Why I take Iowa with a grain of salt [Archive]

jayson

01-03-2008, 09:42 PM

I never expected Ron to be 1st or 2nd in Iowa. However, to say that I didn't have high hopes anyway would be lying. I expected 3rd place. Looks like we get 4th if FT/McCain tie.

Before you harp on the fact that Ron Paul is "way back in the pack", note that third is just 3-4% away. That's a very tight race.

Sure, there is no way we could have competed with the guy who has spent $54 million so far (Romney), or the googly-eyed soft spoken media creation Huckster.

Remember, the Iowa crowd fits neatly into my "nonthinking-religious-right" group. They vote for whoever has the best hairdo and holds the biggest cross, regardless of their positions and policy choice.

Oh and one more thing, before you reply with a bunch of smug retorts, remember that your man is only 4% ahead... this in a state like Iowa that neither FT or RP could have been very successful in.

DesertFox

01-03-2008, 09:44 PM

I never expected Ron to do well in Iowa. To say that I didn't have high expectation would be lying. Say what? :question:

jayson

01-03-2008, 09:48 PM

Fixed, should make more sense.

Suzie

01-03-2008, 09:54 PM

THEBIRD

01-03-2008, 10:04 PM

I've very happy with a double digit finish. Zogby was right.

I was hoping for third.

New Hampshire...here we come!!!

What I can't believe is that Huck won after Rush trashed him the last two days. Rush said outright that Huck is not a conservative and they voted for him anyway.

I'm an evangelical Baptist and there is no way I would vote for that man.

Teenager

01-03-2008, 10:07 PM

I too, was extremely surprised at Huck taking the win. I suppose this election just proves that people vote for good looks and Christian talk, despite how irresponsible he is fiscally... :/

jayson

01-03-2008, 10:33 PM

Actually he will be 5th, either Thompson or McCain will walk away with the more votes even if the percentage is the same. Only 85 percent of the GOP vote is counted so even the percentage for one of the other could go up. Right now Fred has more votes than McCain.

True, but remember in Iowa, the polls don't actually dictate how the delegates are divided. The polls are more for the media than anything. After casting your vote, you are supposed to (but not required) stay around after the voting to actually vote for delegates.

That's where the real money is... poll numbers mean nothing if you can get delegates elected.

But even then, 32 delegates out of a sea of 2400-something is not exactly a make or break situation.

jayson

01-03-2008, 10:34 PM

I too, was extremely surprised at Huck taking the win. I suppose this election just proves that people vote for good looks and Christian talk, despite how irresponsible he is fiscally... :/

Indeed, this worries me too.

Suzie

01-03-2008, 10:48 PM

Well the bright side for you guys is that he got more than double the Rudy vote. :lol:

jayson

01-03-2008, 10:54 PM

Well the bright side for you guys is that he got more than double the Rudy vote. :lol:

Considering that 6 months ago he was unbeatable, I will wear that badge with honor! :D

Stormfin

01-03-2008, 11:16 PM

I was hoping for third.

I was too.

Wyatt_Junker

01-03-2008, 11:20 PM

Why I take Iowa with a grain of salt

I take Iowa with a line of coke and a shot of Jaeger.

And even then, I don't take it seriously.

sunsettommy

01-03-2008, 11:28 PM

Rhino

01-03-2008, 11:33 PM

Out? He got five votes!!!! :lol:

The_Elucidator

01-04-2008, 06:59 AM

Not a chance that Paul finishes higher than fourth in N.H.!! Book it!!

Justaguy

01-04-2008, 07:51 AM

Justaguy

01-04-2008, 07:52 AM

I was too.

Me too.

Naturalized-Texan

01-04-2008, 09:53 AM

Justaguy

01-04-2008, 10:19 AM

71% of the Iowa Republican voters voted for RINOs.

That's the bad news.

So you're going to end up the same place I do... longing for a conservative.

Rhino

01-04-2008, 10:23 AM

If Thompson doesn't win, we probably all will.

Justaguy

01-04-2008, 10:26 AM

If Thompson doesn't win, we probably all will.

We may not agree what a conservative is... but we can all smell a rino a mile away.

jayson

01-04-2008, 10:57 AM

Since 90% of the Republicans voted against Ron Paul in a state that is a hotbed of isolationism, it's highly likely that Iowa will end up being the high watermark of the RuPaul campaign (he may match those numbers in a couple of other states that are also hotbeds of isolationism).

And that is where you and I disagree.

I will kid no one... Ron Paul is NOT like GWB. In fact, in many ways he is the antithesis of Bush II. That being said, Ron Paul has managed to receive 10% of the vote in a state like Iowa where 70% of Republicans still support Bush. That's NOT bad.

Oh and they really love those farm subsidies, which Ron is against. That didn't help either.

Oh and he was competing with a rich Mormon and a pious yet ignorant ordained minister.

I'd say he did pretty darn well. But it was a wakeup call to the grassroots and National HQ who dropped the ball on us. I think we are here to stay for the long run.

Justaguy

01-04-2008, 11:13 AM

And that is where you and I disagree.

But it was a wakeup call to the grassroots and National HQ who dropped the ball on us.

I don't agree with this. Let's face it, Iowa is NOT Ron Paul Country. Remember, it's a marathon, not a dash. He was pretty much in a dead heat with the number 3 and number 4 candidate. One of which is a cornerstone of the current Republican Party. It's going to be harder to discount him as fringe. Let's see what Wyoming and New Hampshire Michigan and Nevada hold.

Naturalized-Texan

01-04-2008, 11:33 AM

Since RuPaul has already reached his high water mark, it's time for him to drop out of the race and endorse the only REAL conservative in the race, Fred Thompson.

Teenager

01-04-2008, 11:46 AM

Since RuPaul has already reached his high water mark, it's time for him to drop out of the race and endorse the only REAL conservative in the race, Fred Thompson.

Agreed. Let's just face it, Ron Paulites were dismally disappointed at his performance in Iowa. They were hoping for 2nd, but instead got 5th. This should be a wake-up call for them.

jayson

01-04-2008, 01:58 PM

Agreed. Let's just face it, Ron Paulites were dismally disappointed at his performance in Iowa. They were hoping for 2nd, but instead got 5th. This should be a wake-up call for them.

It is a wakeup call, but it is going to help us much more than anything. It shows that the polls are right... we need to change that. We are going to have to get boots on the ground and start passing out information to everyone, door to door, registered Republicans after the registration cut off, etc., etc.

