| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
Poor way to attract others to your more complete truth.
Ah, but the satisfaction of once again demonstrating censorship power at FR is so great!
Ah, so you are DENYING the Traditional Trinity then? After all, the Traditional Trinity is describing a MATHEMATICAL ONE God. The three Persons are only supposed to be Hypostasis [in one ousia], with the ousia as the sole individual reality.
So here we are, with a mathematically single God having three “masks.”
You are saying the fact the “Son” mask changed from solely “God” to “God + Man” doesn’t mean the “Father” mask changed.
I NEVER said it was, only referencing the hint of John 5:19 “whatever the Father does the Son also does”. Your INITIAL condemnation was on “God” changing. I merely pointed out the fact, according to Traditional Christianity, there is only supposed to be one God in the mathematical sense, and if any of its three Persons change, ipso facto, the God changes.
Is the Son [part of] the one “God”? Yes. Did he “change”? Yes. Therefore, God changed.
It is obvious the biblical declaration of God’s immutability is NOT a blanket statement, covering all concepts. For example, can God change his mind?
As for your argument against the very clear John 5:19’s “whatever the Father does the Son also does” - might I suggest a re-think’s in order?
“Does” is an ACTION. While it is possible to credibly say every single thing the Son did has a parallel from the Father’s actions; it is also possible to say the replication is more general.
Stop twisting the Bible’s words! The serpent’s declaration is on the ability to “know good from evil” - that is what being “like God” means in the context of Genesis (Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil ...).
I already provided the link to my book on exaltation (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id33.htm ). Please don’t regurgitate that old argument unless you actually read and refute my book. It really looks bad and speaks volumes about you.
Of course, bigotry against someone just because he has different religious views automatically tells me the level of intellectual credibility ...
This is the attitude that seems so prevalent here. It is no wonder that our posts back and forth accomplish so little. There is a lack of basic respect in your comment. Both sides engage in this sort of disparagement and all it does is poison the conversation.
~”I doubt that it’ll really make you happy though.”~
No, it really doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary.
The problem, Elsie, is that the conversation was rapidly diving into the mud. It was getting personal, rather than intellectual. We can’t seem to have a discussion about Romney and religion without it getting personal. This particular thread took longer to devolve than most; but in the end, both sides were at fault.
One benefit of the Religion forum is that its more strict guidelines make it a sort of “safe haven” for both sides, and civility is enforced rather than merely expected. The Religion Moderator does a great service for a lot of topics in this way.
It has nothing to do with hiding the thread from lurkers. It’s still perfectly searchable in the database, and it was, by now, far enough down in the News/Activism list that those lurkers who were going to find it by means of stumbling on it generally already would have.
~”Poor way to attract others to your more complete truth.”~
You are under the assumption that I consider plaintext an appropriate medium for doing so. I’d far rather bear my testimony of the truth of the LDS Church face-to-face. In other words, conversion is not what I’m after here. My goal is more along the lines of personal growth and enrichment.
~”Ah, but the satisfaction of once again demonstrating censorship power at FR is so great!”~
Who’s censoring? Say what you want, just be civil about it. And I’ll be civil when I way that your viewpoints are flawed.
Are you judging Binger and his “lack of respect?”
Who left you to be the moderator of what is and is not appropriate? What makes you believe that YOU are the arbiter of what is effective in conversation?
This is one of the aggravating things about some Mormons. They believe that they are “holier than thou.”
You and your co-believers are sinners sandude, just like the rest of us, but you can’t see it through your “I’m chosen and contain the knowledge of more truth than YOU” spectacles.
While most Christians and even athiest and agnostics will admit they are not perfect and never will be, many Mormon’s think they have a ability to be perfect and therefore god’s of their own worlds. It is this viewpoint that makes the teachings of mormonism so insidious and dangerous. And makes a Mitt Presidency unacceptable in my view. This is precisely the attitude I hoped that my former Mormon brethern and sisters would exhibit for all the world to see.
Thank you.
Mormons are not better, more righteous, or holy than the rest of us, they are better at hiding behind a facade that is actually sanctimony.
30% - 61% Say they won’t vote for a mormon Placemarker
There are many reasons why a poster would not respond to your questions Elsie. I've tried to engage you in a meaningful conversation before and for whatever reason it never really seems to be able to get a real start. Many times your questions and comments are worded in an insulting manner. I don't want to fight with anybody here so sometimes I pass on questions because I feel that the end result won't compensate for the effort put into the dialog.
Brilliant and deep!
Would you please elaborate?
I'm only trying to be civil and asking others to do the same.
I'm only trying to be civil and asking others to do the same.
Thanks for making my point.
Your insults are not going to goad me into a fight. Why do you think the Mormons here are so stupid?
Not to worry. His and mary’s Temple work have been done. But thanks for your concern....
LOL!! Not to mention the hefty fine that was levied on him by the Library of Congress for the round dent in the cover of the BOM. I heard that he walked the entire distance from Antietam in the rain when he received the notice. Good old Honest Abe.... 8~)
Some critics say that it’s because we have a “devil may care attitude” about some things....
OK, I confess. I was looking forward to watching Jim McMahon’s wrestling show on TV....
I don't know why we are so stupid, but a major evidence of our stupidity is coming onto threads like this and wasting time trying to communicate with some folks here -- present company excepted of course....
Perhaps, but it sure is convenient to go and say thirty-five "Hail-Josephs" as assigned and be immediately cleansed of all of our sins.... 8~)
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.