Please provide a rationale pro and con, thank you

pro against abortion

pro against gay marriage

pro believes in Jesus

pro prays to GOD for direction

pro believes in GOD his son Jesus and the Holy Ghost

pro believes Jesus died for our sins and through him we can be saved

pro will defend Christian values

pro is a candidate that actually lives by Christian values

Romney is a good guy, I agree with him on many issues, but his theology is seriously messed up (like all Mormons)

http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm

the question is, does that fact automatically disqualify him as a candidate for the true Christian voter? difficult question, because I'd far rather see Romney in office than evil Hillary

hopefully, Huckabee will continue to do well

Well he's running for president. Not leader of the church you go to. That being said where religion and being president come together there is nothing you would disagree with him on. So it shouldn't matter. I think Huckabee would be ok too. But I would pick Romney first. But I can say with some confidence that a high percentage of Mormons will vote and they will all vote for Romney. There is no one running I would trust more than Romney.

Laughable

Maybe the <insert religion here> can shield us with a Bible from incoming harm.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_po/romney_mormons

I wish all of these candidates would realize Jesus is a joke, and cut this shit out of their campaigns. It's a sign of low intelligence.

I don't think Jesus is a joke, but I don't agree with the extreme religious nuts out there.

Everything in moderation is golden.

I've been doing a lot of reading about Jesus just being a literary adaptation of previous diety figures. It's pretty interesting. Gods worshipped thousands of years before Jesus coincidentally having the exact same qualities and attributes surrounding them.


Check this out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/jesusoutline.html

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-preb2.htm

It's a sign of low intelligence.

State your case.

The fact that there is so much evidence against the idea that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the savior of all mankind, and the only way for one to attain salvation. I think the idea that he is a literary figure, crafted from tales and beliefs about many other figures well before him makes much more sense. That in itself is enough evidence for me to not be drawn in to the idea that the Bible is the only word that is truth. The entire argument collapses in on itself really, once outside evidence is brought in against the Bible, the only defense the Bible has it what is said in the Bible. Quite ridiculous really.

So in summary, I don't think that being suckered into such an archaic and questionable belief, and devoting one's entire life to it is a sign of high intelligence.

Jesus is Conficius.

It's been remarketed since White folks would have a real issue bowing down to Jesus' tiny eggroll and slanted eyes.

The fact that there is so much evidence against the idea that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the savior of all mankind, and the only way for one to attain salvation.

You spoke of such evidence, though you limited it to similarities between Jesus and other religious figures that preceded him. I don't doubt that there is more such evidence for consideration, but how is ignorance to such evidence a mark against one's intelligence?

I think the idea that he is a literary figure, crafted from tales and beliefs about many other figures well before him makes much more sense.

There are non-Biblical sources that support the fact that he did exist, and that he was crucified so I think suggesting that he is a pure literary character is a mistake.

That in itself is enough evidence for me to not be drawn in to the idea that the Bible is the only word that is truth.

Consider this, there either is a God or there isn't. Is it possible that all this is the result of something not supernatural? Perhaps, but presently we have no concrete evidence indicating that this is so. So, you either believe that the universe was created supernaturally, by some god or divine being or you trust that one day, man will discern an answer that accounts for a godless world. Neither option is routed in fact or driven by cold hard evidence so the suggestion that one is intellectually superior to the other seems dubious.

Now suppose there is a God who created us. If this creation was not accidental it seems likely that he/she/it has some purpose in mind for us. Would it be so absurd then to think that this purpose would, in some manner, be conveyed to the object of god's intentions? Would it be equally absurd to believe god would manifest his intentions in one single truth? Do you think it unlikely that such a truth would endure the test of time?

The entire argument collapses in on itself really, once outside evidence is brought in against the Bible, the only defense the Bible has it what is said in the Bible. Quite ridiculous really.

That may be, but I hope that you realize that you have not made any sort of credible case for this supposed "collapse" which you speak of.

There are non-Biblical sources that support the fact that he did exist, and that he was crucified so I think suggesting that he is a pure literary character is a mistake.


There are extremely few, meaning like 2, historians from that time period that even mention Jesus. Outside of the Bible of course.



Consider this, there either is a God or there isn't. Is it possible that all this is the result of something not supernatural? Perhaps, but presently we have no concrete evidence indicating that this is so. So, you either believe that the universe was created supernaturally, by some god or divine being or you trust that one day, man will discern an answer that accounts for a godless world. Neither option is routed in fact or driven by cold hard evidence so the suggestion that one is intellectually superior to the other seems dubious.

Now suppose there is a God who created us. If this creation was not accidental it seems likely that he/she/it has some purpose in mind for us. Would it be so absurd then to think that this purpose would, in some manner, be conveyed to the object of god's intentions? Would it be equally absurd to believe god would manifest his intentions in one single truth? Do you think it unlikely that such a truth would endure the test of time?


I think it is a simple means of explaining the unexplained. When I look at it, it seems just as absurd as the idea that earth just appeared out of thin air. The fact remains, that we don't know. To assume that societies before us had a clue either is also a mistake.


That may be, but I hope that you realize that you have not made any sort of credible case for this supposed "collapse" which you speak of.


Wait till YZF shows up. He will prove my point thoroughly.

Wait till YZF shows up. He will prove my point thoroughly.
win

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b261/QueenOTW/sp712_All_About_Mormon.jpg

The fact that there is so much evidence against the idea that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the savior of all mankind, and the only way for one to attain salvation. I think the idea that he is a literary figure, crafted from tales and beliefs about many other figures well before him makes much more sense. That in itself is enough evidence for me to not be drawn in to the idea that the Bible is the only word that is truth. The entire argument collapses in on itself really, once outside evidence is brought in against the Bible, the only defense the Bible has it what is said in the Bible. Quite ridiculous really.

ok...so let me get this straight.

You say "I think....." and then say "thats all the evidence I need".

here's a tip for you--evidence does not ever begin with the words "I think". Evidence would be something factual, proveable, tangible, not your opinion. You state your opinion that the description of Jesus has similarities to other versions of a god, and then say that this opinion is "evidence". Truth be told there are often similarities, but there are also differences that your "evidence" fails to account for.

ok...so let me get this straight.

