teachings. Mormonism is not Christian.
Even Mormon leaders have claimed that the god of Mormonism is not the God of the historic Christian faith.
If you claim that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the same Jesus of the historic Christian faith, then one is wrong.
And just where is the archaeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? It’s no where, that’s where.
Sickos.
Actually i have a life and was doing family stuff. Im sure you’ve alienated yours and wont understand.
So predictably weak, you gonna cry and stamp your feet now?
On the contrary, your inability to simply answer the many posts to you here with the requested proof of your assertions is very satisfactory and revealing. Good day, driftdiver.
Here’s what I don’t get about you guys. You often speak as if you have concrete PROOF of what you speak, when in reality, your assertions are really nothing more than you best GUESS. Unless you’ve spoken to the Lord face to face, your belief/guess is nothing but that, a belief/guess, not a knowledge, yet you portray it as irrefutable, treating those that disagree as rubes. That could be construed as sheer narcissism. Is that the problem here? I would hope not. Maybe just over zealous.
Case in point. You BELIEVE in the Trinity. There are those, myself included, that don’t. Some of those that don’t BELIEVE in the Trinity have made very compelling arguments against it here. Not necessarily irrefutable, but very compelling none the less. They have used facts to buttress their arguments rather than just stating as part of your argument that the majority of Christians have accepted the dogma, therefore it must be so.
In my opinion, the “majority” argument is maybe the weakest. The majority of people believed the world was flat, that the sun revolved around earth, that the flood would never come, that Moses couldn’t save his people, that Christ wasn’t the promised messiah, etc., etc., etc. For that matter, the majority of Christian leaders repudiated the idea of the Trinity at the councils of Rimini/Seleucia just 25 years after it’s adoption. So, what does the majority opinion really mean? Nothing when it come s to truth. Truth is truth regardless of what the majority thinks.
You think you have the truth. You might very well. My plea would be for you to act like you BELIEVE you have the truth rather than like you know you do. For unless you’ve had that face to face, your GUESS isn’t any better than anyone here, especially given the viable arguments from the bible against it.
Does your family have to go to a restaurant where they serve crabs just so they can bring you along?
Yes your opinion means sooooo much to me.
I believe I have the Truth. I know I have the Truth. Christians call it Faith. (and there’s plenty of archeological and scientific proof for our faith.) If we didn’t believe or know, we couldn’t call ourselves Christians. We also could not go out into the world and fulfill our Great Commission as we are commanded. God speaks to Christians thru His Word, the Bible. We don’t have to “guess”. A true Christian cannot be wishy-washy as you seem to be requesting. We can be humble, yet sure, but not wishy-washy.
I respect your faith. But how do you know you have the truth vs. those that feel they have the truth via their beliefs in Catholicism, other Protestant beliefs, etc.? In the example I gave, what archeological and scientific proof is there of the Trinity? There’s ample evidence in the bible against the Trinity. Many of the early Christian fathers didn’t teach it, & in fact in many cases taught against it.
There were approx. 250 bishops present at Nicea when the Nicene creed was voted on. There were approx. 500 bishops present at Rimini/Seleucia just 25 years later when they repudiated the theory. So, how do you know which is right given the lack of archeological and scientific proof, or irrefutable evidence in the bible, but rather simply the traditions of our fathers? So, it really does become a guess for most. Maybe an educated guess, but a guess none the less.
That’s what I’m talking about. Why lambaste other’s beliefs when there is a lack of irrefutable evidence for you own? Another example, the Catholics believe in works as part of salvation. Protestants for the better part do not. This is big! For if the Catholics are right, some Protestants are screwed due to a lack of works in some cases. If the Protestants are right, that all one needs is faith, then the Catholics are still in good shape because they already believe.
There are good arguments for either theory. Does anyone really know for sure, absolutely 100%? I’m just saying that until you are 100% sure, it may be well w/ you to not demean others who may very well be right. It would seem to be sound reasoning. It would be even better for one to not spend a seeming lifetime of day after day bashing of others as some here seemingly do. But that’s just my 2 cents
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.