I appreciate the fact that you are out and voting... that's better than most Americans. Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to support someone who wants to stay in Iraq. It's not about terrorism or WMDs or deposing despots anymore... it's all about money. We just simply can't afford it any longer. That is the real enemy here... a very damaging monetary policy. We must fix this single issue before everything else.

Suzie

01-04-2008, 03:16 PM

Actually ... the only reason the online polls are right is because they stopped adding Ron Paul as an option. Before that the cult recruiters for Paul were spamming to the point they couldn't use polls to judge. And that's hurting him more than helping because it makes his supporters look looney and it's repelling people.

The_Elucidator

01-04-2008, 04:03 PM

I believe that Ron Paul did as well as he did in Iowa because it is still a very liberal state as far as the Midwest goes. He pulled 10% in part because of his anti-war stance. He will also probably pull roughly the same in N.H. and could very well come in 3rd........could

However with that being said, I believe he will find the sledding a little tougher elsewhere.

Now I'm hoping that after Super Tuesday that Huck still isn't our front runner. If he is leading, you are gonna find members of this and many other conservative boards about ready to jump off the ledge.

The_Elucidator

01-04-2008, 04:08 PM

Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to support someone who wants to stay in Iraq. It's not about terrorism or WMDs or deposing despots anymore... it's all about money. We just simply can't afford it any longer. That is the real enemy here... a very damaging monetary policy. We must fix this single issue before everything else.

If that is the opinion you are trying to "sell" to "Conservatives" then he will never rise above the 10% ceiling. Ever! As the GWOT is one of the ONLY things that the constitution says we can spend on.

Naturalized-Texan

01-04-2008, 05:19 PM

Jayson keeps proving that he is ignorant of the Constitution. I strongly recommend that he read it some time. If he did, he would find that under Article I, Section 8 Congress has the duty to "To raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy" and he would find that under Article II, Section 2 that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

In addition the President's took the following oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Each member of Congress took the following oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

It's easy to see that Ron Paul has violated his oath office by failing to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" by refusing to support our troops in a declared war for which he voted.

DesertFox

01-04-2008, 05:30 PM

It's a stretch to say he violated his oath because he saw things differently than you do. I disagree vehemently with Ron Paul on the war, but I don't think he's violated his oath; I think he's not done his job right.

jayson

01-04-2008, 07:07 PM

If that is the opinion you are trying to "sell" to "Conservatives" then he will never rise above the 10% ceiling. Ever! As the GWOT is one of the ONLY things that the constitution says we can spend on.

It's not a question of whether we can legally spend the money, it's a question of whether or not we should spend the money. I agree... war costs a lot. It's an expensive endeavor in both lives and money.

Unfortunately, we just can't afford to spend trillions of dollars in a global fight against terrorists. We are borrowing several billion dollars a day from the Chinese and Japanese. We are printing money in record amounts, which causes inflation, which amounts to essentially a tax on every individual in America. We need to realize that we have bigger fish that badly need to be fried.

DesertFox

01-04-2008, 07:45 PM

we just can't afford to spend trillions of dollars in a global fight against terrorists. Seems to me we can't afford NOT to. You just gonna let them keep on flying jets into buildings?

Suzie

01-04-2008, 07:58 PM

When we all are dead I guess it wont matter anymore. But then neither will the money.

HomeschoolrsRUs

01-04-2008, 09:42 PM

Why I take Iowa with a grain of salt

Because I live in Flori-duh, and I always put salt on my corn, :smirky:

Naturalized-Texan

01-05-2008, 10:20 AM

The reason that I so vehemently oppose Ron Paul and his Paulbots is quite simple. I see Ron Paul and his Paulbots advocating policies that could easily end up with the slaughter of my 3 sons and my grandkids in terrorist attacks. It's very personal with me that Ron Paul and his Paulbots are supporting policies that threaten the lives of my family.

MrSanity

01-05-2008, 10:42 AM

I appreciate the fact that you are out and voting... that's better than most Americans. Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to support someone who wants to stay in Iraq. It's not about terrorism or WMDs or deposing despots anymore... it's all about money. We just simply can't afford it any longer. That is the real enemy here... a very damaging monetary policy. We must fix this single issue before everything else.This is THE area where I have plenty to disagree with about Ron Paul. I like the fact that he wants to slash a handful of bureaucracies that have amounted to nothing short of wasted tax dollars, BUT he seems to have no desire to stand against Muslim Extremists who are willing to kill and die for Sharia Law in America. If we don't act against them, we will have no rights and liberties in our homeland.

His stance on terror is not conservative, not even paleoconservative, but anarchist.

Suzie

01-05-2008, 12:33 PM

Naturalized-Texan

01-05-2008, 01:25 PM

His stance on terror is not conservative, not even paleoconservative, but anarchist.
It's much worse than that! Ron Paul's stance on terror is equivalent to the stances of hate-America leftists like George Soros, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, DailyKos, et al.

Timberwolf

01-05-2008, 02:20 PM

It's not a question of whether we can legally spend the money, it's a question of whether or not we should spend the money. I agree... war costs a lot. It's an expensive endeavor in both lives and money.
Yeah...remember we made a 3000 life investment in this war before we even entered it...and very much against our will, I might add.

Unfortunately, we just can't afford to spend trillions of dollars in a global fight against terrorists. We are borrowing several billion dollars a day from the Chinese and Japanese. We are printing money in record amounts, which causes inflation, which amounts to essentially a tax on every individual in America. We need to realize that we have bigger fish that badly need to be fried.
A saying comes to mind:
You think healthcare is expensive NOW, just wait until it's FREE.
You think the war is expensive NOW, just wait until we're fighting HERE at home.

You need to look past your own nose because you're in danger of cutting it off to spite your face.

EveningStar

01-05-2008, 02:43 PM

Related thread (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=54371)

The_Elucidator

01-05-2008, 04:49 PM

It's not a question of whether we can legally spend the money, it's a question of whether or not we should spend the money. I agree... war costs a lot. It's an expensive endeavor in both lives and money.

Unfortunately, we just can't afford to spend trillions of dollars in a global fight against terrorists. We are borrowing several billion dollars a day from the Chinese and Japanese. We are printing money in record amounts, which causes inflation, which amounts to essentially a tax on every individual in America. We need to realize that we have bigger fish that badly need to be fried.

Like TW said; you think this war is expensive now, wait until it hits here again! How much do you think it would cost our economy if these pricks fly a plane into the Sears Tower, bomb some shopping malls, hit the NY Subway, Touch off a nuke in downtown Atlanta?????

jayson

01-05-2008, 06:09 PM

Naturalized-Texan

01-05-2008, 07:50 PM

Like TW said; you think this war is expensive now, wait until it hits here again! How much do you think it would cost our economy if these pricks fly a plane into the Sears Tower, bomb some shopping malls, hit the NY Subway, Touch off a nuke in downtown Atlanta?????
I suspect that Ron Paul and his Paulbots don't care.