You say "I think....." and then say "thats all the evidence I need".

here's a tip for you--evidence does not ever begin with the words "I think". Evidence would be something factual, proveable, tangible, not your opinion. You state your opinion that the description of Jesus has similarities to other versions of a god, and then say that this opinion is "evidence". Truth be told there are often similarities, but there are also differences that your "evidence" fails to account for.



Read the links I posted. The evidence is tangible, proveable, and factual. It is the reason why I have the opinion that Christianity is a crock of shit.

There are extremely few, meaning like 2, historians from that time period that even mention Jesus. Outside of the Bible of course.

What number would you deem sufficient?

I think it is a simple means of explaining the unexplained. When I look at it, it seems just as absurd as the idea that earth just appeared out of thin air. The fact remains, that we don't know. To assume that societies before us had a clue either is also a mistake.

Your reaction to it does not entitle you to your claim of intellectual superiority.

Wait till YZF shows up. He will prove my point thoroughly.

My guess is that a faithfull witness will be along shortly.

win

what is that, the "word of the week" for you?

What number would you deem sufficient?


Wouldn't you think that someone who proclaimed themself to be the son of God and apparently rose from the dead would be just a little bit noteworthy?


Your reaction to it does not entitle you to your claim of intellectual superiority.


No, but my research does. Did you read the links? How do you feel about the fact that the path the sun takes every year directly mirrors the story of Horus, which directly mirrors the story of Jesus? That doesn't raise a little bit of question in your mind? The idea that the entire story of Jesus Christ is little more than astrology?

Wouldn't you think that someone who proclaimed themself to be the son of God and apparently rose from the dead would be just a little bit noteworthy?

You bet. I would expect a book to be written and collected on it. I would also expect a movement to begin that would go on to reform Judaism.

No, but my research does. Did you read the links? How do you feel about the fact that the path the sun takes every year directly mirrors the story of Horus, which directly mirrors the story of Jesus? That doesn't raise a little bit of question in your mind? The idea that the entire story of Jesus Christ is little more than astrology?

I have not looked at any of your links (kinda busy with exams to get too into anything else right now but I will read them). I am, however, presently taking an elective called Death and the Afterlife in Judaism and Christianity. This course explores and considers the similarities and influences between Judaism/Christianity and ancient western religions (Egypt, Canaanites, Mesopotamia, Zoroastrianism, etc.). I've also read Life After Death by Alan Segal. The similarities are there, no question about that, but they fall short of being evidence as they are mainly the subject of spectulation. When time permits, I'd enjoy discussing this in greater detail with you if you are interested.

Have you read the Bible?

Portions of it. Good stories, but did not see any value in it beyond that.

I will add, that if you believe that the story of Horus directly mirrors the story of Jesus Christ, then I really have to question the extent of your "research".

Portions of it. Good stories, but did not see any value in it beyond that.

So you haven't read the Bible and I know that you haven't read texts of other ancient western religions, which means that you rely on the interpretations of others when you speak of these similarities. How does this speak for your intelligence again?

I will add, that if you believe that the story of Horus directly mirrors the story of Jesus Christ, then I really have to question the extent of your "research".


I won't say that the entire "story" of Horus does. The birth, celebration, death, resurrection, witnesses, etc. directly mirrors that of Jesus.

So you haven't read the Bible and I know that you haven't read texts of other ancient western religions, which means that you rely on the interpretations of others when you speak of these similarities. How does this speak for your intelligence again?

Does it matter? Can you read hieroglyphics? I know I can't. I rely on experts that can read them to interpret them. You don't have to read the entire Bible to know and understand the story of Jesus.

I won't say that the entire "story" of Horus does. The birth, celebration, death, resurrection, witnesses, etc. directly mirrors that of Jesus.

First of all, Isis had sex with the artificial penis of her dead brother, Osiris after his brother Seth murdered and dismembered him and concieved Horus. If this directly mirrors the Virgin Mary's immaculate conception of Jesus, then I would argue that most people don't know Jesus' story. Now, are there similarities, yes. But the idea that the Egyptians influenced Christianity is pretty out there.

Ark2, this is a thread about whether or not Americans would vote for a Mormon President, or if he'll face the same discrimination as Catholic candidates once did. There are plenty of other threads in which to dicuss the veracity of the bible.

Pro - Not Bush

Con - Against pretty much everything I stand for.

Ark2, this is a thread about whether or not Americans would vote for a Mormon President

Yes it is.

or if he'll face the same discrimination as Catholic candidates once did.

I'm sorry, where does it say that? If the OP gets to call the shots as to what is allowed to be discussed, then how does

Would You Vote for a Mormon President?: Please provide a rationale pro and con, thank you

include Catholic candidates?

There are plenty of other threads in which to dicuss the veracity of the bible.

This thread is in the religion section, meaning that we are allowed to discuss religion. I don't see what the problem is here. If someone says "Jesus is a joke" I should be allowed to address that poster, here if not only here.

what is that, the "word of the week" for you?
That was weird, huh? What I wrote was win, but this web site filtered out my language and in its place, inserted the word 'win'.

Jesus IS a joke

Consider this, there either is a God or there isn't. Is it possible that all this is the result of something not supernatural? Perhaps, but presently we have no concrete evidence indicating that this is so. So, you either believe that the universe was created supernaturally, by some god or divine being or you trust that one day, man will discern an answer that accounts for a godless world. Neither option is routed in fact or driven by cold hard evidence so the suggestion that one is intellectually superior to the other seems dubious.

Now suppose there is a God who created us. If this creation was not accidental it seems likely that he/she/it has some purpose in mind for us. Would it be so absurd then to think that this purpose would, in some manner, be conveyed to the object of god's intentions? Would it be equally absurd to believe god would manifest his intentions in one single truth? Do you think it unlikely that such a truth would endure the test of time?

great post...logical, well stated, unlike so much useless babble on this forum

the Gospel is supremely logical: God created man, and God reveals Himself as a Man, to bridge the vast gulf between us

unlike an angry "Allah" or the Greek pagan gods that attempt to satiate carnal desires, the God of Israel declares Himself a REDEEMER, a SAVIOR, and a JUSTIFIER...I love that truth

Isaiah 45

For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:

I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I have not spoken in secret,
In a dark place of the earth;
I did not say to the seed of Jacob,
‘ Seek Me in vain’;
I, the LORD, speak righteousness,
I declare things that are right.

