Is that what you get when you graduate form the burning in the busom? ;^)
Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:44 PM PDT by mmanager
Mitt Romney engaged in a heated discussion about his Mormon faith with a prominent Des Moines talk show host off the air on Thursday morning. The contentious back-and-forth between Romney and WHO's Jan Mickelson began on the air (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) when the former governor appeared on the popular program that has become a regular stop for GOP presidential hopefuls. But the conversation spilled over to a commercial break and went on after the program ended, where a visibly annoyed Romney spoke in much greater detail about his church's doctrines than he is comfortable doing so in public.
The footage was captured by the station's in-studio camera and posted on its website. But Romney, who is careful to portray a sunny and upbeat public image, clearly did not know he was being recorded. The candidate reveals a private side that is at turns cutting, combative and sarcastic, but most of all agitated at being forced to defend what he and his church stand for.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it less of a lie. I have called for no banning or censure. I have merely called out your debating tactics as being logically flawed, and with conscious repetition, intentionally deceitful. This latest to me just proves the point, it being the fourth or fifth strawman offered so far. You are the one who asked that proof be shown. QED.”
I believe your counting of the angels on the head of a pin has broached a record.
Here is the salient point, Joseph Smith was a documented nutbag. People who follow nutbags are likely to pose problems as President. Let me prove my point.
I am Your God, FastCoyote (a reformed reformed Mormon who has found the revelation and Got Him His Planet Early). I am running for president, and since I am God, I command you to vote for me!
Since (according to you) it is inopportune to attack someones religion in this forum, according to your rules you should have no response if I tell you my religion commands silence of you and your fellows.
And remember to vote FastCoyote, it’s the Universal Law!
(and by the way, if big words are too hard, maybe you could use a dictionary)
Look, pal. You don't know me, and you sure as shootin' don't know my spirit. You have a lot of nerve to call my spirit 'dead.' I believe in Christ Almighty, the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind--yes, even of Mormons. I believe in Him, and that's all that matters. What YOU think of me doesn't mean a thing.
Then why have a religion forum? Are the discussions there on Catholic doctrine or Calvinism also "effective censorship" of religious discussion, because they aren't on the main forum? It is the proper place for theological debate on FR, as it is neither news nor activism. News/Activism is not the proper venue to evangelize for or against Mormonism, Protestantism, or Shintoism, for that matter.
It also sets the thread up for stricter moderation which is often taken advantage of by the apologists in baiting others into making posts that either result in getting the thread locked down, pulled, or the banning of posters.
That sounds suspiciously like one of my kids blaming the other for "making me hit him". If people are so easily baited into making offensive posts, worthy of getting banned over, that's all the more reason to hash it out off the main forum, where the majority need not be exposed to the childish antics. Frankly, y'all NEED stricter moderation, because too many on both sides can't seem to moderate themselves.
I thought Romney acquitted himself quite well. This was no Howard Dean moonbat moment or John McCain meltdown. Yes, Romney was agitated but not angry or uncivil, as Jonathan Martin at The Politico tries to portray him. Unfortunately, some Freepers bought into Martin's agenda to divide conservatives.
Certainly, Romney's entire persona is on display, including his religion, but it is only a small part of what he brings to the table. What is far more important is his executive experience and record as governor of an eastern state, which speaks well of his powers of persuasion.
Conservatives need a leader who can win an argument, is not afraid to engage in that type of political combat, and can do it in a manner that does not give unnecessary offense. Romney deserves a good look and a fair hearing.
.
Here is the salient point,...
Ah, the old "lost the argument, so change the subject" trick. < /agent86 >
Since (according to you) it is inopportune to attack someones religion in this forum, according to your rules you should have no response if I tell you my religion commands silence of you and your fellows.
Your sarcasm aside, you still fail to construct a valid logical argument. Your posited religion holds no command over me, nor is it necessary for me to debate it. I simply ignore it.
But seriously, FC, you have put forward that to be allowed into the political arena, one must be able to logically defend the basic premise of their faith. That is something that no one can do; faith is, by definition, a belief held beyond objective proof. The only way religion can be debated at all is if both parties agree on some axiom beyond the debate, such as the existence of the Divine.
If you are going to require such a standard for political participation, it is only right that you pass the same test. Therefore, what is the basic premise of your religion?
(and by the way, if big words are too hard, maybe you could use a dictionary)
It isn't the words that were hard, it's the poor syntax in which they were used.
There’s always one or two of us in any crowd.
“Bible believing Christians resent that Mormons are co-opting OUR Jesus Christ to play a part of this blasphemous amalgam of the sacred and the pagan. Any presidential candidate who is a member of this is automatically disqualified in the minds of mainline Christians.”
I don’t want Bible based Christianity aligned in any way shape or form with this man made religion of convenience. I will never vote for a Mormon, or a Muslim. We have NOTHING in common.
Is that what you get when you graduate form the burning in the busom? ;^)
When the LDS members on these finally answer the question posed to tell: I will.
Joshua 24:15
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the god your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the LAMANITES, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
HMMmm...
I've just been suggested to do that very thing!
Are you so SILLY!!
Of COURSE not!!
OUR God is Great!
It's or Living Prophets® that are mere men and very fallible (except when they are not!)
--MormonDude(kinda fallible myself)
You are so correct, I do not know your spirit, but you may be sure God does, and He knows mine, also. What I think or write of you is really irrelevant on an electronic website. But there is a transaction which ought to scare the bejeebers out of every man, that without Christ INDWELLING their human spirit, they will be cast into outer darkness soem where/when. [Just to clarify, that last is a generic address, which includes you and me in the generic audience. If God's Spriit imprints it personally for your spiritual ears, you would do well to speak with Him, not rale at insignificant me.]
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
I, in my unworthyness, will vote for you TWO - no; wait! -- THREE times!
Quite an amazing statement!
'Specially from a dude that just posted THIS!!!
| To: Elsie
You’re OBSESSED. You may want to take a rest. Go lie down. Get a life. Stop repeating yourself... 283 posted on 08/06/2007 10:58:29 AM CDT by Choose Ye This Day (Ask not what you can expect from life; ask what life expects from you. -- Viktor Frankl)
|
It ain't the 'having'; but the Moving that shows a certain type of Spirit.
Yeah!
All them religious kooks need to stay in the shadows!!
--Non-MormonDude
Your argument was addressed by the Religion Moderator in an earlier post. I suggest you check his posts for it.
What, pray tell, is amazing about it?
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.