Timberwolf

01-06-2008, 03:43 PM

To that I say, how do you expect to pay our troops, feed and clothe them, manufacture the planes and tanks and bombs and bullets that they need to fight, when our dollar has no value? That's where we are headed I'm afraid... it's inevitable with the design of our money system.

How do you propose, then, to pay all of the above so we can effectively fight these imminent and not-so-imminent threats?

The answer is we can't. Money runs this world... we need to realize that regardless of all these threats, real or imagined, that we need to fix our monetary policy first and foremost.
You won't be able to do that, puttin' the cart before the horse the way you do.

We bring the boys home now, and there won't BE a monetary policy TO fix. You see, short-sighted one, we are going to fight this war. Thing is, we can fight it over there or we can fight it over here...thing is, you don't even have to choose because the muzzies have made your choice for you. They are NOT gonna stop until YOU & ME are DEAD.

Capice?

The_Elucidator

01-06-2008, 05:54 PM

To that I say, how do you expect to pay our troops, feed and clothe them, manufacture the planes and tanks and bombs and bullets that they need to fight, when our dollar has no value? That's where we are headed I'm afraid... it's inevitable with the design of our money system.

How do you propose, then, to pay all of the above so we can effectively fight these imminent and not-so-imminent threats?

The answer is we can't. Money runs this world... we need to realize that regardless of all these threats, real or imagined, that we need to fix our monetary policy first and foremost.

You make it sound like the Military is on par with all the other BS programs this country pays for with out tax dollars. The Military is the ONE thing that we are suppose to pay for; the rest is fluff.. What part of that can't you figure out? I have really been trying to keep a civil tone after Paul got his ass handed to him on a platter in Iowa but you are really getting on my last nerve with this round and round bullshit with the Military!

jayson

01-06-2008, 06:45 PM

You make it sound like the Military is on par with all the other BS programs this country pays for with out tax dollars. The Military is the ONE thing that we are suppose to pay for; the rest is fluff.. What part of that can't you figure out? I have really been trying to keep a civil tone after Paul got his ass handed to him on a platter in Iowa but you are really getting on my last nerve with this round and round bullshit with the Military!

Where did you get this idea that I didn't want to pay the military? I was simply asking the question of what his plan was regarding the manufacturing of instruments of war and paying those who choose to fight for our country when our dollar tanks? Unless he advocates government nationalization of the military industrial complex and forced production of these items?

Regardless of the threats around the world, if our dollar has no value, you can kiss this country goodbye whether you like it or not because we will have no way to pay and arm the servicemen and women who defend our sovereignty in the first place.

The_Elucidator

01-07-2008, 04:54 AM

Where did you get this idea that I didn't want to pay the military? I was simply asking the question of what his plan was regarding the manufacturing of instruments of war and paying those who choose to fight for our country when our dollar tanks? Unless he advocates government nationalization of the military industrial complex and forced production of these items?

That right there is exactly what I am talking about. This is your way of saying that we can't afford this war! Parsing words again. :rolleyes:

HomeschoolrsRUs

01-07-2008, 06:00 AM

You make it sound like the Military is on par with all the other BS programs this country pays for with out tax dollars. The Military is the ONE thing that we are suppose to pay for; the rest is fluff.. What part of that can't you figure out?

Absolutely, Luc! Matter of fact, the ONE thing we SHOULDN'T be cutting funding for is the Military and our defense. We SHOULD be cutting all the other bull-caca that isn't even Constitutional ... welfare benefits, the Department of Education, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, National Endowment for the Arts, earmarks, and on and on and on and on and on! THAT'S where the money is going, not to MENTION Congress voting themselves a raise anytime they feel like it. We should have THE BEST Military money can buy, and we should have a governmental infrastructure free of waste and overspending, uncluttered by pencil-pushers paid only to pass paper from one end of the building to the other.

Ron Paul can take his righteous indignation about the "war" and shove it up his proverbial backside, I want a FREE, SAFE, and SECURE country, not living in a hole hiding away from the rest of the world.

:fred:

jayson

01-07-2008, 04:06 PM

That right there is exactly what I am talking about. This is your way of saying that we can't afford this war! Parsing words again. :rolleyes:

I'm not mincing words. Make no mistake, we can't afford this war. We CAN afford a strong national defense. Corporate income tax pays for that almost in total, and we still out pace even countries like China many times over.

SmellyFed

01-07-2008, 04:38 PM

Teenager

01-07-2008, 05:23 PM

I feel that this is going to turn into a three horse race after NH. Romney, McCain and Huckabee.

I wish Fred Thompson was half the politican I'd hoped he would be. Ron Paul isn't even a consideration. Guliani isn't even getting a frog's hair width of a consideration from social conservatives.

In the long run, I won't vote for Romney because of his Mormon faith and neither will most Christians.

So this is really between McCain and Huckabee. Sad.

I disagree. McCain is known for his pro-amnesty agendas. And people like me will never forget how he stabbed the Republicans in the back when he brokered a deal against Bill Frist during the filibuster(when he became the so-called "maverick"). Furthermore, the guy sounds like a talking dead person. Even further than that, Thompson actually beat him in the Iowa Caucus AND the Wyoming Caucus, and will certainly beat him in states like South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, etc...

The_Elucidator

01-07-2008, 05:47 PM

I'm still hoping for a Bloomberg run as I desperately need someone to ban transfats....

Maggie_T

01-07-2008, 06:25 PM

Now I'm hoping that after Super Tuesday that Huck still isn't our front runner. If he is leading, you are gonna find members of this and many other conservative boards about ready to jump off the ledge.

http://foolstown.com/sm/yaya.gif Count me as one of them.

:sad:

Maggie_T

01-07-2008, 06:32 PM

In the long run, I won't vote for Romney because of his Mormon faith and neither will most Christians.

(shaking head) This just floors me. So if Mitt gets the nomination you won't vote for him because he's a Mormon.

You do realize of course, that your vote is automatically going to any of the demunists ... who are secularists, at best; atheists at worst.

Incredible.

I'm a Christian, but Mormonism does not spook me. Of course, being a Catholic, some people will consider me even worse than a Mormon. A Daughter of Satan, more likely.

