American founded to be free, not secular [Archive]

Crookshanks

01-03-2007, 04:17 PM

This is a great article - very well written
===============

America founded to be free, not secular
By Dennis Prager
Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Contrary to what you learned at college, America from its inception has been a religious country, and was designed to be one.

As the greatest foreign observer of America, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, noted in his "Democracy in America," "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power." Or, as the great British historian Paul Johnson has just written: "In [George] Washington's eyes, at least, America was in no sense a secular state," and "the American Revolution was in essence the political and military expression of a religious movement."

In fact, the Founders regarded America as a Second Israel, in Abraham Lincoln's words, the "Almost Chosen" People. This self-identification was so deep that Thomas Jefferson, today often described as not even a Christian, wanted the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt at the splitting of the sea. Just as the Jews left Egypt, Americans left Europe.

There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its Founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.

It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible -- even for most of the Founders who were religious Christians.

This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: "In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."

Once almost universally acknowledged to be founded by religious men whose values were grounded in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the average college graduate is now ignorant of the religious bases of this society, and certain that it was founded to be, and has always been, a secular society that happens to have many individual Christians living in it.

That explains the attempts by activists to erase whatever public vestiges of religiosity remain -- any cross on a county or city seal, the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays," the Supreme Court's rulings against school prayer even of the most non-denominational type, etc.

This country was founded overwhelmingly by men and women steeped in the Bible. Their moral values emanated from the Bible, and they regarded liberty as possible only if understood as given by God. That is why the Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Old Testament, and why Thomas Jefferson, the allegedly non-religious deist, wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image.

Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?

If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.

01Snake

01-03-2007, 04:19 PM

I hear Croutons typing up his retort. Sit tight.

xrayzebra

01-03-2007, 04:21 PM

A great article and so true. In God We Trust. Always have from the beginning.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:22 PM

:lol

If you like evil, be European.

xrayzebra

01-03-2007, 04:25 PM

Once again Chump, you are one. They are converting churches in Europe to
apartments and selling them because no one supports them anymore.

Is that what you want over here?

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:25 PM

:lol

If you like evil, be European.

How did you get that out of the article?

Spurminator

01-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Well, it's hard to argue with such a well-sourced column from a writer as reputable as this one.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:27 PM

So what does this really mean?

What legislation is this calling for?

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:28 PM

So what does this really mean?

What legislation is this calling for?

None, it's an opinion piece.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:28 PM

:lol

If you like evil, be European.

Still though, how did you get this out of the "opinion piece"?

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:30 PM

I read it.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:33 PM

I read it.

Admit it, your statement has no validity.

You got it from the following and you read the article so quick you didn't take any time to think about it. You saw "evil" and "Europe" in the same sentence and you immediately jumped to a false conclusion. Nowhere in this article does it state that Europeans like evil. You tried to twist the author's writing into making it something it isn't. It's no big deal, just admit it.

On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:36 PM

Nah, it's the conclusion I drew. You are free to argue it, but why bother? You won't change my mind.

DarkReign

01-03-2007, 04:37 PM

*yawn*

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:38 PM

And you can't ID an exaggeration when you see one, js, and just want to start an internets fight.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:39 PM

Nah, it's the conclusion I drew. You are free to argue it, but why bother? You won't change my mind.

I understand different people drawing different conclusions to arguments posted on this site (God knows many of us are living proof of this), but come on man, nowhere in the article does it even sort of say that Europeans like evil. That's just totally false and inaccurate.

Just admit that you didn't take the time to fully understand what the author is trying to say and you most likely skimmed the article.

For God's sake man, practice what you preach and take accountability for your actions.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:40 PM

And you can't ID an exaggeration when you see one, js, and just want to start an internets fight.

Don't make this about something it's not. I'm pointing out that your comprehension of the article is totally off base. Something that you would certainly do to me as well.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:40 PM

:lmao

If you like evil, take everything deadly seriously.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:42 PM

:lmao

If you like evil, take everything deadly seriously.

Having trouble admitting it? This is like when you catch a little kid in a lie and he just keeps lying to cover up the original lie.

Spurminator

01-03-2007, 04:42 PM

I think a better summary of the article is:

"America was founded as a religious nation because I say so."