Assemble yourselves and come;
Draw near together,
You who have escaped from the nations.
They have no knowledge,
Who carry the wood of their carved image,
And pray to a god that cannot save.
Tell and bring forth your case;
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has declared this from ancient time?
Who has told it from that time?
Have not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.
Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.
He shall say,
‘ Surely in the LORD I have righteousness and strength.
To Him men shall come,
And all shall be ashamed
Who are incensed against Him.
In the LORD all the descendants of Israel
Shall be justified, and shall glory.’

great post...logical, well stated, unlike so much useless babble on this forum

the Gospel is supremely logical: God created man, and God reveals Himself as a Man, to bridge the vast gulf between us

unlike an angry "Allah" or the Greek pagan gods that attempt to satiate carnal desires, the God of Israel declares Himself a REDEEMER, a SAVIOR, and a JUSTIFIER...I love that truth

Isaiah 45

For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:

I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I have not spoken in secret,
In a dark place of the earth;
I did not say to the seed of Jacob,
‘ Seek Me in vain’;
I, the LORD, speak righteousness,
I declare things that are right.

Assemble yourselves and come;
Draw near together,
You who have escaped from the nations.
They have no knowledge,
Who carry the wood of their carved image,
And pray to a god that cannot save.
Tell and bring forth your case;
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has declared this from ancient time?
Who has told it from that time?
Have not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.
Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.
He shall say,
‘ Surely in the LORD I have righteousness and strength.
To Him men shall come,
And all shall be ashamed
Who are incensed against Him.
In the LORD all the descendants of Israel
Shall be justified, and shall glory.’


And my point is proven. Trying to prove the existence of Jesus by using the Bible. What, so your God is a nice guy, so he is somehow better? GTFO.

Sure.

I'm sorry, where does it say that?

The question is if one would vote for a Mormon candidate, which implicitly states that his religion is a factor in votor's decisions. Catholics faced the same discrimination, therefore it's topical. The existance of Jesus is a topic already heavily discussed in this section. Don't be obtuse.

Everyone likes a good fairy tale

By your definition, every religion is a cult. I don't see how you could look at Catholicism and Mormonism and call that a cult, yet not Evangelical Christians as part of one. There are every bit a cult as much as the others are.

Well just as long as you know as Mormons we believe everything we have comes from God through scriptures and prophets. Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book Of Mormon is scripture.

Just as the bible is scripture and moses was a prophet.

The phrases "the prophecy of this book," "the book of this prophecy,"
and "this book" refer only to the book of Revelation. At the time
John recorded those words, the Bible did not exist; there were only separate scrolls
for each book. The first bound Bibles do not appear until the fourth century A.D.
Some of the earliest Bible manuscripts do not end with the book of Revelation
and, in fact, some of them don't even include that book and omit other New
Testament books as well.


Moreover, similar warnings are found in earlier Bible books. For example, in
Deuteronomy 4:2, we read, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the Lord your God which I command you" (see also Deuteronomy 12:12).
While mortals are forbidden to add to the divine word, the Lord himself is not
bound by such restrictions. God's word is revealed through prophets, and
it is through prophets that he has always added to his own word. Thus, we read
that, when the king had burned the words written by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-4,
23), the Lord commanded him to restore these words (Jeremiah 36:27-28). "Then
took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah;
who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which
Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides
unto them many like words" (Jeremiah 36:32).

http://www.byu.edu/webapp/home/index.jsp

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06text-romney.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

It's not any more far-fetched than taking anything stated in the Bible seriously.

The King James version of the Bible was first published in 1611. The abridgement you now have is far different than the scrolls at the time that was written. There were lots of things added and taken away to make the King James version of the bible.

It's not any more far-fetched than taking anything stated in the Bible seriously.


Most things in life are far-fetched. It just depends on where you're standing as to how far.

Revelation 22 (circa 96 AD):

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

since The Revelation is the last and final letter of the 66 works of the canon of scripture, and, of course, the Lord knew that, this is a direct warning to anyone thereafter who would attempt to speak for God with "new" revelation, that includes Muhammad, Joesph Smith, and a long line of others

I have to agree with this. I've nothing against Mormons, but saying they follow the bible then ignoring the bits of the bible which conflict with the Book of Mormon would mean they're not the followers of Christ and the word of the Bible that they claim to be.

There is similar conflicts with Catholocism, since one of the ten Commandments was abandoned in Catholic Bibles (conflicted with the worship of statues of Mary).

However, that doesn't mean a Mormon or Catholic isn't fit to be President of the United States. If a person governs for the people and can keep the controversial aspects of their faith to themselves, so be it. With the exception of unnecessarily exacerbating the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy did pretty well.

in your opinion

Yeah, and the former is your opinion. That doesn't mean that your opinion is correct however.

I have to agree with this. I've nothing against Mormons, but saying they follow the bible then ignoring the bits of the bible which conflict with the Book of Mormon would mean they're not the followers of Christ and the word of the Bible that they claim to be.

There is similar conflicts with Catholocism, since one of the ten Commandments was abandoned in Catholic Bibles (conflicted with the worship of statues of Mary).

However, that doesn't mean a Mormon or Catholic isn't fit to be President of the United States. If a person governs for the people and can keep the controversial aspects of their faith to themselves, so be it. With the exception of unnecessarily exacerbating the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy did pretty well.


But there was no "bible" when that was written. The Book of Mormon was abridged almost 1,000 years before the Bible. So technically it came before not after.

Ok but what version of the bible are you using? At what point are you going to say it was done? What version?

in your opinion


You know, its kind of unnecessary to state "in my opinion" in matters of religion, since religion is all opinion anyway. Not in my opinion, fact.

I wish all of these candidates would realize Jesus is a joke, and cut this shit out of their campaigns. It's a sign of low intelligence.

The same could be said for rampant pride and an obsession with how ones income compares to the next guy...... not to mention a lust for freshly polished knobs.

*edit*

On topic: I'd rather have a God fearing president than a female president. Women who try to be leaders hide their inner conflict, and lack of testosterone. For example: shoulder pads under womens business shirts.