But don't even consider calling those people bigots. Oh, no. Don't you dare. :rolleyes:

SmellyFed

01-07-2008, 06:54 PM

This is a religion that wouldn't allow blacks until the 70s because in their reckoning, there was a big battle in the heavens, before the creation of the Earth and the winners were sent to Earth as white people and the losers were sent to Earth as blacks. This is just nuts and so are the people who follow that faith.

I simply can't take anyone seriously who believes that load of filth. If Romney is the Republican Presidential nominee, I won't vote for him.

Elgalad

01-07-2008, 06:56 PM

Make no mistake, we can't afford this war.

What we cannot afford is your naive candidate's simplistic notion of "peace."

Or should I say Pieces? Because that is all that would be left of our nation should we foolishly embrace it.

“War is not merely justifiable, but imperative upon honorable men, upon an honorable nation, where peace can only be obtained by the sacrifice of conscientious conviction or of national welfare” -- Theodore Roosevelt

-E

Maggie_T

01-07-2008, 07:03 PM

This is a religion that wouldn't allow blacks until the 70s because in their reckoning, there was a big battle in the heavens, before the creation of the Earth and the winners were sent to Earth as white people and the losers were sent to Earth as blacks.

Until the 70s ... that means that things could have changed since then.

This is just nuts and so are the people who follow that faith.

Well, I've heard a good bit of nutty things said by ... no, better not go there.

I simply can't take anyone seriously who believes that load of filth.

No. You'd rather vote (indirectly) for those who believe that fish turned into birds and then into cows (evolutionism), not to mention those who believe in global warming. And you call that reason? Have it your way, mate.

If Romney is the Republican Presidential nominee, I won't vote for him.

(shrugs) Demunists count on people who think that way. Mind you, I can see why.

SmellyFed

01-07-2008, 07:42 PM

I'm sorry to see that you don't have personal convictions in your faith that would play a role in your voting. That's probably fairly typical of Catholics though so don't feel too badly about it.

Timberwolf

01-07-2008, 07:57 PM

Smelly, you're treading on very thin ice...knock it back a notch or seventeen. I like you, but don't go there.

Timberwolf

01-07-2008, 08:02 PM

I don't care for the delusional inventions of mormonism, either...but, fortunately for all of us, WHAT we believe (spiritually), isn't one of the conditions for holding elected office.

Heck, I'm a baptist and I don't want the Huckster to get the nomination.

Maggie_T

01-07-2008, 08:07 PM

I'm sorry to see that you don't have personal convictions in your faith that would play a role in your voting. That's probably fairly typical of Catholics though so don't feel too badly about it.

Thus spake the bigot.

Nice try, dear. But that did not hurt a bit. It just confirmed my suspicions that you are a bigot. Thank you for making my case.

My faith tells me that I cannot vote - even indirectly - for the party that supports abortion on demand, same sex marriage, and the triumph of secularism over Christianity (e.i. the battle over Christmas, just to name one thing).

You, OTOH, justify your bigotry by alluding to what Mormons said in the 70s. And so, you deny a Mormon candidate your vote, and give it (indirectly) to the party of abortion on demand, same sex marriage, and the banning of "Under God" from every aspect of our lives.

Nice job, there, mate. You're an asset to your faith. :rolleyes:

Maggie_T

01-07-2008, 08:10 PM

Timberwolf

01-07-2008, 08:26 PM

:curt:

Maggie_T

01-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Don't get me wrong. I like Smellyfred, too, for the most part.

But this time, he stepped all over it (not that he'll admit it, of course).

Oh, well. Guess one can't always win. :rolleyes:

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 05:53 AM

Smelly, you're treading on very thin ice...knock it back a notch or seventeen. I like you, but don't go there.

I see, so moderators here can baselessly attack anyone they want here but any small defense on the part of the average member and donor puts them on "thin ice".

I can not in good conscience vote for a mormon - if that makes me an idiot or a bigot in Maggie's book, so be it. I can live with the disproportionate, awesome, almost unspeakable consequences of earning her ire.

The_Elucidator

01-08-2008, 08:36 AM

I see, so moderators here can baselessly attack anyone they want here but any small defense on the part of the average member and donor puts them on "thin ice".

Usually these "baseless" attacks are political; which all is fair in politics. But in your case, you went from bashing Mormons to bashing Catholics, which sets a pattern.

I'm sorry to see that you don't have personal convictions in your faith that would play a role in your voting. That's probably fairly typical of Catholics though so don't feel too badly about it.

I guess in your beliefs noticing the splinter in your brothers eye takes precedence over the log in your own?

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 08:46 AM

Usually these "baseless" attacks are political; which all is fair in politics. But in your case, you went from bashing Mormons to bashing Catholics, which sets a pattern.

Maggie invited it. My response was simply a little ribbing to her daughter of satan comment.

I guess in your beliefs noticing the splinter in your brothers eye takes precedence over the log in your own?


Mormons are not brothers, they are heretics.

Naturalized-Texan

01-08-2008, 09:41 AM

Mormons are not brothers, they are heretics.
Once again you show your bigotry. As TW said, you're treading on thin ice.

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 09:57 AM

Once again you show your bigotry. As TW said, you're treading on thin ice.

Are you confused about what heresy is?

Has political correctness taken over here at freeconservatives? Read II Timothy 4:3-4 and tell me how YOU, oh so non-bigoted but Bible-believing folk interpret that.

Naturalized-Texan

01-08-2008, 10:20 AM

Are you confused about what heresy is?
Being a Christian is not heresy, no matter how one defines it. Mormons believe everything that we believe about Jesus - e.g., virgin birth, death on the Cross, the resurrection, et al.

In fact, the Mormons follow the teachings of Christ better than most people who claim to be Christians.

EDIT: BTW, I just read II Timothy 4:3-4 and I see nothing there that would define the Mormons as heretics.

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 10:45 AM

I just read II Timothy 4:3-4 and I see nothing there that would define the Mormons as heretics.

v. 4: And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Mormons add to the Christian faith with stories & fables about Jesus coming to America. Their Book of Mormon was written and published around 1830. Evangelicals and Catholics alike will tell you that the scripture was fully canonized by 400 AD, meaning anything added to scripture in the 1200 years of human history since that time is by definition, heretical.

That's not being bigoted, thats just being a student of Christian history.

Naturalized-Texan

01-08-2008, 11:04 AM

:roar: v. 4: And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Mormons add to the Christian faith with stories & fables about Jesus coming to America. Their Book of Mormon was written and published around 1830. Evangelicals and Catholics alike will tell you that the scripture was fully canonized by 400 AD, meaning anything added to scripture in the 1200 years of human history since that time is by definition, heretical.