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:44 PM

Having trouble admitting it? This is like when you catch a little kid in a lie and he just keeps lying to cover up the original lie.:lmao :lmao :lmao

I stand by my original statement as a ridiculous response to a ridiculous thread.

You are a superdouche for taking it all so seriously.

You really like evil, don't you?

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:45 PM

I think a better summary of the article is:

"America was founded as a religious nation because I say so."I thought it was "Americans should be American."

http://www.bartcop.com/mission-accomplished.jpg

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 04:47 PM

:lmao :lmao :lmao

I stand by my original statement as a ridiculous response to a ridiculous thread.

You are a superdouche for taking it all so seriously.

You really like evil, don't you?

Bad news chief, inflection doesn't come across well via an internet chat board. When you type something stupid then it comes off as stupid, not sarcastic.

Having said that, I don't think you were joking, I think that's really what you got out of the article and it directly reflects your ability, or lack thereof, to comprehend what you read.

Or maybe you are now so far "left" that anything written that is slightly "right", you just immediately dismiss it.

You are no better then Boutons.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 04:53 PM

Bad news chief, inflection doesn't come across well via an internet chat board.Hence the :lol emoticon.
Having said that, I don't think you were jokingThink whatever you want. You're wrong.
Or maybe you are now so far "left" that anything written that is slightly "right", you just immediately dismiss it.I immediately dismiss anything Crookshanks posts because there is usually nothing to them. Just like this thread.
You are no better then Boutons.Oh fucking whaaa. Stop your whining, superdouche.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 05:00 PM

Hence the :lol emoticon.First of all, you use the emoticon thing on 99% of your posts, so that's out.
Think whatever you want. You're wrong.Second, no, I'm right and you hate admitting it.
I immediately dismiss anything Crookshanks posts because there is usually nothing to them. Just like this thread.Third, so you did just dismiss the article and didn't read it well enough to come up with a valid point, therefore reinforcing my second point.

Oh fucking whaaa. Stop your whining, superdouche.Fourth, "Stop your whining, superdouche".............good one :rolleyes

See, that's how you properly use an emoticon.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:01 PM

:lmao

Nah, I read the article.

And you're wrong.

And a superdouche.

:rolleyes

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 05:04 PM

:lmao

Nah, I read the article.

And you're wrong.

And a superdouche.

:rolleyes

I'm telling you, this is exactly like trying to argue with my 4 year old nephew.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:07 PM

Your nephew thinks you are a superdouche too.

:elephant

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 05:12 PM

Your nephew thinks you are a superdouche too.

:elephant

You were wrong and you didn't want to admit it so you resorted to name calling. It's obvious you didn't have an answer to my original question so you played the "I was only kidding" card.

Clearly you are having an off day as usually you would have come up with an actual argument to defend your stance, but as I pointed out, your original stance was so off base that the best you could come up with is the joking thing.

Ehhh, I'm done with you for now.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:13 PM

:lmao again.

You are complete idiot for trying to find a serious point in all this. Clearly you are too tightly wound to even function at this time.

So long, superdouche.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:23 PM

Really neocons, is this the best you can come up with? "America was founded by Christians"? What's next -- "Terraists are bad"? "The sky is blue"?

Ever since you got your asses handed to you in the elections, you've been incredibly weak in your posting. I'm going to start finding right-wing talking points and post them for you.

You're welcome.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 05:24 PM

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:32 PM

Nah, I had already read it, superdouche. :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

It just reminded me how shitty neocon posting has been.

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Nah, I had already read it, superdouche. :rolleyes :rolleyes

Of course you had :rolleyes

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Yes, I had. :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

johnsmith

01-03-2007, 05:37 PM

Yes, I had. :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

Can we be done with this now?

Good talk.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:39 PM

Sure. :rolleyes

smeagol

01-03-2007, 05:39 PM

chump, you are coming off pretty stupid on this one.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:40 PM

Yes I am.

Crookshanks

01-03-2007, 05:52 PM

Chump - why must you be so dismissive of the threads I start. I'm not like Dan, who starts 15 threads a day - most of them from far-left kooks. I very rarely start new threads, and then only if I've read something that I think has merit and could start a good discussion. I read lots of stuff that I personally believe, but KNOW would be inflammatory on this board; and I don't post those articles or editorials.

I guess Chumpdumper is a fitting name for you!

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 05:57 PM

So what exactly is the point of the thread?

Be American?

I'm already there.

