A Clarification Please... (Vanity)

I would like some clarification as to the truth of the rules and situation here on the FR. Several times over the last few years it has been mandated by certain users that a prerequisite for participating here, conversing here, or donating here is mandated that you must first be a White Puritan Christian. No exceptions or you are considered a Troll. You must believe what they believe exactly or you should hit the highway.

Anyone else conservative or not, are to be considered as just trolls and should excommunicate themselves and leave. This is an important clarification. Because if the owner Jim feels that only Christians of a certain Christian sect are allowed equal respect here or not. That certain one sect needs to be shared. Those who are not of that particular sect deserve the right to know that their participation and donations are not actually appreciated.

Is see animosity between even sects of Christianity battling each other here. Hate for Mormons, Hate for Catholics from Christians, Hate for Christians from Catholics, God forbid anyone who comes here and is honest and says they are an Orthodox Christian from ETHIOPIA! So what is it? Is this a domain site rule and mandate or not? Those of us who believe in the first amendment and freedom of speech and religion would like to know what the parameters are. What sect exactly is a prerequisite to participate here?

Are non Christians allowed here at all? Can one believe in God without belonging to a formal religious sect? Are any other faiths allowed based on freedom of religion? Please make this very clear, because if there is an underlying prerequisite and unwritten rule, there are many of us here who are not quite pure Bible thumping (perfect mandated sect) conservatives and would really like to know. Is our own Constitutional right to believe as we like respected here or not?

It is important to know... If those who do not fit the "exact parameters" judged as a prerequisite mandate are not appreciated and not equally respected or not. What are these please? Do these prerequisite mandates even exist here? In this fight for our country is it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water? But this baby wants to know if my patriotism and efforts to create dialog, discussion, and traffic as a conservative which equate to revenue are appreciated or not... No matter what my stance on faith might be.

Is the 1st respected here or not? If not what are the restrictive parameters limited to as a private domain? If only White Puritan Christians are allowed here then it needs to shared what sect exactly of hundreds??? A curious mind would like to know...

Everything I said is absolute fact.
***Having gone round & round with you and caught you in dishonesties, I know this is not the case.

And I will stand by it without shame.
***Then stand by it. You claim extrabiblical bullshiite. Let’s throw down on that historicity.

Does your faith teach you to lie to yourself about true history?
***I can prove that the faith of 2 million christians is based on a historical fact that He died on a cross for blasphemy. Even His enemies acknowledge this claim. I doubt your faith gives you an honest assessment about this historically provable fact. Especially seein’ how slippery you are.

Were the books written by the hand of man? Yes.
***Are you a man? Yes. Can YOU be wrong? Yes. Your point is pure stupidity. You are going down a path of anti-historicity and anti-science and anti-faith, so you deserve the table turning treatment.

Were the stories handed down for many many years before they were actually written? Yes.
***NO. Wrong. The earliest fragments like the Rylands Papyri date to about the year 130 which is only 1 generation after the events themselvs, and they came from Egypt so they needed years to travel that far. Your theory is CRITICALLY dependent on this bullshiite of coming up with intervening years so that oral traditions can creep in but there is very little fragment or manuscript evidence for it. So you’re pushing a fringe theory, a heretical one, an anti-science theory.

Have they been translated and edited many many times? Yes.
***NO. They can be translated TODAY. Since they are so old there is no intervening translations on the oldest manuscripts, which just so happen to agree with the later manuscripts. SO your theory is toast.

Even today...Is There currently only ONE version???
***There are dozens. But that is the source of solution, not a problem. When you have dozens of sources you can cross-reference for an event you can get to the actual historicity of that event.

All the fanatical disillusions in the world cannot change fact.
***Kiss off, heretic. You are the one engaging a fantasy here.

You live in a fantasy world if you actually believe any other than this historic reality.
***Now everyone can see the real you, a heretic. So let’s open a historicity thread like you wanted to do with Lurker, like I accepted. Let’s throw down on the historicity of the new testament starting with the free online book “New Testament Documents, Are they Reliable?” by eminent historian FF Bruce.
https://www.cob-net.org/compare/nt-documents-reliable-bruce.pdf

Are they true?
***I will not trust YOU with a single mustard seed of truth. You’re simply a lyin’ weasel.

I will give the benefit of the doubt as I always have.
***You get none from me. You’re already maneuvering to push your anti-historicity heresy and I will counter it.