The same could be said for rampant pride and an obsession with how ones income compares to the next guy...... not to mention a lust for freshly polished knobs.

*edit*

On topic: I'd rather have a God fearing president than a female president. Women who try to be leaders hide their inner conflict, and lack of testosterone. For example: shoulder pads under womens business shirts.

damn I hate shoulder pads.

But there was no "bible" when that was written. The Book of Mormon was abridged almost 1,000 years before the Bible. So technically it came before not after.

The Book of Mormon was written in the mid 1800s.

The Book of Mormon was written in the mid 1800s.


It was translated to English in the mid 1800's. Hugh difference.

all the modern English translations are very good, the result of alot of blood, sweat, and tears of the many Godly men of the Reformation - as the scriptures were wrested from the clutches of the "holy" Roman "church" - but some are better than others

most scholars prefer the NAS, and, contrary to the claims of many baptist Bible thumpers, the KJV is NOT the most accurate available translation

Well the KJV is probably the most widely used. Right? Our church uses it as a standard. But BYU has a campus in Jerusalem to study the Old and New Testament, ancient and modern Near Eastern studies, and language (Hebrew and Arabic). We're encouraged to learn Hebrew so we can read the original.

http://ce.byu.edu/jc/

The same could be said for rampant pride and an obsession with how ones income compares to the next guy...... not to mention a lust for freshly polished knobs.

*edit*

On topic: I'd rather have a God fearing president than a female president. Women who try to be leaders hide their inner conflict, and lack of testosterone. For example: shoulder pads under womens business shirts.

Not too sure how this applies to the debate, but ok. Yes I am proud, and am an asshole, but I am also not running for President. The fact remains that a candidates religous obsession does not sit well with a whole bunch of truly intelligent and rational people. Whatever you feel my shortcomings may be, that doesn't mean that I am incapable of having the knowledge to decide what the best course for this country is. I just happen to feel that an individuals religous beliefs have no place in that course.

The fact remains that a candidates religous obsession does not sit well with a whole bunch of truly intelligent and rational people.

Sigh... Once more, your opinions do not constitute facts, regardless of how much you'd like them to.

That's not my opinion. Are you telling me that there AREN'T a bunch of intelligent people who do not believe this Evangelical crap, and don't want to listen to it? There are at least 4 people on this forum alone. The vast majority of my associates are the same way. Obviously Christians out number us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a "whole bunch" of us.

http://www.theforumlounge.com/religion-makes-you-t10278.html?p=162852

The fact remains that a candidates religous obsession does not sit well with a whole bunch of truly intelligent and rational people.


If you mean to imply that you're somehow more intelligent than those of us who bow to the lordship of Jesus Christ, the simple fact that you only target the stupidest individuals on the 7 club for your recent shit fests seems to argue the opposite......

Whatever you feel my shortcomings may be, that doesn't mean that I am incapable of having the knowledge to decide what the best course for this country is.


Argue the point. I'll remind you, it was that no one on this forum is claiming to have ability to lead the country, it is that you claimed that religious people are less intelligent than atheists.

I just happen to feel that an individuals religous beliefs have no place in that course.

And I happen to think you're feelings carry a gnat's ass' worth of weight in the arena of logical debate.

If you mean to imply that you're somehow more intelligent than those of us who bow to the lordship of Jesus Christ, the simple fact that you only target the stupidest individuals on the 7 club for your recent shit fests seems to argue the opposite......

Right, what I find entertaining has anything to do with this argument at all. Keep reaching. The fact that you can't stand life on your own without relying on a fairy tale for inspiration and guidance proves my point.



Argue the point. I'll remind you, it was that no one on this forum is claiming to have ability to lead the country, it is that you claimed that religious people are less intelligent than atheists.
And I happen to think you're feelings carry a gnat's ass' worth of weight in the arena of logical debate.


Talk about arguing the point.......

I don't see any reason why not to vote for a mormon unless he does something ridiculous that will ruin his reputation...

Right, what I find entertaining has anything to do with this argument at all.

It might. He might argue that it is a simple act which amuses a simple mind, which ties into this whole "intelligence" debate. Personally, I hope that he doesn't resort to this, for I am guilty of the same simple pursuits.

The fact that you can't stand life on your own without relying on a fairy tale for inspiration and guidance proves my point.

I don't know if you can say that IHI "can't stand life" without it (though I could always be mistaken). You might say that it enriches his life. Is the pursuit and maintenance of such a thing really a token of weakness and stupidity?

fairy tale

Well, that's your opinion* and as you have already displayed, a poorly formulated one.

*Sorry about rehashing the whole "your opinion" bit, I realize that it's been overplayed. It was just the only way I could work in the lesser played, "poorly formulated" bit.

I don't see any reason why not to vote for a mormon unless he does something ridiculous that will ruin his reputation...

LOL

Well he won't get caught masturbating.

I mean if he's qualified...

That's not my opinion. Are you telling me that there AREN'T a bunch of intelligent people who do not believe this Evangelical crap, and don't want to listen to it? There are at least 4 people on this forum alone. The vast majority of my associates are the same way. Obviously Christians out number us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a "whole bunch" of us.



I might be wrong. But isn't Atheism a relatively new invention of liberal Americans. I don't really remember ever hearing about it in any other context. Although not totally different it’s more of a religion based on global warming and the notion that man is in control of everything and doesn’t need or have a God.

But they do have Al Gore. They're just so much smarter than the rest of us.

I might be wrong. But isn't Atheism a relatively new invention of liberal Americans. I don't really remember ever hearing about it in any other context. Although not totally different it’s more of a religion based on global warming and the notion that man is in control of everything and doesn’t need or have a God.

Yes, liberals invented Atheism in 1993 to fight global warming. Anyone who does not believe in God or Jesus is automatically a liberal. There is no possible way that someone could consider themselves fiscally and socially conservative, and also be agnostic. Not possible. If you aren't on the side of Jesus, then you're a baby killing atheist who has a solar powered house.


They're just so much smarter than the rest of us.

It doesn't take much.

Please provide a rationale pro and con, thank you

I don't know if I would or not. The more important question is who would God have me vote for and how can I know who God wants me to vote for. But of course a Soveriegn God, which is what we have, picks all leaders himself. This means God picked Bubba Clinton.