BTW, why be a coward and fear posting things others may not like?

That's unamerican.

Spurminator

01-03-2007, 05:58 PM

I read lots of stuff that I personally believe, but KNOW would be inflammatory on this board; and I don't post those articles or editorials.

Maybe you should.

Ocotillo

01-03-2007, 06:03 PM

Well, it's hard to argue with such a well-sourced column from a writer as reputable as this one.

:lol :lol

this is from the clown who is in an uproar because Rep-elect Keith Ellison wants to use the Koran in a private swearing in ceremony. Now it has come out the Koran Ellison will be using was donated to the Library of Congress. It's original owner? Thomas Jefferson.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 06:07 PM

It's original owner? Thomas Jefferson.So our nation was founded by terrorists.

Crookshanks

01-03-2007, 06:12 PM

So what exactly is the point of the thread?

I think the first sentence sums it up pretty good. Rather than taking history and discussing it and why it was relevant at that particular time; our institutions of higher learning are doing their best to re-write history to reflect their views.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 06:14 PM

boutons_

01-03-2007, 06:43 PM

Damn, this is one fucking stupid, confused bunch words.

"Are we a Judeo-Christian country'

Jews founded the USA? Jews wrote the Dec of Indep? Federalist Papers? the Constitution?

Jewish sacred texts are "central" to the USA?

Figures that Crooky would drag such hare-brained junk thinking it was "very well written"

:lol

"we are all in big trouble" Whoa, I'm so scared.

"Just ask the Jews of secular Europe"

... playing the "secular" US-becoming-Nazi card, huh? What a stinking pile of shit.

It was Crooky's Christian Germany/Austria/France/Italy that persecuted and exterminated the Jews, and a Christian Pope who looked the other way.

PixelPusher

01-03-2007, 06:46 PM

I think the first sentence sums it up pretty good. Rather than taking history and discussing it and why it was relevant at that particular time; our institutions of higher learning are doing their best to re-write history to reflect their views.
"re-writing history" is a more apt description for those who contend that any Founding Father who used the word "God" in any spoken or written political rhetoric is automatically ordained a "deeply religious and devout Christian".

PixelPusher

01-03-2007, 06:49 PM

Contrary to what you learned at college, America from its inception has been a religious country, True.

and was designed to be one. False (see 1st Admendment to the Constitution)

boutons_

01-03-2007, 06:54 PM

"religious country,"

This is really unfair asking you people to be precise and define your terms, but WTF is a "religious country" ?

PixelPusher

01-03-2007, 07:14 PM

:lol :lol

this is from the clown who is in an uproar because Rep-elect Keith Ellison wants to use the Koran in a private swearing in ceremony. Now it has come out the Koran Ellison will be using was donated to the Library of Congress. It's original owner? Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran? Put that islamofascist sympathizer on the no-fly list!

boutons_

01-03-2007, 07:16 PM

January 3, 2007

Congressman to Be Sworn in Using Quran

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:51 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, will use a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson during his ceremonial swearing-in Thursday.

The chief of the Library of Congress' rare book and special collections division, Mark Dimunation, will walk the Quran across the street to the Capitol and then walk it back after the ceremony.

Ellison, D-Minn., contacted the library about the book last month, Dimunation said.

Some critics have argued that only a Bible should be used for the swearing-in. Last month, Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., warned that unless immigration is tightened, ''many more Muslims'' will be elected and follow Ellison's lead. Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.

( dammit, America is full of religious dumbshits and rabble rousers )

Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert said the new congressman ''wants this to be a special day, and using Thomas Jefferson's Quran makes it even more special.''

''Jefferson's Quran dates religious tolerance to the founders of our country,'' he added.

( religious tolerance and liberal open-mindedness is totally foreign to the Bible-thumpers. It's their sect, or you're going to Hell )

An English translation of the Arabic, it was published in 1764 in London, a later printing of one originally published in 1734.

''This is considered the text that shaped Europe's understanding of the Quran,'' Dimunation said.

It was acquired in 1815 as part of a 6,400-volume collection that Jefferson sold for $24,000, to replace the congressional library that had been burned by British troops the year before, in the War of 1812.

''It was a real bargain,'' Dimunation said.

=============

The USA is now on the path to becoming secular/Nazi and into (Christian) hell now.

