Posted on 06/14/2012 7:35:30 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.
(Excerpt) Read more at wallbuilders.com ...
And you have exposed yourself. Thanks.
FR is a conservative site and some have decided the progressive mormon is better than the progressive muslim.
The ones for the mormon are intolerant of anyone who questions mormonism or Romney’s history of liberalism’s elitist amorality. They don’t define FR. They don’t have much of an argument, so they spit insults. Ignore the one who only insult. They are for Mittens no matter what anyone says and hate anyone who is not for him. It is like they are trying to impose a liberal GOP group-think political correctness on a herd of cats. Just do your thing.
“Oh look what a horribly wrong cult the LDS is” — granted. Now what? Some mechanism by which it would work evil on the USA through Mitt Romney is needed. Few are worried that the LDS would be running the USA through Mitt, any more than the Catholic Church ran the USA through Kennedy.
There have been enough folks who have cloaked a really weird agenda under the ostensible opposition of another religious group with a really weird agenda, that you’re still smelling suspicious.
Look at who my message was addressed to and get back to me. lol
hey mr goodnews where’s the gospel?
Don’t let them get you on the defensive. Speak your own truth.
If you are fuzzy towards socialism or sympathic towards the culture of death, that will be your downfall here. Ignore the Romneybot meltdowns and don’t let them suck you into fear or mindless defensiveness. If you are a real conservative, you will do fine.
Christians are going to look at ‘lord’s claims from a wider perspective than simply whether he execrates Mitt’s religion.
For example, the claim to be a gospel preacher. OK, show me the gospel. Fair enough?
This is your authenticity test: state the gospel.
Maybe the ten commandments about not killing good enough for you- abortion. If not, read about sodom and gamorrah.
Unfortunately for Mittens, he has a left wing, anti-constitutional, limo liberal globalist group think track record which he needs to shed. I am not convienced yet.
Can you honestly say you are sure of him or are you just against Obama. I may vote for Mittens but only to join the left in impeacing him when he abandons the constitution in the name of progress. They seem to have a greater ability with holding Republicans to the rule of law and they have standing in the American courts more than do the Republicans when facing an anti-constitutional progressive.
is impeacing when they say peace unto you?
Nah, you’re not a retread. Those were just random people you pinged, right? I mean after all, all newbies start out being savvy enough to ping multiple FReepers, most of whom they’ve had no interaction with on the website.
Baloney. Lots of freepers here have, to each other. I was just trying to get in touch with this claimed pastor.
Exact name and address? Like personal, private listing or address? Not so fast, Jack. You are twisting there what I actually did ask for. I asked for info to reach a pastor, at a church office. They usually provide that type of info openly, in a phone book. Some, even many churches list themselves in the yellow pages, various church guides, etc., actually trying to spread their contact info.
That conflicts with what you said at #33 this thread;
So which is it? The old version, above, or this new version;
Perhaps you should try and read more carefully. I pointed out to you that it was your own personal anecdotal comments that didn't add up, which in regards to you overall posturing here, raised suspicions not only within myself, but with at least two others here. Your personal notes still don't jive too well, as you seem to be shifting the story, along with wanting this to be about Romney.
I didn't ask you to. Why try and make out like I did? Talking with you, there's always this subtle shifting things around on your part. Try not to do that. It makes you look, well, "shifty".
I guess my use of qualifying subordinate clauses was too much for you, eh? Try re-reading what I actually did say, and see if you can understand it. Take your time, go slow, as long as it takes. As a hint I'll add that the Jews which had rejected Christ, of the days or times of the "Early Church" (say, 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.), most certainly looked upon early Christianity as a "cult", as did the Romans of the same time frame, which I originally referred to. The very word "cult" did not necessarily at all times hold the connotative meanings it does today. Some cults of the Romans were accepted as valid enough even as they were thought of amongst themselves as being "cults", much along the same lines we now some loosely say "sect" referring to some divisions within Christianity, even though the two terms are not precisely interchangeable.
See, it's not so bad now, is it? You must have missed the historical reference, though I took effort to include it, even the first time.
Simple. Mocking is to use the very words of another, in a way to devalue them, somewhat by definition.
As to what I meant by your own making a mockery of various positions, both political, and religious (in fact a blend of the two) I've already given hint of what I meant by that, when I termed you're posturing here appearing to me as a caricature of others.
The left wing loves to characterize conservatives and Christians as being simple minded, ill informed, uneducated, etc., which makes it a simple matter in their own prideful selves, to simply dismiss folks like "tea party" types as being shallow, intolerant, bigoted, not to mention racist.
If one comes tripping along here to FR fitting those description to a large extent, I'm wondering if he's trying to highlight the basest elements, just to make sure we all look bad, here. I guess I had to spell it out again, although I did spell it previously "agent provocateur" even as I acknowledged FR having plenty enough already of the organic, non-deliberate sort.
Braying the anti-Romney positions like a jack-ass, doesn't help achieve other long-term goals, such as getting larger numbers of citizens to understand and embrace conservatism, restraint of Government, and a return to better moral behavior as a nation --- as much as it may undermine those very things. Sort of like a guy standing on a street corner with a megaphone loudly blasting "Repent or Burn, you Sinners!" may very well do as much as harm as good to that particular cause, (accurate though it may be,) and can provide ready excuse for those whom would naturally wish to reject such a message to do so, simply for the way it's delivered.
In the particular case of Romney's own characteristics, both real and imagined, those very things can play right into the hands of the smooth talkers on the other side, you know, those folks whom already helped deceive more than half the nation into believing that Obama would make a good chief Executive, in such a way that moderate Dem and independent voters could feel in some way justified in rejecting Romney, but for all the wrong reasons...leaving their own bigotries towards any and all things "conservative" not only fully intact, but even further strengthened.
One can find the strongest hints in the above paragraph as to the reasons behind the antipathy towards Mitt that is held by more than a few at FR. He is not a palatable compromise.
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.