That's not being bigoted, thats just being a student of Christian history.
Who are we, as mere humans, to arbitrarily decree that angels magically stopped appearing to humans nearly 2,000 years ago? Since we know nothing about most of the life of Jesus, where was he and what did He do during those unrecorded years? Who are we, as mere humans, to arbitrarily decree that Jesus did not come to America at some time during those unrecorded years?

Teenager

01-08-2008, 11:13 AM

Mormons are not brothers, they are heretics.

This is a true statement. And everyone needs to recognize it. Forget the fact that SmellyFed bashed Catholics. I know someone who has converted from Mormonism to the True God of the Bible. She has stated that the "Book of the Mormons" takes precedent over the Bible, and if the two conflict with each other, the Bible is wrong and the BoM is right, which is total heresy.

Having said that, I would still vote for Romney if he were the nominee. His stance on economic issues, immigration, WoT, etc., are a thousand times better than the alternative of a Democrat nominee. However, for the primary, I will not be voting for him.

Teenager

01-08-2008, 11:15 AM

:roar:
Who are we, as mere humans, to arbitrarily decree that angels magically stopped appearing to humans nearly 2,000 years ago? Since we know nothing about most of the life of Jesus, where was he and what did He do during those unrecorded years? Who are we, as mere humans, to arbitrarily decree that Jesus did not come to America at some time during those unrecorded years?

Simple. The Bible says that after he arose from the dead, he ascended into heaven to sit on the right hand of God. Therefore, he could not have gone to America. I take the Bible at it's word, not some heretical book like the Mormons have written.

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 11:15 AM

Who are we, as mere humans, to arbitrarily decree that angels magically stopped appearing to humans nearly 2,000 years ago? Since we know nothing about most of the life of Jesus, where was he and what did He do during those unrecorded years? Who are we, as mere humans, to arbitrarily decree that Jesus did not come to America at some time during those unrecorded years?

Well, I don't know who you are but I am an evangelical Christian and thats what we do - we keep the faith as we were exhorted to do by Jesus Christ.

Maggie_T

01-08-2008, 11:48 AM

My response was simply a little ribbing to her daughter of satan comment--SmellyFed

Oohhh, it was a joke. Why, of course. :smack: I'm sorry, old boy. Humor, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.

:whistle:

I can not in good conscience vote for a mormon - if that makes me an idiot or a bigot in Maggie's book, so be it. I can live with the disproportionate, awesome, almost unspeakable consequences of earning her ire.--SmellyFed

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

Ok, Stinker. Simmer down, or you'll give yourself gas.

Your knee-jerk commentary about Catholics earned you my subsequent comment. Period.

I'm not asking you to like me - or to like Catholics, for that matter - I'm just asking for basic respect, that's all. I respect you as an Evangelical, even though I may not agree with the dogma of your religion. Can't you recirpocate? Or are you above that?

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 12:26 PM

I'm not asking you to like me - or to like Catholics, for that matter - I'm just asking for basic respect, that's all. I respect you as an Evangelical, even though I may not agree with the dogma of your religion. Can't you recirpocate? Or are you above that?

No, I can totally agree to that. I just don't care to be called a bigot for representing what is a mainstream position among Evangelicals - that Mormonism is heresy.

My jab at you regarding Catholicsm was just for giggle-material. I don't harbor any ill-will for Catholics beyond the normal points of disagreement that Catholics and Protestants have had since the 15th Century. I'm not a hyper-Calivinist though so I'm sure you'll be relieved to know, I believe there will plenty of Catholics in heaven.

Maggie_T

01-08-2008, 12:35 PM

Including little moi? Oh, thank you, Stinker. How magnanimous of you. :devil:

Ok. Fair enough. I think we've both given as good as we've taken.

Truce? :dance:

Rhino

01-08-2008, 12:36 PM

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 12:44 PM

Including little moi?
It's certainly possible. I'm not the one handing out the keys to the kingdom but I'd like to think we're BOTH in.

Ok. Fair enough. I think we've both given as good as we've taken.

:inv:
Battered and bruised but I'm sure we'll both recover.

Truce?

Yes lets do. So mote it be.

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 12:47 PM

Might want to check your facts before knee-jerking.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

If you choose to be a religious bigot, then you should probably base it on some factual reason.

Here we go again from the ranks of the foolish.

Check your own facts - blacks may well have been members but its a well known fact that they didn't allow blacks into the priesthood until 1978 - that was the day God changed his mind.

Rhino

01-08-2008, 01:41 PM

Check your own facts - blacks may well have been members but its a well known fact that they didn't allow blacks into the priesthood until 1978 - that was the day God changed his mind.Nice dodge attempt!

That isn't what you said. You said, "a religion that wouldn't allow blacks".

Maybe you should stop trying to lecture on being foolish.

The_Elucidator

01-08-2008, 01:54 PM

Maggie invited it. My response was simply a little ribbing to her daughter of satan comment.

Mormons are not brothers, they are heretics.

Whatever the term, they too have a soul! I guess making a Biblical point is lost on some. I guess the Bible could have been more specific and said taking the splinter out of a Mormon's eye... :rolleyes:

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 02:02 PM

Nice dodge attempt!

That isn't what you said. You said, "a religion that wouldn't allow blacks".

Maybe you should stop trying to lecture on being foolish.

I'm sorry I didn't write out a 20 page disertation on this so I could have been more clear.

I have family in Utah, some of which are/were involved in the Mormon faith and they have told me that the churches out there didn't allow blacks as members at all. Officially their position may have been open to interpretation of the various churches - I honestly don't know. What I do know is certain Mormon churches wouldn't allow them any sort of affiliation and blacks weren't allowed to be priests until after 1978.

Irregardless, its a heretical faith and that was the point I was making.

Rhino

01-08-2008, 02:27 PM

Fair enough. But the heretical part is your opinion, and I don't happen to share it.

I'm curious. Do you view Jews as heretics too?

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 02:45 PM

Whatever the term, they too have a soul! I guess making a Biblical point is lost on some. I guess the Bible could have been more specific and said taking the splinter out of a Mormon's eye... :rolleyes:

Of course they have a soul but that doesn't mean its ok to create new books and abridge the faith that thousands, if not millions, have died to preserve.

Read Foxes Book of Martyrs sometime, if you haven't already - there was a very real cost to getting that Bible on your coffee table, your bookshelf and into your hotel room drawer, and that cost wasn't paid in dollars and cents.

If you're a Christian, whats wrong with having the courage of your convictions? As the Apostle Paul said in Acts 17, the Bereans considered everything he taught and compared it with scripture. Should we do no less with Mormonism?

