Opinion of jmfcst

[pogo stick]

A true Freedom Fighter by all means.


His love for God, America, and Israel puts him waaaaaaaaaay over the top of FF.

[Хahar 🤔]

lol

[Eraserhead]

HP

[Joe Republic]

Epitomizes all that is Texan.  No, that isn't a compliment.

[Sensei]

Epitomizes all that is Texan.  No, that isn't a compliment.

Is this him?

[Lief 🗽]

IIRC he doesn't so much love Israel as desire that it be destroyed so that the rapture can begin. Kind of different.

[bullmoose88]

IIRC he doesn't so much love Israel as desire that it be destroyed so that the rapture can begin. Kind of different.

So start that Third Temple yo.

[Joe Republic]

Epitomizes all that is Texan.  No, that isn't a compliment.

Is this him?

Nah, needs more Bible.  Plus I doubt jmfcst would even know who that is.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Seems the guy tried to change himself into a living Bible. Other than that, which is something, and which can lead him to be annoying, doesn't seem to be a bad guy.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

His obsession with Palin was scary......and I generally don't agree with him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

His obsession with Palin was scary......and I generally don't agree with him.

but I dumped her

anyways...nice to see I am getting more popular 

[Linus Van Pelt]

FF. It takes some panache to both be a strict Biblical literalist and believe that the book of Revelation is about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but I think our man can pull it off.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

believe that the book of Revelation is about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

just for the record, this is obviously not correct. 

I have simply stated the Iranian leadership give every indiciation that they are religiously driven to destroy Israel.  The bible, but not the book of Revelation, says that Iran and Russia will lead an alliance to attack Israel during the end times, but no timetable is given for such a war - it could be a long way off, even hundreds of years.  It is simply the pace of events, not any doctrine that I hold, that leads me to lean toward it being within the next 20 years.

But, aside from any biblical interpretation, Iran should be taken very seriously

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A true Freedom Fighter by all means.


His love for God, America, and Israel puts him waaaaaaaaaay over the top of FF.

I don't love God, so I'm HP

[JSojourner]

I never thought he was obsessed with Palin.  He thought (as I do) she was attractive.  And he was first to say she would be selected...when a lot of us were pooh-pooing the idea.  So props for that. Additional respect for his integrity in recognizing she was a dumb when it became quite clear to anyone with an open mind.

He has a remarkably good read on football, even though I don't share his love of the Cowboys.

Knows more than I ever will about the stock market and investments. Seems to have a pretty good economic head on his shoulders.

Devoted family man and Christian. Part of a church that does some really impressive things to help people in need.

He rarely resorts (if ever...I can't think of a time) to insults and name calling in debate, which I consider very classy.

All that lands in the FF category.

The rest?  Well, HP is too harsh.  But he's nearly impossible to have a good faith dialogue with about anything Biblical. I don't think this comes from any deep-seated nastiness or hate.  It's just a "this is how I read it... how I read it is right...and how you read it is wrong" mentality. In that very "no shades of gray" sense, he is the BRTD of the fundamentalist Chrisitan right.

So a vote is really impossible for me.  Though if the Cowboys end up in the Super Bowl against the Steelers, HP will be quite doable!  Har!

[Torie]

FF. He adds another perspective for us that we would otherwise not have, and he does so with knowledge and civility. jmfcst gets a bum rap here, and it's too bad.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The rest?  Well, HP is too harsh.  But he's nearly impossible to have a good faith dialogue with about anything Biblical. I don't think this comes from any deep-seated nastiness or hate.  It's just a "this is how I read it... how I read it is right...and how you read it is wrong" mentality. In that very "no shades of gray" sense, he is the BRTD of the fundamentalist Chrisitan right.

To say that our disagreements are based on me being unable to accept another opinion is really a red herring that I think is obvious to all that read our disagreements.  In fact, you and I agree on many biblical issues, JSJ.  And, on those issues of agreement, you and I can walk through the scriptures with the same approach.  I say again: when you and I share the same approach, we are pretty much in agreement.

But, when you, by your own choice, do not follow that same approach, it has lead to us disagreeing on certain hard-hitting issues such as: the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, the necessity of repentance, and homosexuality.

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

Even most of the non-believers on this forum agree with my interpretation on these issues.  And, historically, my interpretations on these 3 matters are shared by many more Christians throughout history.  Yet you keep attempting to portray our disputes as if I am up in a tree by myself and that I am stubbornly unwilling to climb down.

I admit to being hardheaded, but that doesn’t mean that my hardheadedness is necessarily the cause of our differences, rather I think it is a lack of consistency on your behalf due to certain scriptural positions being too harsh for you to swallow…and I think the majority of unbelievers on this forum would agree with my portrayal of our dispute.

[Scam of God]

Theocratic fascist who should have kept his promise to stay gone.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Theocratic fascist who should have kept his promise to stay gone.

I promised to stay gone?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Too religious for my taste.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

You don't change. In short you say here "sorry guy, you're nice, but The Truth, it's me who got it, too bad for you". Every human being who doesn't acknowledge that what he says could be wrong, even if he is strongly convinced, he could say "ultimately, I could be wrong, I'm just a human being", especially when it comes to something as deep as religion, is disqualifying himself to my eyes.

As far as I know you're just a human being, right?

[Хahar 🤔]

Cowboys fan?

HP.

[JSojourner]

The rest?  Well, HP is too harsh.  But he's nearly impossible to have a good faith dialogue with about anything Biblical. I don't think this comes from any deep-seated nastiness or hate.  It's just a "this is how I read it... how I read it is right...and how you read it is wrong" mentality. In that very "no shades of gray" sense, he is the BRTD of the fundamentalist Chrisitan right.

To say that our disagreements are based on me being unable to accept another opinion is really a red herring that I think is obvious to all that read our disagreements.  In fact, you and I agree on many biblical issues, JSJ.  And, on those issues of agreement, you and I can walk through the scriptures with the same approach.  I say again: when you and I share the same approach, we are pretty much in agreement.

But, when you, by your own choice, do not follow that same approach, it has lead to us disagreeing on certain hard-hitting issues such as: the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, the necessity of repentance, and homosexuality.

So, basically, when you and I walk through scripture and allow the chips to fall where they may, we agree.  When you “refuse to accept” the way the chips fall, we disagree.  It’s a matter of the difference in consistency of our individual approach

Even most of the non-believers on this forum agree with my interpretation on these issues.  And, historically, my interpretations on these 3 matters are shared by many more Christians throughout history.  Yet you keep attempting to portray our disputes as if I am up in a tree by myself and that I am stubbornly unwilling to climb down.

I admit to being hardheaded, but that doesn’t mean that my hardheadedness is necessarily the cause of our differences, rather I think it is a lack of consistency on your behalf due to certain scriptural positions being too harsh for you to swallow…and I think the majority of unbelievers on this forum would agree with my portrayal of our dispute.

I disagree with you a hundred percent.  But now we are disagreeing about the nature of our disagreement...which only proves dialogue around issues of soteriology, sexuality and Biblical inerrancy are impossible.  Perhaps I am part of the problem, too...I don't know.  While I see a lot of common ground in some areas, perhaps we are both just too enamored of our own interpretations of Scripture.

But -- and I mean this -- I really do consider you an exemplar in many areas, not least being personal devotion.

[Boris]

a little weird but massive FF

[opebo]

FF. He adds another perspective for us that we would otherwise not have, and he does so with knowledge and civility. jmfcst gets a bum rap here, and it's too bad.

No, he's just a hate monger and a bigot.