Posted on 01/09/2012 7:55:18 PM PST by Colofornian
So you are a car just because you sit in your garage?
_______________________________________
Also hes filthy rich because he walked past a bank one day...
LOL
;)
The word you wanted was IGNORANT.
(No; not the insulting meaning, but the Lack of Knowledge one)
Since SECULAR, by definition it would seem, would indicate little or none of the knowledge of religion to make an intelligent judgement call about the DIFFERENCES of them; see the words JESUS CHRIST on MORMON buildings and ASSUME that they are christian.
Well; they ARE, in a sense, since they DO worship a 'christ'. Just not the one the that the BIBLE describes.
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Matthew 24:24
Really bad analogy!
Try McDonald's saying that ONLY they cook the hamburgers correctly as the RECIPE was lost centuries ago and only lately revealed to THEIR cooks; who are Highly Sincere.
Try McDonald's saying that the food that the OTHER restaurants serve are worm meat and the cooks are unsanitary.
THAT is the image that is more correct than the lame strawman you've presented.
Bingo. Target hit.
LOL
Oh, Dave. Just when I thought we could get a Mormon to stick around and actually dialogue, did you have to go & embarrass yourself & other Mormons you represent to such an eminent degree as you did with post #70?
AMPU, as usual, boiled your wardrobe clean...
And, now, the Lds general authorities who think they are decked out in new clothes [Kejserens nye Klæder in Danish...title written by Hans Christian Andersen]...have been exposed as spiritually naked...
...Especially when they turn out Joseph Smith disciples like yourself who actually utter things like what you said in post #70.
Unitarians are in fact and describe themselves as Christians.
What if we elected a National Socialist? Who would save us then?
Just LOOK at what a Disciple of Christ did? Some think he murdered a Catholic president? Can you believe THAT? What would we do with a Rosicrucian? or Tom Cruise?
You overlooked a few other historical facts on my post, rather notable more important figures of our Constitutional past. Thereby missing the simple Constitutional point- that we are a Representative Republic. On the strength of the Representative body and the Judiciary body we BALANCE the power of the Executive. Allowing the Executive any greater power is the fault of a weak electorate— and it is Democrats that have done this. We simply need to de-fund the Executive. Or impeach them. Rule of Law, not men, Ok?
The argument being made is just as dangerous as the clintonites and others saying “do away with the electoral college”. The only thing that will destroy this Republic is stupid single minded crap like this. Next you’ll be arguing for taxation of established religions— which would suit the obamunists just fine.
Vote Romney out because of his POLITICAL track record and stated goals, not some fantasy about a mormon takeover.
It is the Statists we need to worry about, who believe in nothing but the State and the apparat of an all controlling government. About which see: Stalin. (what was uh, his religion, hmmm?)
I don’t believe romney will be the candidate, and definitely don’t believe obamalamadingdong has another term coming.
Deo Vindice. For He Will.
'Testimony' #1:
"Although some here are, most of us don’t consider ourselves Christian..."
Source: David A. Miller, Christmas Eve 2011 service message @ Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of San Dieguito, Solana Beach, Ca ... found here: Light = Love, A Christmas Message for 2011
'Testimony' #2:
Most of us don’t consider ourselves Christian, because our heritage as people who grew up in the church is eclectic, as we were taught, while those in power have a narrower range of what religion is all about. We don’t need or want to be preached at, rather we want to be communicated with (we have been ministering to ourselves for the most part.) We experience religion as much as we intellectualize it. These ideas separate us from the mainline church.
Source: Kevin McCullough, Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network, (network found at www.uuyan.org) ... excerpt from From Kevin McCulloch’s Zoominfo Profile
'Testimony' #3:
Do you believe in Jesus? We do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, performed miracles and was resurrected from death. We do admire and respect the way he lived, the power of his love, the force of his example and his system of values. Most UUs regard Jesus as one of several important moral and ethical teachers who have shown humans how to live a life of love, service and compassion. Though some of us may question whether Jesus was an actual historical figure, we believe his teachings are of significant moral value.
Source: 100 Questions: Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashua
The apostle Paul: ...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:14-19)
The Christian soldiers who fought and died for our freedom, and their other religion brethren would be (and are) appalled. No more than they would be appalled at a Shariah law amendment to the Constitution. That is what our Constitution allows us to deal with.
Christ did not teach this behaviour. It is learned and fixated. I'll take the Constitution any day, because it always defeats the "aimee semple mcpherson" element of street crazies.
One thing is true in the US. You want to get rich, start a religion, and try to take advantage of the spiritually bereft people of this world. For that, I have no respect at all.
And for this one-sided looney thread, no more time. Deo Vindice. For He Will.
As my # 1, #2, #3, etc. sources of true wisdom, divine revelations and Godly principles, ya got it!
Nothing enlightens and illuminates like God's Word and His Spirit; nothing liberates more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and nothing pales in comparison to the everlasting truth of the Best-selling Bible.
Furthermore, start taking a closer look @ secular college campus courses and what they portend for "truth" these days. They have courses on out and out pornography; on gambling; they offer "minors" in homosexual studies.
Now I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. We know God's truth is not blocked from finding outlets even (& especially) in secular quarters. A good example of God's worldviews finding secular haven is the documents of our country's founding...the Constitution, etc.
But indeed, the bath water in our "public fountains" is so filthy that you dare not use it as drinking water -- or think it "cleanses" you.
THAT has worked out well!
It seems you have no 'respect' for religion at all.
It is a narrow road...
I completely agree!
As to having no "respect" for religion, you have missed the point- the respect for religion (whether you agree with its tenets or not) comes from the freedom of religion to be practiced in this country-unlike ANY other country. My statement reflects an opinion (allowed in a free society) that there are quite a few "religions" that are simple scams (and name several of them in prior posts), destructive of people who are at their most vulnerable. And they too, are allowed to exist in this country
There are many more established religions that provide a way of living with moral guidance to stable loving people- people who are free to believe without other people trying to shut them down. Vicious self righteous threads like this one, directed against one Christian sect- is inaccurate, petty and just wrong. Our Founding Fathers would agree with me. And they would disagree with obamalamadingdong. Not too sophisticated a concept really- except to the loonies on the thread. Saying again that romney will not be the candidate (he will implode) and the point is moot. The enemy is obama, remember?
Thank you for more fully explaining what you meant.
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.