The problem for the Bible-thumpers with Ellison is not that he's religious, but that he's not in their narrow-minded, approved flavor of religion.

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 07:23 PM

Looks like some Judeo-Christians are less equal than others:

Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure (see crosstabs). Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/MormanMittRomney.htm

Whatever.

PixelPusher

01-03-2007, 07:27 PM

exstatic

01-03-2007, 07:52 PM

I'm wondering if Mitt Romney will use some famous personality's Book Of Mormon to swear in if he wins...

ChumpDumper

01-03-2007, 07:56 PM

Steve Young's?

What's hilarious is that Mit is the only Republican cadidate-to-be that could really be acceptable to the bible thumpers.

gtownspur

01-03-2007, 08:57 PM

Steve Young's?

What's hilarious is that Mit is the only Republican cadidate-to-be that could really be acceptable to the bible thumpers.

You're a dumbass.

How did you arrive to such assinine conclusion.

exstatic

01-03-2007, 09:11 PM

You're a dumbass.

How did you arrive to such assinine conclusion.
He looked at the major competitors: Rudy Guiliani and McCain. Neither is well loved by the Right, although Rudy did marry a cousin.

Ocotillo

01-03-2007, 10:02 PM

although Rudy did marry a cousin.

Thus locking up the Alabama vote.

Ocotillo

01-03-2007, 10:04 PM

I'm wondering if Mitt Romney will use some famous personality's Book Of Mormon to swear in if he wins...

At some point during the upcoming campaign, preferably in a televised debate, some reporter has to ask him the question, "Will you be taking the oath of office with your hand on the Book of Mormon should you win?"

exstatic

01-03-2007, 10:05 PM

Thus locking up the Alabama vote.
Yeah, but he's a Mackerel Snapper and has liberal social positions, so their little heads will probably explode.

Ocotillo

01-03-2007, 10:12 PM

On a more serious note, the three leading GOPers at this time, none are southerners. That is a big deal because in the last election the party became even more regionalized as a southern party. Huckabee is suppose to make a run but he has some "liberal" baggage as well and Sam Brownback is the "cultural" candidate.

I think the GOP race is wide open and none of the "big three" are going to make the final cut.......

gtownspur

01-03-2007, 10:12 PM

Thus locking up the Alabama vote.

eXCEPT it's arkansas that condones such practices.

Ocotillo

01-03-2007, 10:15 PM

And I would not be suprised if McCain in a fit of pique should he fall short of the GOP nomination, grabs Lieberman and they both run as indies. Thing is, they are two of very few elected officials who are calling for troop increases in Iraq. Oh yeah, the decider has decided on that too which is about as popular as calling for tsunamis in Hawaii.

exstatic

01-03-2007, 11:19 PM

eXCEPT it's arkansas that condones such practices.
Georgia allows it, too.

velik_m

01-04-2007, 05:20 AM

Once again Chump, you are one. They are converting churches in Europe to apartments and selling them because no one supports them anymore.
Is that what you want over here?

apparently the idea is american.

http://www.therealdeal.net/issues/JANUARY_2007/1167682917.php
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn022206b.htm
http://www.ci.junction-city.or.us/planning/minutes.jul25.html

Never heard of this before, though.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:06 AM

You're a dumbass.

How did you arrive to such assinine conclusion.:lmao

You tell me which presumptive Republican candidate's social views most closely match those of the religious right.

gtownspur

01-04-2007, 12:04 PM

:lmao

You tell me which presumptive Republican candidate's social views most closely match those of the religious right.

except Mitt Romney's only strong suppiort comes from Mormons if you want to get technical on religous right backing.

smeagol

01-04-2007, 12:20 PM

Extra Stout

01-04-2007, 12:39 PM

I don't think our notions of "religious" and "secular" in this debate really apply to the mindset of the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. They weren't concerned about the emasculation of religion in society; rather, they were concerned about state-enforced sectarianism. The prevailing principle was freedom of conscience in matters of faith.

boutons_

01-04-2007, 01:37 PM

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 01:40 PM

except Mitt Romney's only strong suppiort comes from Mormons if you want to get technical on religous right backing.No shit, idiot. Thanks for repeating my point. Now answer my question.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 01:41 PM

Are Mormons Christians?

I don't think they are.:lol

At the risk of starting a whole new thing here, tell me why.