Oh, a Sovereiegn God. Did he call you up and tell you this?

More accurately, God works everything to His ultimate purpose, and when a nation gives up on God, God gives up on a nation, and it's leaders

God's purpose in 2007 can be summarized as follows: God is preparing Israel for Daniel's 70th Week, and working through the remnant of the Church, which will be removed before the 70th Week begins

the world is being prepared for the ecumenical false religious system of the Harlot of Revelation 17

Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages."

How do you go about figuring out who to elect? Do you think it's wrong to not vote?

Oh, a Sovereiegn God. Did he call you up and tell you this?

Sorta but it was better than that. You see, I was a walking dead person and I was given faith, repentance and a new life. After this I started to read his book where I found out that I hadn't made a decision for Christ so much as he orchestrated the events of my life to bring me to a point where I would respond to his message. It really had nothing to do with me and everything to do with him.

religious convictions (and more importantly, moral record) factor heavily in my decision to pick someone of integrity

yes, I believe it's wrong not to vote

Let's say it boils down to Guliani vs Clinton, are you not so disappointed that you feel like refraining?

As opposed to creating the largest, most expensive bureaucracy in US history, creating massive national debt, bogging down in an unwinnable war against a noun, with no clear mission, etc? Yeah, good thing that never happened ;)

AmishBoy is layin down mad info. props to u man!

Well the KJV is probably the most widely used. Right? Our church uses it as a standard. But BYU has a campus in Jerusalem to study the Old and New Testament, ancient and modern Near Eastern studies, and language (Hebrew and Arabic). We're encouraged to learn Hebrew so we can read the original.

Is AmishBoy a Mormon?

yes, we all know Bush used poor judgment on some things, but I consider him a sincere man, not the "liar" some accuse him of


I used to think he was sincere as well, but he has since moved to liar status for me. You can see it in his face when he talks sometimes. He is really a terrible liar actually.

yes


Is he nominal or is he a serious believer?

I wouldn't make my decision to vote for a president based on the candidate's religous belief. So in short, I would vote for a mormom president given that I thought he/she supported major issues in the way I see fit. If they spend 40% of their time babbling about religion, I wouldn't see them as a very good leader.

Is he nominal or is he a serious believer?

Yes I'm a serious believer. I'm not perfect by any means. But I have no question of the validity or the truthfulness of the church.

I know quite a few Mormon's, I lived with one for 2 years actually. I think they are truly good people, never once did they try to push their religious beliefs on me. They were very focused on their families, and success in life. I'd have no problem with one being the president. I think it would be way better than an Evangelical claiming to do things because God told him to.

you mean the Mormon Church? and the Book of Mormon?

Yes the whole thing. I've never heard them referred to separately. But yeah both.

so "the Church" in your view is the Mormon church, everyone else is damned, right?


No not at all.

just because Pat Robertson is a loon doesn't mean you can paint all evangelicals with the same broad brush

Huckabee seems like a stand up guy

I wouldn't just say Pat Robertson. The majority of Evangelicals I have been associated with seemed a bit wacky, had a serious drug/abuse problem before they converted, or were pushing an agenda.

Yes I'm a serious believer. I'm not perfect by any means. But I have no question of the validity or the truthfulness of the church.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I do not mean to insult you or make you defensive. How can you trust what you've been told is the truth? I have to ask myself the same question about my own beliefs and through historical research and bible study I'm very confident of my position. On the other hand mainline Christianity says because of significant doctrinal differences that like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism is a cult.

Do you feel comfortable enough to discuss this?

LOL at you guys accusing someone else of being in a cult. This entire thread is just dripping with irony.

When are you going to figure out that there were religions in existence long before the Bible was even thought of? Who cares if it pre-dates Mormonism, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

Nevermind that Horus predates Moses by about 1500 years. That's ok though.

Interesting fact: a complete text of the myth of Osiris was not obtained until the first century when Plutarch wrote de Iside et Osiride. Before then, there were only fragments of the same myth.

How about Horus being born on December 25th

Ummm... where are you getting your information from? Born on December 25th? I haven't read that anywhere but even if this were true, it wouldn't have been documented until after the birth of Christ and long after Moses.

being crucified and buried for 3 days

Horus was crucified?

then magically being resurrected?


hmmm... I haven't read that part so I can't say one way or another. I will say that if this is true, it doesn't reflect ancient Egyptian belief in the afterlife.

Edit: I will add that Christmas being held on Dec. 25 does have its pagan influences, but that's pretty common knowledge.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I do not mean to insult you or make you defensive. How can you trust what you've been told is the truth? I have to ask myself the same question about my own beliefs and through historical research and bible study I'm very confident of my position. On the other hand mainline Christianity says because of significant doctrinal differences that like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism is a cult.

Do you feel comfortable enough to discuss this?


Yeah I don't care. You can ask me anything.


“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering” (James 1:5,6).

That's the scripture that lead a 14 year old boy to be called as a prophet. That's the scripture that lead him to start with the direction of our savior the church I go to and that's the scripture that lead to my faith.

a seemingly noble cause doesn't always justify the means, right?

see, if Mr. Smith would have known the epistles and the warning of Revelation, he would have known there is no new revelation (and no new doctrine) from God since John penned Revelation

yes, there are many "prophets" (which simply means "to speak"), but they all "preach the Word" as Paul commanded Timothy, they do not invent new doctrine, especially "doctrine" which directly contradicts the scriptures, such as God evolving on another planet or similar nonsense


“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering” (James 1:5,6).

It doesn't say check the bible. It says ask God.

The bible is a tool.

But just because you have some tools in your tool box doesn't mean you know how to fix a car.

God has not spoken to anyone since the apostle John, and anyone who claims otherwise (there are myriads of such people every year) is a fraud

Well that's where we will have to leave it. That is the big difference between us. Just as the Jews rejected Christ so to do you reject him now. When Christ first came to Earth he came in shook everything up and put off as many followers as he gained. When he appeared to Joseph it was no different. It's time to move on.

But it's ok. Not everyone is ready. But you don't have to be ready. But one day now or in the next life you will say I'm right. You don't have to believe me now. I don't believe you will go to hell because you don't agree with me. That's what the 1,000-year reign is for.