Mormonism is not Christianity because it denies essential doctrines of the Christian faith - that there is only one God, that Jesus is God in the flesh and that his death was our atonement.

SmellyFed

01-08-2008, 02:47 PM

Fair enough. But the heretical part is your opinion, and I don't happen to share it.

I'm curious. Do you view Jews as heretics too?

Judaism is a separate religion, therefore it is not heretical to Christianity. As I'm sure you know, it was the precursor of Christianity. Jews are still waiting for their Messiah; Christians believe he already came and they missed it.

Teenager

01-08-2008, 06:18 PM

Judaism is a separate religion, therefore it is not heretical to Christianity. As I'm sure you know, it was the precursor of Christianity. Jews are still waiting for their Messiah; Christians believe he already came and they missed it.

Well stated.

Timberwolf

01-08-2008, 11:19 PM

I see, so moderators here can baselessly attack anyone they want here but any small defense on the part of the average member and donor puts them on "thin ice".

I can not in good conscience vote for a mormon - if that makes me an idiot or a bigot in Maggie's book, so be it. I can live with the disproportionate, awesome, almost unspeakable consequences of earning her ire.
I think you had best go back and READ the bottom of page 1. You stepped over the line. You know it, I know it, and everyone who HAS read page 1 knows it.

Now, quit cryin' in yer Cheerios.

Timberwolf

01-08-2008, 11:43 PM

Being a Christian is not heresy, no matter how one defines it. Mormons believe everything that we believe about Jesus - e.g., virgin birth, death on the Cross, the resurrection, et al.
Sorry, Tex...you're wrong about this...I was married to a Mormon. They are NOT Christians.

Do you believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers? Mormons do.
Do you believe we, as REALLY good Christians will one day rule our own planet as gods? Mormons do.
You will not find a cross on ANY Mormon temple...you will, however, find plenty representations of Baal.
They do NOT believe Christ is the Son of God (as we do...they believe He is the literal offspring of God and ONE of His wives), nor that He is our Lord & Savior.
They believe God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are 3 separate entities...they do not believe in the Trinity.

In fact, the Mormons follow the teachings of Christ better than most people who claim to be Christians.They only follow the teachings of Christ if those teachings are in harmony with the Book of Mormon...IT takes precedence over the Bible.

EDIT: BTW, I just read II Timothy 4:3-4 and I see nothing there that would define the Mormons as heretics.It does, though...they have "turned their ears from sound doctrine" (that of the Bible).

Some of the beliefs of Mormons (http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/mormon-religion)

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 05:46 AM

I think you had best go back and READ the bottom of page 1. You stepped over the line. You know it, I know it, and everyone who HAS read page 1 knows it.

Now, quit cryin' in yer Cheerios.

I didn't step over the line - the rest of you did, calling me a bigot out of your own ignorance.

The_Elucidator

01-09-2008, 07:14 AM

If I was looking for a Church to attend, the Mormon Church AIN"T IT. I'm not trying to start the argument on who is going to heaven or hell, who is right or who is wrong etc. However, to not vote for a person because he is a Mormon is well, mormonic!!

I am going to ask you nicely not to question folks "convictions."

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 07:39 AM

However, to not vote for a person because he is a Mormon is well, mormonic!!

I am going to ask you nicely not to question folks "convictions."

Talking out both sides of your mouth there - first you say to not vote for a Mormon is moronic, then you ask me not to question peoples convictions.

What about mine?

The_Elucidator

01-09-2008, 08:09 AM

Talking out both sides of your mouth there - first you say to not vote for a Mormon is moronic, then you ask me not to question peoples convictions.

What about mine?

You need to hang around a bit more and understand my "sense" of humor. Reread my "play" on words to get the joke.

You are the one who openly admitted that you refusue to vote for Romney because of his religious beliefs. This is a man running for political office not the Preacher of your Church.

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 08:16 AM

You need to hang around a bit more and understand my "sense" of humor. Reread my "play" on words to get the joke.

I've been "hanging around" since late 2002.

I saw your play on words - the implication is still the same, that I'm a moron if I don't vote for Romney.

You are the one who openly admitted that you refusue to vote for Romney because of his religious beliefs. This is a man running for political office not the Preacher of your Church.

Of course I won't vote for him. What truly befuddles me is why this is news to you?

October 3, 2006

A prominent and powerful evangelical Christian leader, James Dobson, said yesterday that the Mormon faith practiced by Governor Romney of Massachusetts could pose a serious obstacle if Mr. Romney makes a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
"I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess," Mr. Dobson said on a syndicated radio program hosted by a conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham.

Rhino

01-09-2008, 08:29 AM

Judaism is a separate religion...So is Mormonism.

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 08:35 AM

So is Mormonism.

Mormonism is not a separate religion according to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They state plainly that they are Christians.

Christians don't claim to be Jews so I fail to see your point.

The_Elucidator

01-09-2008, 08:37 AM

I've been "hanging around" since late 2002.

I saw your play on words - the implication is still the same, that I'm a moron if I don't vote for Romney.

Of course I won't vote for him. What truly befuddles me is why this is news to you?

To all of this I answer a resounding..... Whatever... :rolleyes:

Rhino

01-09-2008, 09:02 AM

Mormonism is not a separate religion according to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They state plainly that they are Christians.Where?

Christians don't claim to be Jews so I fail to see your point.My point is that they are a seperate religion.

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 09:17 AM

Where?

The Mormons claim to be Christians on their internet sites, on their TV commercials, in their tracts.

From Mitt Romney's own website:
http://www.romneyvoters.com/Blog/2007/04/is-mitt-christian.html

The Mormon church has declared itself a true Christian religion from the beginning and sees little need for ratification of such belief from the Protestant community.

My point is that they are a seperate religion.

They are not a separate religion - they are a heretical offshoot of Christianity.

Rhino

01-09-2008, 09:25 AM

The Mormons claim to be Christians on their internet sites, on their TV commercials, in their tracts.

From Mitt Romney's own website:
http://www.romneyvoters.com/Blog/2007/04/is-mitt-christian.html

The Mormon church has declared itself a true Christian religion from the beginning and sees little need for ratification of such belief from the Protestant community.That was one guy on Romney's site. I asked where the church plainly stated that.

They are not a separate religion - they are a heretical offshoot of Christianity.And hence, a seperate religion. There is no single Christian religion. My wife is a Catholic, and her religion is very different from mine.

I'm assuming your definition of Christian goes beyond simple belief in Jesus, since Mormons do believe in him. I'm just curious what makes you think you have the right to decide what is or is not Christian, and what specifically you base that definition on.