Extra Stout

01-04-2007, 02:17 PM

:lol

At the risk of starting a whole new thing here, tell me why.
As a general rule, and not a canonical one, I treat a belief system as Christian if it adheres to the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.

LDS rejects the Nicene creed.

Oh, Gee!!

01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

Georgia allows it, too.

and Texas

Extra Stout

01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

and Texas
In Texas, it is on a county-by-county basis.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 02:36 PM

As a general rule, and not a canonical one, I treat a belief system as Christian if it adheres to the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.

LDS rejects the Nicene creed.Who makes these general rules?

johnsmith

01-04-2007, 02:43 PM

Who makes these general rules?

Read his quote again:

As a general rule, and not a canonical one, I treat a belief system as Christian if it adheres to the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.

LDS rejects the Nicene creed.

Good God you're not good with reading comprehension. That's twice in one thread.

Oh, Gee!!

01-04-2007, 02:49 PM

In Texas, it is on a county-by-county basis.

pretty much every county east of the Brazos

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 02:53 PM

Read his quote again: It was a rhetorical question, superdouche.

You have a serious problem.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 02:57 PM

And would you bible scholars vote for a mormon for president?

clambake

01-04-2007, 03:03 PM

Or would you vote for anyone who pretends to be religious?

johnsmith

01-04-2007, 03:06 PM

It was a rhetorical question, superdouche.

You have a serious problem.

First of all, superdouche is about the gayest insult I've ever heard.

Second, rhetorical questions by definition are used to produce an effect rather than elicit a reply. So why would you ask a rhetorical question on an internet chatboard dedicated to healthy debate when no reply merits an answer to said rhetorical question?

clambake

01-04-2007, 03:11 PM

When he said general rules, I was inclined to believe it was a reference written in some tucked away scripture that can be interpreted to mean anything the user wishes.

boutons_

01-04-2007, 03:29 PM

religion is not a prerequisite for anything.

I'd much rather have an atheist/agnostic as President who was a competent, serious, honest person than a dumbfuck "born again" "Christian" with the wasted blood of 3000+ US military on his hands.

xrayzebra

01-04-2007, 04:54 PM

"state-enforced sectarianism"

The US Constitution separation of church and state was a reaction to the suffocating, all-powerful, pervasive, above-the-law amalgam of King + Church, in England and France.

The Bible-thumpers and evangelicals, along with all their laundry lists of willful ignorances, have a pernicious agenda to force their religious sect, Christianity, as the official US religion.

Well boutons once again you and a bunch of
others never really read the constitution. It says
simply they government shall establish no religion. That doesn't mean separation of church
and state.

I was struck today when Ms. Pelosi was sworn
in as speaker. Did anyone read what was
written above here. "In God We Trust".

The founders meant what they said. No religion
was to be taken over any other. But they did
believe in God and religion, just not a state
sponsored religion. You know like a Baptist
or whatever.

Christianity is not a religion. It is a belief!

Spurminator

01-04-2007, 05:30 PM

It's a religion.

Extra Stout

01-04-2007, 05:45 PM

When he said general rules, I was inclined to believe it was a reference written in some tucked away scripture that can be interpreted to mean anything the user wishes.
No. It is not written anywhere. When I said it was a "general" rule, and not "canonical," that means it is not written down in Christian canon anywhere, but that I generally use it, since those creeds summarize core Christian beliefs rather succinctly. I don't claim that litmus test to be infallible, but rather just useful.

It is a much handier to reference the creeds than to explain that since Mormons believe:
1) God is a created being of flesh and bone;
2) Jesus is his actual physical son that was conceived when he, God, slept with Mary;
3) God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three separate people who take turns holding the office of the Godhead;
4) God was a faithful Mormon man on some other planet, and received as reward dominion as god over this planet, Earth;
5) Faithful Mormons become gods over their own planets when they die;
6) Mormons are supposed to populate their planets with spirit children;
7) God is married to his goddess wife;
8) We are spirit children of God the Father conceived through his wife;
9) There are three levels of heaven;
10) Jesus and Satan are brothers;
11) God decided men needed salvation, so Jesus and Satan developed competing salvation plans, and God picked Jesus';

that the differences between LDS doctrine and orthodox Christianity are at least an order of magnitude greater than what is disputed among the orthdox Christian sects, so much so that it becomes a separate religion.