Now before you get mad and quote me to death. At least I don't believe you're going to hell.

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering” (James 1:5,6).

It doesn't say check the bible. It says ask God.

The bible is a tool.

But just because you have some tools in your tool box doesn't mean you know how to fix a car.

however, Mormons hold as a basic principle the belief that the bible is God speaking. So, to look in the Bible is to ask God. You look to see what His answer was when someone else asked the question way before you did, no? And in all this time, God's answers have not changed, so why isnt this a good way to ask God?

I just dont understand it--you say to ask God, but your church went and wrote a whole new book instead of following the one that God already provided. And when you look for God's answers, you look in the book of Mormon and the Bible.

Yes, the scriptures are a tool, but they are THE tool. There is no other. Writing other books and putting them next to the Bible on the bookshelf doesnt make them truth. For example, the mormon concept of eternal marriage has never made sense to me, especially when Jesus in His own words spoke to the contrary in the Gospel. Your church on one hand states in the Articles of Faith that the Gospel is to be believed and obeyed, while at the same time the same church holds beliefs which are spoken against in that same Gospel.

I mean no disrespect in this, I just do not understand.

however, Mormons hold as a basic principle the belief that the bible is God speaking. So, to look in the Bible is to ask God. You look to see what His answer was when someone else asked the question way before you did, no? And in all this time, God's answers have not changed, so why isnt this a good way to ask God?

God answers haven't changed. The questions have.

I just dont understand it--you say to ask God, but your church went and wrote a whole new book instead of following the one that God already provided. And when you look for God's answers, you look in the book of Mormon and the Bible.

That book was written by prophets. The same as the bible. Joseph translated it. He didn't write it.

Yes, the scriptures are a tool, but they are THE tool. There is no other. Writing other books and putting them next to the Bible on the bookshelf doesnt make them truth. For example, the mormon concept of eternal marriage has never made sense to me, especially when Jesus in His own words spoke to the contrary in the Gospel. Your church on one hand states in the Articles of Faith that the Gospel is to be believed and obeyed, while at the same time the same church holds beliefs which are spoken against in that same Gospel.

I mean no disrespect in this, I just do not understand.

Well l would say again that this update as it were is no different than when Jesus came and said he was the son of God and proclaimed himself Savior.

These things are no more shocking to you now than Jesus was to the Jews. Jesus was charged with blasphemy. The differences between any other Christian church and the Mormon church have come from Jesus. Not from Joseph Smith. He was meet with about the same response as Jesus was.

God answers haven't changed. The questions have.

two things--

1--God's answers havent changed, you're correct. More on that in just a minute....

2--the questions havent changed either. For example, people today still talk about the mormon concept of polygamy--and in the Bible days, God spoke against plural marriages. Marriage, faith, sin, birth, death, infidelity, it's all there. And it's all always been there. No different questions. Just different time.

That book was written by prophets. The same as the bible. Joseph translated it. He didn't write it.

ok...Joseph translated it....hmmm....How many wives did Joseph have? What was Joseph's publicly spoken view on polygamy? And how did that view compare to:

1--his own personal life
2--the teachings of other Mormons, such as Brigham Young??

You know why this is important? Because he was the prophet, yet he couldnt get his own story straight as to what he believed and how he lived. And then, there are things like his prophesy concerning the civil war, and the one about the LDS Temple that was to be built in Independence, Missouri, which never happened as he predicted. A true prophet, speaking only the truth of God, would be making true statements, not false ones...dont you agree?

Well l would say again that this update as it were is no different than when Jesus came and said he was the son of God and proclaimed himself Savior.

And I would say that you would be wrong. And there is one concrete thing that allows me to say that. It is the simple fact that your church believes that the Gospel is God's unchanging Word--the truth. And then, your book of mormon contradicts those words. If the Word of God, as it appears in the Bible, is the true way, then how can you have a second book, which contradicts those "true" words, and say that it too is from the same God? God laid it all out for us in the Bible, and your own Articles of Faith state that the Gospel is the correct truth of God. So then, if Jesus speaks against, say, eternam marriage, in the Gospel, how can that still be "the truth" that you believe today if the Book of Mormon disagrees with it?

How can you believe both "the truth" and that which contradicts that truth at the same time?

just like Muslims, you put a human "prophet" on par with the SON OF GOD

I can't even begin to express how wrong that is...and blasphemous

you're right, we will agree to strongly disagree on this topic

I don't think you can compare Mohamad with Joseph Smith. Or the role they played. Yes he was a prophet and a very important one. But he was a man. He made mistakes and was a sinner just like all of us.

How can you believe both "the truth" and that which contradicts that truth at the same time?


Well God has always added to his word. Why did God give the Ten Commandments to Moses? Why did he wait so long? Why not just give them to Adam?

The answer would be us not being ready. When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses he did it because it was the right time. Just like Jesus. Why did it take so long for him to come? Why didn't God just skip Moses and send Jesus down to give us the Ten Commandments? Why don't we do animal sacrifice anymore? Why can we eat pork?

Why did God give us the book of Mormon? The time was right. God has always spoken with prophets and he always will.

As for Joseph and the things he did. Like I said before he was a man. He was a sinner just like anybody else. The validity of the church does not rest on him being perfect. Jesus is the only person who led a perfect life. The Mormon Church is his church not Joseph's.

The last prophet, Moroni the son of Mormon, was commanded to hide the gold plates in the ground where they laid undisturbed for over a thousand years. Before the plates were buried Moroni wrote a promise to us (Moroni 10:3-5)

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam, even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, and he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things.

Well God has always added to his word. Why did God give the Ten Commandments to Moses? Why did he wait so long? Why not just give them to Adam?

The answer would be us not being ready. When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses he did it because it was the right time. Just like Jesus. Why did it take so long for him to come? Why didn't God just skip Moses and send Jesus down to give us the Ten Commandments? Why don't we do animal sacrifice anymore? Why can we eat pork?

Why did God give us the book of Mormon? The time was right. God has always spoken with prophets and he always will.

As for Joseph and the things he did. Like I said before he was a man. He was a sinner just like anybody else. The validity of the church does not rest on him being perfect. Jesus is the only person who led a perfect life. The Mormon Church is his church not Joseph's.

