Replies

Our nation's liberty is being destroyed, a citizen has brought hundreds of thousands of informed, peaceful, passionate-about-liberty group together to work together to "restore honor," focus on "faith, hope, and charity," and the discussion here is wasted on whether or not that person's doctrinal beliefs match the precise definitions of another person.
Does anyone recognize the irony in that? Might such preoccupation with sectarian differences not be one of the reasons we have neglected "salting" our society with the ideas of liberty over past decades? Might it be a reason our nation's liberty is being eroded as we speak?
America's Founders focused on liberty, and on those ideas "in which all religions agree" (Jefferson), and they made the "miracle of America" a reality in their time. They differed on many doctrinal points, but they recognized the Hand of "Divine Providence," sought His purpose, and capsulized the ideas of liberty in a Declaration of Independence from the hand of an oppressive government and wrote a Constitution which allowed for freedom of religious thought and practice while it allowed for opportunity and prosperity.
We are about to lose all that for future generations unless we can restore the foundations.
Every moment wasted on quibbling about other people's personal beliefs and judging their souls is neglecting the task at hand.
Congratulations to all who put their hand to the plow and leave the judging to the "Creator, Divine Providence, nature's God, and Supreme Judge of the World" (Declaration of Independence).
Just asking. . . .

Excellent post, loveliberty2. Excellent, excellent.

And don't think it's wasted, just because Colofornian in #134 tries to twist your words and change what you said. That's par for the course for Colofornian, Tenessee Nana and elsie, who either just don't get it or do get it and just don't give a rat's patoot.

When I say your words are not wasted I'm referring to all the people who read them and don't comment on the thread, probably because they don't want to get caught in the crosshairs of those who post on no other subject but this one (at least one of the three I mentioned is like that) and it totally obsessed with proving to the world that his/her conceptual grasp of Jesus Christ is mightier than all others.

But I know there are lurkers who approve of what you wrote because I have gotten emails from them, thanking me, when I wrote similar things.

So keep up the good work, loveliberty2 and April Lexington, and don't be disheartened by the tireless misunderstandings and misrepresentations that will doubtless be posted against you.

And don't think it's wasted, just because Colofornian in #134 tries to twist your words and change what you said.

Who's "twisting?" They are as plain as day. Loveliberty2 said:

Every moment wasted on quibbling about other people's personal beliefs and judging their souls is neglecting the task at hand.

So. Who just "wasted" moments "quibbling" about what others have said religiously on this thread? Why Loveliberty2 did! (Well, at least he/she did by their own standard)

It's real simple, Sam. When you make a comment about "religious" things or comment upon the "personal beliefs" of others -- including commenting upon the "personal beliefs" of other FReepers, you are commenting religiously.

If somebody thinks religious distinctions should be made, that's their religious "personal beliefs." If Loveliberty, or you, don't think the vital differences are to be stressed, well, that, too, is a stated religious "personal belief."

What's always funny on these threads is the FReepers who pipe up, and like the liberals on our college campuses, wind up appealing to "tolerance." They will come on and defend a cultist vantage point as sacro-sanct. "Don't pick on this or that cultist's viewpoint. Because we like a lot of what he has to say about the socio-political environment." And their appeal is to "tolerance" -- that we need to "tolerate" religious views we disagree with. And as they state that, they pull out their verbal paddle of discipline, assume the supposed "higher ground," and we surely note, yes, how everso "tolerant" of you to assume the "high road of tolerance."

Yet.

If these folks are indeed so "tolerant."

And if we're supposed to "tolerate" religious views (like Beck's) that we disagree with...if Beck's views are so "sacro-sanct"...
Then tell us, Sam. Tell us, Loveliberty. Why don't you seem to be able to "tolerate" my religious views? Why you so quick to take umbrage with them if "tolerance" is the key byword? Why don't you seem to be able to "tolerate" Tennessee Nana's views? Or Elsie's views?

Bottom line: If you are going to make some subtle appeals to "tolerance," then guess what? You need to practice it as well. Otherwise, what are we to do? Believe what you say -- that we should "tolerate" Beck's religious beliefs? Or are we to believe what you practice -- your hostile intolerance of our personal beliefs about faith?

You wanna explain why your imposition of "tolerance" is a one-way street? (Either you Sam, or you, Loveliberty). You wanna explain, Loveliberty, why it's OK for you to assume a role of "Grand Quibbler?" about what others have stated on this site? But, if you dare perceive anybody else "quibbling," then they get a lecture from you followed up by an even grander lecture by the "Grand Accuser" Samtheman?

And, please, Sam, pour even more vitriol on your accusations in your next post...why, that only makes it even clearer to others that the supposed "tolerant crowd" isn't as "tolerant" as the preachy words of "tolerance" they disseminate.

It's actually what's so sad. Because so many so-called "conservatives" have bought into the liberal lexicon of "tolerance."