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 09:51 AM

That was one guy on Romney's site. I asked where the church plainly stated that.

It's stated about as plainly they can possibly state it in the very name of their church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

But here, go see for yourself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=722-0zRjDgA

"As one of the fastest growing Christian faiths in the world, we complete a new chapel every working day..."

All Mormons would disagree with you when you say they are not Christians. Ask one.

And hence, a seperate religion. There is no single Christian religion. My wife is a Catholic, and her religion is very different from mine.

I think you are confused with your terminology - there is only one Christian religion, while there are many doctrines. The Catholics and Protestants have differing doctrines but they are most certainly the same religion.

I'm assuming your definition of Christian goes beyond simple belief in Jesus, since Mormons do believe in him. I'm just curious what makes you think you have the right to decide what is or is not Christian, and what specifically you base that definition on.

This has been explained repeatedly in this thread. The Bible was canonized in the 4th and 5th century as the complete Word of God. There are no further revelations, to add to the Bible now (or in 1830). This is what II Timothy 4:3-4 refers to as believing in myths and fables.

This isn't just my belief - it is the belief of most/all Evangelicals, if they are evangelical in more then name only.

Rhino

01-09-2008, 10:11 AM

It's stated about as plainly they can possibly state it in the very name of their church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

But here, go see for yourself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=722-0zRjDgA

"As one of the fastest growing Christian faiths in the world, we complete a new chapel every working day..."Thanks. Although that video doesn't appear to be from the church, it did put that comment in quotes, so I assume the comment itself was from the Church. The video also said "We believe that Jesus Christ is our personal Savior, and we try to model our lives after Him and His teachings". That sounds pretty Christian to me.

All Mormons would disagree with you when you say they are not Christians. Ask one.Ask one what? I never said they weren't Christians. You did.

I think you are confused with your terminology - there is only one Christian religion, while there are many doctrines. The Catholics and Protestants have differing doctrines but they are most certainly the same religion.Disagree, but you could certainly make the case that it is semantics.

This has been explained repeatedly in this thread. The Bible was canonized in the 4th and 5th century as the complete Word of God. There are no further revelations, to add to the Bible now (or in 1830). This is what II Timothy 4:3-4 refers to as believing in myths and fables.And yet we have many different Christian religions/faiths/doctrines that believe in many very different things. Yet you don't claim that they are not Christian. Fred Phelps believes in the same bible that you do. Do you consider him to be more of a Christian than Mormons? Besides, Christianity is not based on belief in the Bible, though it most certainly helps. Christianity is based on the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Although belief in the Bible is certainly normally considered to go hand in hand with that, it has never been an absolute qualification for being Christian. I have no doubt that many feel that it should be, and I'm sure that many would argue that point here. However, it has been pointed out to me on countless occasions throughout my life, by people and clergy of many Christian faiths, that the only absolute requirement was the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Now you are certainly entitled to personally believe in a different definition, and I have no problem with that. But that doesn't mean your definition is the only accepted one.

This isn't just my belief - it is the belief of most/all Evangelicals, if they are evangelical in more then name only.Not true, though I have no doubt you tacked on "more then name only" simply so you could discount anyone you felt fit that definition. I know quite a few evangelicals who would consider your comments here to be decidedly non-Christian.

Beowulf

01-09-2008, 11:46 AM

I'm sorry to see that you don't have personal convictions in your faith that would play a role in your voting. That's probably fairly typical of Catholics though so don't feel too badly about it.

Hey! Hold your tongue, Child! I'm a Catholic and it doesn't drive to how I vote, at least not totally. Also remember, New England is heavily Catholic and many of them are Democrats. How can this be? How can a Catholic that is supposed to be pro-life be pro-choice politically? John Kerry is denied communion in the Boston area because of this.

Just because I'm Catholic doesn't mean that I totally 100% go with what the Pope says. I'm SUPPOSED to be against the death penalty. I support it.
I'm SUPPOSED to not have pre-marital sex. Well, I did.
We aren't SUPPOSED to live with the opposite sex before marriage. I can't think of a better way to find out what a prospective mate would be like any other way.

As far as Mormons go, I have no problem with them. At least they aren't like some of the southern Bible beaters who ram religion down your throat. I tell them, "We are practicing Catholics here" and they usually wish me a good day and go about their business.
Furthemore, I don't hear about Mormons blowing up buildings and beheading innocents as a political statement so I'm not too worried about them.

Maggie_T

01-09-2008, 12:08 PM

Well, if this thread continues like that, we'll have to move it to the religion forum. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, going back some pages, I found these interesting little tidbits from one of our most fervent Rupaulist:

Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to support someone who wants to stay in Iraq. It's not about terrorism or WMDs or deposing despots anymore... it's all about money. We just simply can't afford it any longer. That is the real enemy here... a very damaging monetary policy. We must fix this single issue before everything else.

It's not a question of whether we can legally spend the money, it's a question of whether or not we should spend the money. I agree... war costs a lot. It's an expensive endeavor in both lives and money.

Unfortunately, we just can't afford to spend trillions of dollars in a global fight against terrorists. We are borrowing several billion dollars a day from the Chinese and Japanese. We are printing money in record amounts, which causes inflation, which amounts to essentially a tax on every individual in America. We need to realize that we have bigger fish that badly need to be fried.

I'm not mincing words. Make no mistake, we can't afford this war.

Something tells me you'll be saying the same thing about the next war. And yes, there will be another, honey bunch. Especially if you Rupaulists get your way. Cindy Sheehan's and Angelina Jolie's valiant diplomatic efforts to avoid it won't be much help, I'm afraid. [sarcasm mode off].

Fighting wars to keep the enemy from fighting us INSIDE OUR country is part of national defense, Jayson. You cannot say, with any credibility, that you are in favor of national defense when you treat it as just a rack of expensive designer clothes. And that's exactly how you come across. You sound like a tight-fisted husband who's scolding his wife for spending money at the mall.

I can just imagine what things would be like with Rupaul "in charge." The enemy would be at the door, and Rupual would say to them "Would you please come back next year? See, we didn't budget for war this year, so I'm afraid we can't afford it. Sorry for the inconvenience."

What a guy [sarcasm mode off] :rolleyes:

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 12:27 PM

Thanks. Although that video doesn't appear to be from the church, it did put that comment in quotes, so I assume the comment itself was from the Church. The video also said "We believe that Jesus Christ is our personal Savior, and we try to model our lives after Him and His teachings". That sounds pretty Christian to me.

Ask one what? I never said they weren't Christians. You did.