Sorry, I cannot agree at all.

You are talking about God adding to His Word--but that is not what has happened here. Adding is one thing--changing or taking away is a whole different story. God commanded one wife for a husband--never more. Not at any time in the Bible did God command man to take multiple wives. Not once. It is written that God's law allows for one man to take one wife. Your church is not showing "God adding"...it is a blatant change based on the human perspective of those who began the movement. That has nothing to do with God.

Another one--eternal marriage....In Matthew 22, Jesus said:

Matthew 22:23-33:
That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

The Mormon church believes in and teaches the concept of eternal marriage--that the one you marry in this life remains married to you in the next. Again, this is plainly not "God adding to His Word", but a human flat-out changing that Word. Look at what Jesus said there and how He said it--this was clearly not a temporary way that resurrection was to be. It was a definitive statement with no room for otherwise interpretation. But, from this same Word of God, the Mormon church has declared eternal marriage. That, my friend, is a contradiction.

So, if we actually read your Articles of Faith, it is clearly stated that the path to salvation for all mankind includes "obedience of the Gospel". Well, this is part of the Gospel, and right after your church tells everyone "obey the Gospel" it changes part of that Gospel and tells everyone to also obey their changed version.

A rather interesting part of this is how the Mormon church views Jesus. Am I correct in saying that the Mormon practice is to believe that Jesus is the biological brother of Lucifer, and that Jesus was actually conceived because God had a sexual relationship with Mary? Would that be accurate? If so, then once again the Mormon church has not shown where God "added to the Word", but instead has changed it entirely. The Bible is clear that Mary was a virgin, and that Jesus was not created by any sexual relationship.

Colossians 1:15-20--

The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

The very same Word of God that your church claims to be God's true Word has just said that Jesus created all things, both on earth and in heaven. So, how could this be true if Jesus was created by sex, and how could it be true if that sex created a brother for Jesus in Lucifer? The answer is "they cannot both be true", and since your church even agrees that the Bible is in fact God's Word, then there is a problem.

Once more, this is not an addition of any kind. An addition would be new information where there previously was none. This is a complete change in the story. it used to be "this" and now, it is "that" instead. That isnt right.

And then, we have the very basic beginnings of Mormonism, as it is called. In 1831, Joseph Smith wrote a book, and in that book he states "I, God....", showing plainly that there is one God.

Fast forward a little bit, around 1835. He writes the Book of Abraham, and "I, God..." is suddenly replaced with "the gods....." So, we have the Mormon faith switching from one God to many, in the span of a few years?!? The transition continues....and in 1844, Joseph Smith has the following revelation:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens[.] That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, ‘As the Father hath power to himself, even so hath the Son power’—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it."

Ever since that time, it is a common Mormon teaching that God was actually a man, like you and me. He became the God of this world later on. Many notable Mormons have gone on to say that Men can become Gods. For example, the fifth Mormon President, Lorenzo Snow, tried to sum it all up with this quote:

"As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be."



Brigham Young used to teach that Adam was actually the God of this planet.

None of these quotes or points of view match what is in God's one and only Word. In fact, the idea is immediately clear just by going to sunday school and reading the first commandment.

Sorry, I cannot agree at all.

You are talking about God adding to His Word--but that is not what has happened here. Adding is one thing--changing or taking away is a whole different story. God commanded one wife for a husband--never more. Not at any time in the Bible did God command man to take multiple wives. Not once. It is written that God's law allows for one man to take one wife. Your church is not showing "God adding"...it is a blatant change based on the human perspective of those who began the movement. That has nothing to do with God.

Well if we look at the time between Adam and the crucifixion. Which are held in the Old Testament and the new. There are many instances of adding and change. Like a big one where us gentiles could be members of Gods people or animal sacrifice being done away with. All of these things were part of "the church".

Well Abraham had 3 Wives Moses had 2. Most of the bible prophets had more than one wife. David had 6 Solomon had 700.

I'll answer the rest later.

Well that's where we will have to leave it.

Not just yet Amishboy, hang on for a moment. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this and I'm sure there is not a speck of antagonism towards you from YZF. I say for certain none of us feels they're better than anybody else in this and we're really only blessed by God to understand and have faith in doctrine.

That is the big difference between us. Just as the Jews rejected Christ so to do you reject him now. When Christ first came to Earth he came in shook everything up and put off as many followers as he gained. When he appeared to Joseph it was no different. It's time to move on.

But it's ok. Not everyone is ready. But you don't have to be ready. But one day now or in the next life you will say I'm right. You don't have to believe me now. I don't believe you will go to hell because you don't agree with me. That's what the 1,000-year reign is for.

Now before you get mad and quote me to death. At least I don't believe you're going to hell.

What are your views on Jehovah's Witnesses?

Would agree with them that they are the one true church and that their interpretation of scripture is the truth?

Now I'm not saying it is or that it isn't but if you found out that what Joseph Smith recorded as the Book of Mormon was not from God, would you stay in the Mormon faith?

Well if we look at the time between Adam and the crucifixion. Which are held in the Old Testament and the new. There are many instances of adding and change. Like a big one where us gentiles could be members of Gods people or animal sacrifice being done away with. All of these things were part of "the church".

wrong again. Things were changed about how some things should be done. For example, burnt offerings. But we arent talking about changing the way things are done--the church you go to is trying to change historical precedent. God tells us in the Bible how Jesus came to be. This is not about "we can now eat pork because God says we are ready to.....". This is about the Mormon church reinventing things like how Jesus came to be. BIG difference there, chief.

At some point, there comes a time where a passage appears in the Bible, such as talking about how animal sacrifices are not to be done anymore. But NOWHERE in the Bible does God contradict Himself about history. God tells us that Mary was a virgin, your church says otherwise. God tells us that Jesus was not the brother of Lucifer, your church changed that too. The book of Mormon goes AGAINST what the Bible says in such cases.

This is not anything close to a case of God changing the way we are to do this or that. This is your church holding up a book, claiming it is also the Word of God, which clearly contradicts the history provided in the one true Word. God would not tell us in the "first book" that it happened like this, and then turn around in the "second book" and say no, it happened like that instead.

