Posted on 05/18/2007 4:36:41 AM PDT by Liz
OK. Let's say we have a person who has been declared clinically dead. The 50 best docs in the world said so. Tests of every kind were run. He was buried. He came alive three days later.
So it's "irrational" if we all believe that person who's walking around is "alive?"
If all 50 docs say, "Pay no attention to that body wandering around here." We're just to mindlessly mumble what the Wizards of Medical Oz tell us and think, "I'm an irrational believer if I concede He's alive?"
Really?
"If you want to get something done in Washington you don't end up picking teams, with Republicans on one side, and Democrats on the other... I don't like winners and losers in Washington. I'd rather say 'Let's get together and work together.'" - Mitt Romney
[The bottom line is that Mitt thinks he’ll become a god someday. So you want a divine-to-be in office?
If you thought you were to be a god upon death, what kind of power surge adrenalin does that pour through your political decisions?]
You are da’ bomb Colofornian. I’m pretty good at skewering the myth, but you are on another ‘planet’ when it comes to debunking - clear, concise, factual. Let me know what your background is sometime privately. You don’t know the stuff you do unless you’ve been through the Mormon wringer like some of us have.
Mormons say they are followers of Christ. They say that Christ has a prophet on the earth to help them find the truth. Mormons don’t blindly follow a prophet. They are admonished to pray to God to find out if any statement that affects them from their prophet is true or not. No one forces them to be Mormon, they may leave the faith at any time without prejudice. All they need to do is write a letter to their pastor saying they want to be taken off the rolls of The Church.
Theological relativism? Isn’t that exactly the standard that we came here from Europe to espouse. Aren’t we all all supposed to believe that our religion is the right one but that your religion has as much right and legitimacy as mine?
Some raw nerves are exposed here, I don’t mean to rub anybody the wrong way it is just that my experience with many different people of many different faiths shows there are a lot of very good people in this country and they are not all of the same faith. The Mormons seem to be as good as any of them and their religious standards are to be admired. I don't think I ever met a practicing Mormon that I didn't like, perhaps even admire.
As far as espousing abortion as a sacrament, I would trust an anti-abortion atheist before I would support a Christian abortionist regardless of how often the Christian took the sacrament.
You believe in the resurrection because you accept the words of the witnesses who saw him. I do too, in part. But you didn’t see it yourself, and neither did I.
I accept the Book of Mormon because — among other things — I accept the words of the 11 witnesses, in addition to Joseph Smith, who saw the plates from which they were translated.
If simply believing the words of witnesses makes a belief “rational,” why is one any more “rational” than the other?
“Don’t all Christians believe they will someday be god’s?”
That is exactly the point. Mormon’s do, every other Christian and Jew does not (except schismatics). The potential of becomming a God with all the ego problems involved in the here and now lead to aberrations in judgment. Think how you’d act if you thought you were one step away from Godhood versus someone who recognized there are real limitations to humans. After you’ve pondered that for a while, you will understand why this is a big deal not to be swept under the rug.
Yup.
*sigh*
Why must all of these kind of threads always become the same tired “my-belief-in-Jesus-is-better-than-your-belief-in-Jesus” argument?
I’ll clue everyone in...all religion is personal, is based on faith, and is often not rational. What Romney believes may not make sense to you and what you belief not make sense to him. The difference is that I don’t see him out there questioning your mental state of mind about it.
So the next time you watch some incredulous event on "Eyewitness News @ 11" & you take in what multiple eyewitness journalists (& others) tell you, it doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality or rationality because "you believe because you accept the words of witnesses who saw" what they saw
Again, mind you, I am not saying the above has nothing to do with "faith." (Frankly it takes a lot of "faith" sometimes to stomach what Katie Couric or Dan Rather has said). But what I am saying is that in addition to faith, it at least wouldn't be "irrational" for me to take the word of eyewitness. It wouldn't inherently be "against rationality."
“Comparisons to David Koresh are illogical. David Koresh said that he was Christ.”
Would you vote for a David Koresh follower who was still a believer? Mormons believe Joseph Smith performed miracles and he was quite Koresh like. So, if you are comfortable with that scenario, all power to you, but it creeps me out.
"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."
Did they teach Mitt to pray for God to avenge this nation? I hope that is one oath they broke.
Mitt, himself took this oath There was the accompanying chant of "I ______ promise not to reveal this, the first token of the Aaronic Priesthood along with it's accompanying name, sign, and penalty; rather than do so I would suffer . . . [raise right hand with extended thumb, palm down with thumb tip under left ear] . . . my life . . . [draw thumb across throat to right ear] . . . to be taken [drop right hand to side]. The officiator mentioned that these movements symbolized ways the life could be taken.
It seems to me that Paul said that a man and woman are to be one as Christ and God are one and that man is to become one with Christ in the same way. Somehow I can’t put it all together but it sounds like we will be sharing godhood with Christ. I think that is what all Christians believe, with the possible exception of you.
OK. You've bought into the notion that if you oppose someone's belief, that is "hatred."
So everytime a Republican opposes a Dem public policy, that is "hatred?" (Stop buying into the liberal notion that to oppose someone is to "hate" them. If you oppose your teenage son's drug habit or irrational behavior, and you take active steps to help set them straight, that is loving them!)
We should look at the credibility of those witnesses should we not?
I’m the same age as Mitt. We never took any oath of vengeance. That is pure crap. Where are you getting your information?
Because the very article in this thread says the following:
" Romney should be given a fair shake.....his policies and leadership qualities should be scrutinized, not his religious affiliation. That kind of bigotry should have gone by the wayside with the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic"
That is why it is being discussed, because the poster asked us to discuss it. It really is simple.
You are avoiding the point. The Resurrection is not something that be proven through rational means, despite the fact that there were witnesses to it. That was my point.
As to the credibility of the witnesses, all were decent upstanding men. Some had later disagreements with Joseph Smith, and even left the church, but none ever disavowed his testimony regarding the Book of Mormon.
Nope we didn't. Reread my post. I said his grandparents took the oath....to teach their children down to the third generation. Maybe your grandparents took that oath. I know mine did.
What is the source of your information regarding oaths that Mitt took?
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.