The Bible has pointed to too many unknown buried locations not to.
***You do not know what you are talking about. The Hittites are a great example. Bible was the only ancient book that mentioned them so naturally guys like you who like to argue fallaciously tried to argue from silence and said they didnt’ exist, that is until there was a major archaeological find of a relatively big Hittite city. You guys are so disingenuous because not one of your ilk ever went back and said you were wrong. No honesty.

But you never asked or gave me the benefit of the doubt.
***I do not give heretics the benefit of the doubt. You do not deserve it.

You immediately wanted to burn me at the stake.
***Evocative language, heretic. I wanted to debate you and I told you I would continue to knock down all your fallacies, which prove to be many, very very many.

And even worse... I think at some point you actually realized you might be wrong about me.
***Here your’e trying to tell me what I think. I am not wrong when I post up that you are a heretic.

But rather than be self accountable you still continue to keep up the holy hunt even over what your own conscience is telling you.
***Again using that mind reading fallacy. Have you ever put together a full paragraph without a classic fallacy? I sincerely doubt it.

You really need to have that looked at...
***You really need to take that critical thinking class, heretic.

And he was respectful and dropped it, as did I.
***You did NOT drop it, you kept responding to me, heretic.

Then you decided you had to ride in on a white horse and be a holy Knight.
***Once again you try to use evocative hyperbolic language to paint your opponent in a light that is easier to argue against. A straw argument. You do this ALL the time. It makes you into a dishonest, disingenuous, troll. I am doing what Jesus did: Confronting false teachers of His day in such a way that they felt VERY uncomfortable.

It was between him and I not you.
***Then put it up on PM. You posted it for EVERYONE, so ANYONE can respond. You don’t like it, don’t post that bullshiite. Don’t start nuthin, won’t BE nuthin.

You stuck your nose where it was not needed.
***Of course it’s needed. The faith needs vigorous defenders modeling Christ’s behavior against heretics like you.

That is where the stalking began.
***Kiss off, heretic. We began talking on that last thread and I told you I would confront your logical fallacies when you open THIS thread. That is what I am doing. Don’t like the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

I didn’t confront you...
***I confronted you. Then you kept going around like a dog to his vomit to classic fallacies, right and left. You deserve this table turning treatment.

You went out of your way to confronted me first.
***Tweren’t nuthin. God tells us to defend our faith and you are attacking it with your gobbledegook heresy.

I was already done with the conversation, so was Lurker.
***Then you shouda just let me have my say. Now you’re knee-deep in a poorly written vanity where you are being called out for heresy. That’s on you.

You then blew it up into something it never should have
***Should Have? Christ was very vigorous, very vocal, very vivacious in blowing away false teachers of His day and He expects us to model His behavior. Or was Christ being unChristlike when He was overturning tables? Huh, heretic?

become in the first place.
***You should just take responsibility for how far you have extended your attempt to spread your heresy here on this Pro-God website.

And there have been many many years of the same conflict for other faiths and sects of the same faith.
***Our faith was born in conflict. Just a few months after Jesus was born, every male child in His village was slaughtered trying to kill Him.

The question is... Does every one individual have the right yo believe
***Of course you have the right to believe heretical things.

as they like without persecution?
***No. You’re pushing a heresy you should expect SEVERE pushback.

The Constitution says so.
***True. But you aren’t allowed to go into a Lutheran church and push Mormon bullshiite. The line stops at the door. The line here on FR stops when someone notices you posting anti-God stuff on a Pro-God website, in your case it turns out you’re pushing heretical stuff.

But does the Free Republic respect this or not? That is the question...
***It is so fascinating to see you keep employing those logical fallacies time and again, to the point that your original question, which is seemingly valid, is completely overwhelmed by that dishonest heresy you’re pushing.

Read it... I am and have been in SELF DEFENSE MODE the whole time. In fact I was attacked first and my only “sin” was DEFENDING MYSELF.

Do I have a right to defend myself from attack on my faith and ideology???

If not... Which faith and sect is the only acceptable faith sect and free from attack?

Hence my question... Whole lot of folks willing to break the rules and ATTACK OTHERS, But even when they try to defend themselves they are still stoned for trying to do that.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Because of the screwed up mentality of those who judge there is no way to believe what you yourself might like to believe...

Really??? Self defense is “Combative??? This is the exact hypocritical lying ass crap I exposed here. It is the 180 degree spin of irrational radical extremist self righteous nuts...

No... I did not throw the first blow. I have only been defending myself from aggressive “combativeness” since the whole ignorant stupid thing started.

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.