How can you trust what you've been told is the truth?

It might be a little late in the thread for my own view on this, but just in case.....

The true test of having saving faith is its effect on the believer. Saving faith brings one closer to Christ, in mind, spirit, and worldly affairs. The gospels of Christ are there for all to read. When I first read the gospels I was instantly converted. Christ was a swashbuckling maverick who refused to hide the church leaders' hyprocricy, greed, and dishonesty. And He was sinless, healed the sick, was resurrected from the grave, and ascended to Heaven.

I don't know about you but I really identify with this Man!

"swashbucling maverick" is a very strange term applied to Christ, but Christ was definitely a different Kind of Being from the ordinary man, although fully human during the incarnation...what amazes me about the Gospels is the extremes presented: from forgiving the woman caught in adultery to clearing out the temple using a hand made whip (an amazing thought) TWICE...Christ walked the line and did it perfectly, most people are either one extreme or another, because it's easier to balance that way

I truly believe people make up their own Jesus many times, which has very little to do with that is potrayed in the gospels

I remember this guy telling me when he gets to heaven Christ is going to give him a hug, and I just shook my head...such people have no understanding

I could careless about ones religious views. Honestly, if we could get a decent human being in the office I would be happy.

W is a decent man, he just has a flawed philosophy about the followers of Islam

as Dennis Miller says, no attack in six years, and that's commendable, but his democrat style spending is killing us

I could careless about ones religious views.

I care about religious views, but personal integrity even more

all the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Rudy, have that in spades over the dems

I just don't see why religion should play any role in a position that is there to represent all religions.

that's the dulled mind universalist view (which George W shares) which fails to recognize religions which are fundamentally evil, and call for the persecution and/or destruction of other people groups (i.e. Islam)

there has always been spiritual warfare, some are willfully blind to it...

Seriously, wtf is your problem? I'm sticking to the topic and you come at me with insults. Stop acting like you know everything. I'm not blind to anything, I just choose to base my views on different criteria. I think people should be allowed to have their own views. Its what makes up human. Its also what leads to progress. Islam is not as bad as you say it is. EVERY RELIGION HAS ITS NUTS. Look at you for example. Anyway don't respond to me b/c you're not worth the time I've already wasted. I just pity that fact that you are so closed other opinions.

yes, Islam is pure evil, regardless of what you think

that doesn't mean all the people who follow it are, but the religion itself is evil and you are completely INSANE if you would welcome an Islamic U.S. president...how soon we forget the lesson of 9/11! THESE PEOPLE WANT US DEAD...WAKE UP, MORON

and Obama makes me nervous in this regard, although he claims to be catholic

EVERY RELIGION HAS ITS NUTS

another stupid comment from simple minded people who ignore the literally thousands of attacks conducted in the name of Islam every year

true Christians aren't executing people in the name of religion...sorry, it's just doesn't happen, and don't bother harping on the Roman catholic crusades because that was started by, guess who?

another stupid comment from simple minded people who ignore the literally thousands of attacks conducted in the name of Islam every year

...from an idiot who ignores the attacks of those calling themselves Jewish or Christian every year. Just because it doesn't play on Fox news doesn't mean it's not going on, ya jingoistic twit.

And BTW - the Roman Catholic Crusades was started by Pope Pius, who was tired of European fiefdoms spending their money warring with each other instead of giving it to him in tithe. So he rallied them against a common enemy by mixing fact with propaganda with holier-than-thou rhetoric. Come to think of it, you and he would probably get along swimmingly.

And whats with this "muslims want us dead" shit? There are American muslims currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, proudly serving the USA while you sit on your ass posting this shit. Muslim nations allied with the US risking the security of their own people to help Americans. And this is what you serve up as gratitude. Pull your head out of your prejudiced ass.

...who ignores the attacks of those calling themselves Jewish or Christian every year.

no, you're just full of it, manntis

there you go, dismissing anything that doesn't fit your oh-so-narrow view of what actually happens in the world. Not that I'm surprised, as you've also tried to claim that all muslims are arab. Never one to let facts get in the way of your world view, eh mark?

that's the dulled mind universalist view (which George W shares) which fails to recognize religions which are fundamentally evil, and call for the persecution and/or destruction of other people groups (i.e. Islam)

there has always been spiritual warfare, some are willfully blind to it...


thats right, you dumbass, youre so much better because you only call for the destruction of individual people, even though your supposed doctrine instructs you to do the opposite. But hey, since you arent calling for the destruction of "people groups", then its all fine and dandy, right??

Waitasecondhere....."the destruction of people groups".....tell us marky, how many times have you made similar comments about muslims? How often have you wished their destruction? Isnt that a people group??

You live in a glass house, and you arent even smart enough to stop throwing stones. Come to think of it, that glass house is also the most likely reason why you cant get a date--everyone can see your shrivelled roid-infested sausage and no woman worth having wants a guy who looks like hes got a third ring finger in a funny place...

I wonder if Mark has ever heard of people like El Cid, who led a combined Christian/Muslim army made up of both Spaniards and Moors...

he only would have heard of that if they mentioned it during his "four years of engineering school...skip....four years of engineering school....skip....four years....skip....

another stupid comment from simple minded people who ignore the literally thousands of attacks conducted in the name of Islam every year

true Christians aren't executing people in the name of religion...sorry, it's just doesn't happen, and don't bother harping on the Roman catholic crusades because that was started by, guess who?

How about Christians that bomb abortion clinics?

Its so nice to see people with an actual mind of their own. Not some douche bag with scripture stuck up his ass.

again, such acts are inherently unChristian, and cannot be defended from scripture

Islamic world dominance and terrorism CAN be defended from the Quran

Which shows your knowledge of the Quran is only through the same distorted filter the whackos who commit such acts view it. Abortion clinic bombers site verses "justifying" their actions too. The Quran specifically forbids the actions taken by the extremists - which is why Saladin and others like him who followed the rules in their holy book, even during full scale war, were merciful and open to treaties.

I don't rely on answersingenesis and their spin-off sites to tell me how the world works. I've been out in the world and seen it for myself. You might try the same.

that link has nothing to do with AIG

"...and their spin-off sites..."

And their interpretation of the Quran is about as factual as the Boeing article you posted.