The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

You, and your crowd (ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, Doctor Imperialism, MasterJedi, and a few others) have felt free to misrepresent me, make personal attacks, and not give any sort of retraction when your facts are wrong.  Over and over.  More than once.  In violation of the ToS. 

When you begin to act decently toward me, I'll acknowledge it.

Not once have you disproved something I presented as fact. Just because you feel attacked by some members, doesn't mean you can clump them all together and characterize them as the same people. Moreover, if YOU think that I have violated the TOS, please go ahead and show it to the mods or zip it.

I once tried treating you as best I could even as you looked down on me every chance you had, and all you did was continue to disrespect me by condescending towards me to the point that you even implied that I don't have a job as a leaving quip in our first major argument on this forum. (And before you say I'm lying, here's the quote).

I guess the extra coffee has worn off.  Gotta go to work tomorrow.  Wonder who else has to do the same.

Go have your pity party somewhere else. The fact that I proved you wrong with time stamps and all, and yet you refuse to recant your initial slander of my decency based on previous perceptions is proof enough that you've gone beyond the land of reasonability. The only way I could be decent to you is to either agree with what you say or praise you for what you do, and neither of those are happening.

[Dr. Arch]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

Yes. I truly find my own posts amazing sometimes.

That is amazing wulfric. Truly amazing.

[Dr. Arch]

What conservatism have forgotten is that when people are hurting, boiling in oil as I like to say it. They are going to demand action. When the system, the policies fail to alleviate that suffering they are going to seek out someone will deliver results. When you then block those attempts and then fail to deliver any meaningful improvements yourself, guess what happens to whatever "institution" you have hid behind.

They will rise up and burn it to the ground.

The biggest mistake is to think that people value our system for itself. Maybe this is cynical but they don't. They want safety and security and it is incumbent to the establishment, to the people that value this system to make sure that people feel heard, and that their problems are being addressed. If you make the system the reason why action isn't happening, guess what happens to he system? They will burn it to the ground.

I wish if there was one thing I could change about Conservatives in the modern age, would be for them to just put aside the dogma for two seconds and learn the most important lesson from the Russian Revolution. The only reason, why Russia (a country no one would have thought would be the first Communist Country) became the first Communist country in the world is because people were hurting so bad in a terrible war with no end in sight and the only ones who stood up and offered peace were a bunch of extremists.

If you want the filibuster to survive then you need a stable society in which people can address their issues. By that I mean if you want the filibuster to survive, you cannot use it to block everything and then do nothing yourself and then whine about the filibuster being nuked. You brought it on your effing self.

The right has created more socialists in the US in the past in 15 years then the Soviet Union could in 75. It is the right that opened the door to this through their own failure to recognize the reality that exists in this country, now everything they have cowardly hit behind is under threat. Conservative values, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and yes the Second amendment and it is because they left people to boil in oil too long.

They need to take virtually everyone of these corporate funded, brain dead think tanks in DC and shut them down. They have ruined Conservatism in this country and basically ensured that the rise of the Progressive left, so whenever the left is going to the extreme, I blame Grover Norquist, I blame the Wayne La Pierre and I blame the Koch Brothers.

If we end up with an assault weapons ban, it will be because of the NRA's intransigence. If we end up with socialism, it will be because of blocking of anything that doesn't fit the lassiez-faire economic dogma, if we go bankrupt it will be because of deficit funded tax cuts, and if we lose the constitutional safeguards that protect our system, the Supreme Court etc, it will be cause of these frauds and shysters who have milked this movement dry for personal gain.

The whole reason Donald Trump won, was because he promised to burn this establishment edifice to the ground. Instead, he let himself get co-opted by it, just like the Tea Party was co-opted. Just like the Republican Revolution of 1994 was co-opted by it. They corrupt everything and everyone they touch, like an octopus grasping its tentacles around each politician. 

I am more conservative than all of them because unlike them, I know what the hell that actually means. You will never succeed as conservatives as long as you rely on pressure groups and special interests. The interest of the pressure group is not to win, it is to keep fighting. That is why the NRA won't make a deal, they have to keep the fight going because that is how they keep existing and make money. The perverse incentive thus makes the NRA dangerous to the very thing they want to protect, the second amendment. These groups create enemies where they need not exist precisely because this ensures their continued existence, and in so doing they threaten the very thing that they are nominally dedicated to preserving. For the NRA, the second amendment.