No, you said it was a different religion and asked me to show where they said they were Christians. I've pointed out that they do claim to be Christians and also shown that they are the same religion, but a separate doctrine. Hence the linking to heresy. I don't call Muslims "Christian Heretics" because they never claim to be Christian. That's the central point here - if they didn't claim to be Christian, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with them because then its not heresy, its a different religion... or maybe a cult.

But the Bible tells us that we MUST have a problem with them if they are heretical. I didn't make that up, again read the Pauline epistles.

Disagree, but you could certainly make the case that it is semantics.

Disagree based upon what, you're opinion? I'm not going to make the case that its semantics because it isn't. I took Bible classes in college and have spent and I understand the distinction.

And yet we have many different Christian religions/faiths/doctrines that believe in many very different things. Yet you don't claim that they are not Christian.

Precisely - I claim that they are CHRISTIAN heretics.

Fred Phelps believes in the same bible that you do. Do you consider him to be more of a Christian than Mormons?

You're justifying bad behavior with more bad behavior. That's illogical. I'm fairly certain Fred Phelps is going to hell, but as with the Mormons, that is between them and their God - I've got nothing to do with it.

Besides, Christianity is not based on belief in the Bible, though it most certainly helps. Christianity is based on the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Although belief in the Bible is certainly normally considered to go hand in hand with that, it has never been an absolute qualification for being Christian. I have no doubt that many feel that it should be, and I'm sure that many would argue that point here. However, it has been pointed out to me on countless occasions throughout my life, by people and clergy of many Christian faiths, that the only absolute requirement was the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Now you are certainly entitled to personally believe in a different definition, and I have no problem with that. But that doesn't mean your definition is the only accepted one.

What you're suggesting is the most base version of Christianity - and it goes against God's word and Jesus' own teachings. I could list a hundred verses here and they would all show that you have to have serious concern over the self-proclaimed Christian who doesn't read the Word of God.

Read the parables of Jesus. And of course, just open the OT and/or NT and you'll God is consistent throughout on this point.

"How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word. I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands. I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you." Psalm 119:9-12

"If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:31,32

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" Matt. 22:37.

"If you love me, you will obey what I command" John 14:15.

Not true, though I have no doubt you tacked on "more then name only" simply so you could discount anyone you felt fit that definition. I know quite a few evangelicals who would consider your comments here to be decidedly non-Christian.

Perhaps but I'd like to hear their argument because God's Word is very clear on this.

Naturalized-Texan

01-09-2008, 12:29 PM

Smelly: By expressing your bigotry against Catholics and Mormons, you are proving by example that Mormons follow the teachings of Christ better than many who claim to be Christians.

Rhino

01-09-2008, 12:54 PM

No, you said it was a different religion and asked me to show where they said they were Christians.That's not what you said in the post I responded to. But thanks for clearing that up.

I've pointed out that they do claim to be Christians...Yes.

...and also shown that they are the same religion, but a separate doctrine. Hence the linking to heresy.No. You've shown that that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it.

I don't call Muslims "Christian Heretics" because they never claim to be Christian. That's the central point here - if they didn't claim to be Christian, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with them because then its not heresy, its a different religion... or maybe a cult.That's the part you don't seem to get. It isn't up to you to decide for everyone what "Christian" is. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but others are under no obligation to agree.

But the Bible tells us that we MUST have a problem with them if they are heretical. I didn't make that up, again read the Pauline epistles.And if they are ever shown to be heretical, we can address that. But so far we only have your opinion of that.

Disagree based upon what, you're opinion? I'm not going to make the case that its semantics because it isn't. I took Bible classes in college and have spent and I understand the distinction.I've taken Bible classes too, and they described Baptists and Presbyterian as different religions. They are both Christian religions, but still religions nonetheless. That was the semantics argument I referred to. And my Bible classes also taught me that acceptance of Christ was the only absolute requirement to be a Christian.

Precisely - I claim that they are CHRISTIAN heretics. So Catholics are heretics because they don't believe as you? Give me a break!

You're justifying bad behavior with more bad behavior. That's illogical. I'm fairly certain Fred Phelps is going to hell, but as with the Mormons, that is between them and their God - I've got nothing to do with it.You missed the point entirely. People of different faiths, and even people within the same faiths, interpret the Bible differently. I wasn't justifying any behavior.

What you're suggesting is the most base version of Christianity - and it goes against God's word and Jesus' own teachings. I could list a hundred verses here and they would all show that you have to have serious concern over the self-proclaimed Christian who doesn't read the Word of God.And all of that is your personal opinion and belief. Much of it is not shared by other Christians. I don't need you to preach to me. I'm quite comfortable with my faith. The difference here is that, unlike you, I don't think that everyone else has to believe exactly as I do in order to be considered a Christian. To me, that is decidedly un-Christian.

Perhaps but I'd like to hear their argument because God's Word is very clear on this.Your interpretation of it is. Their interpretation of it is also quite clear to them. You seem to be discounting the fact that there are different interpretations of the Bible, even among people of the same faith. Even if you disagree with that, it doesn't make it untrue. I'm reminded of the guy that played a priest in the movie Rudy. "Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I'm not Him." People of all faiths study the Bible relentlessly, and undoubtedly always will. They do this because the interpretation of it is always in flux, and thus always sought out. We will probably never know the complete meaning of the Bible, nor do I think we were intended to.

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 03:05 PM

Smelly: By expressing your bigotry against Catholics and Mormons, you are proving by example that Mormons follow the teachings of Christ better than many who claim to be Christians.

That is a lie and I reject it as such.

Perhaps you should crack the book and understand what it teaches because clearly you're basking in ignorance.

Rhino

01-09-2008, 03:12 PM

And why do you assume that people here don't study the Bible? You are dead wrong on that count. Why don't you just agree to disagree and move on? It would save all of us a lot of trouble.

SmellyFed

01-09-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Precisely - I claim that they are CHRISTIAN heretics. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So Catholics are heretics because they don't believe as you? Give me a break!

I never said Catholics were heretics - I disagree with them doctrinely but I never made any such claim about heresy - nor would. The Catholics however have historically made that claim about my doctrinal beliefs.

As I already noted, my comment earlier regarding Catholics was meant to be a bit of burlesque - a joke in response to Maggie's self depricating comments. I apologize if it was misleading or offensive, it honestly wasn't intended to be any of that.

However, I reject your notion that anything I've said has been "un-Christian" - on the contrary, I've only defended the faith which is what I'm called to do. I find it odd you and the moderators here that want to call names and drag this discussion into the gutter.

Look, its your forum, you run it how you want.