Extra Stout

01-04-2007, 05:48 PM

And would you bible scholars vote for a mormon for president?
Yes, because I value what a prospective candidate would do, not what his religion is.

Crookshanks

01-04-2007, 06:12 PM

I have some reservations about voting for a Mormon because I believe they are a cult. However, a devout mormon would be preferable to a socialist/liberal candidate because at least a devout mormon is conservative in their beliefs.

Spurminator

01-04-2007, 06:15 PM

:wtf

Wait, are you differentiating "devout" Mormons from the Mormons you consider a part of a cult?

Crookshanks

01-04-2007, 06:19 PM

:wtf

Wait, are you differentiating "devout" Mormons from the Mormons you consider a part of a cult?

No, I consider all Mormons as part of a cult. However, devout Mormons (as opposed to those who are Mormons in name only) are governed by a strict set of rules - and those rules tend to be conservative in nature.

Spurminator

01-04-2007, 06:20 PM

So you'd rather vote for a cultist than a Liberal?

Spurminator

01-04-2007, 06:21 PM

You know, Klansmen often have pretty conservative beliefs too...

Is this what you were talking about when you said you read some things that you wouldn't post here because they were inflammatory?

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:23 PM

First of all, superdouche is about the gayest insult I've ever heard.Then it fits you.
Second, rhetorical questions by definition are used to produce an effect rather than elicit a reply. So why would you ask a rhetorical question on an internet chatboard dedicated to healthy debate when no reply merits an answer to said rhetorical question?To produce an effect, superdouche. Way to answer your own question.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:25 PM

I have some reservations about voting for a Mormon because I believe they are a cult.What specifically would you be afraid of.

Crookshanks

01-04-2007, 06:25 PM

Is this what you were talking about when you said you read some things that you wouldn't post here because they were inflammatory?

That I agree with the teachings of the KKK - NO! That I think the Mormon church is a cult - yep!

clambake

01-04-2007, 06:37 PM

How is it a cult moreso than any other? It is an organized religionbased business=cult.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:38 PM

They wear funny underpants.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:39 PM

No, I consider all Mormons as part of a cult. However, devout Mormons (as opposed to those who are Mormons in name only) are governed by a strict set of rules - and those rules tend to be conservative in nature.So the more devout a cult member is in his/her cult beliefs, the more attractive that cult member is to you as a presidential candidate.

clambake

01-04-2007, 06:44 PM

All she cares about is a conservative pres.

Forget that america spoke in november when it said "Hey Bush, You Suck!!!"

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:46 PM

clambake

01-04-2007, 06:49 PM

Too much footage from 20/20 and Dateline. They only like the mormon vote.

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 06:51 PM

All I know is if I had a casino, I would definitely have them run it.

clambake

01-04-2007, 06:54 PM

no shit

exstatic

01-04-2007, 08:12 PM

Well that's what I thought most religious conservatives would conclude, but the obvious anti-mormon bias shown in the polls and on this board makes me wonder of what they are so afraid concerning mormons.
That there won't be enough bedrooms in the WH for all the kids?

As for Romney, how do you know WTF he's going to do? His social positions have been all over the map, parroting towards the conservative NOW, since it appears to be somewhat in fashion. His remarks during the '94 Senate race show that he is willing to completely change his position on a dime to curry favor and earn political capital. Desperate fools like Crooky will believe him, though, and vote for a "cultist" who's basically lying and telling them what they want to hear.

Romney the flip flopper (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/12/08/romneys_94_remarks_on_same_sex_marriage_could_haun t_him/)

ChumpDumper

01-04-2007, 08:29 PM

I certainly agree that Mit chnged his views, most likely to make himself more attractive to religious conservatives. Did you see John McCain on Hardball doing backflips to make his stance on gay marriage more in line with the religious right when his handlers told him to during a commercial break?

Spurminator

01-04-2007, 08:45 PM

So you'd rather vote for a cultist than a Liberal?

exstatic

01-04-2007, 10:05 PM

smeagol

01-05-2007, 02:26 PM

:lol

At the risk of starting a whole new thing here, tell me why.
Because of the differences between what they belive and what Orthodox Christians believe.

ES summarized it well.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 04:37 PM

Because of the differences between what they belive and what Orthodox Christians believe.

ES summarized it well.So they aren't Orthodox Christians.

Are they going to hell for rejecting the Nicene Creed?

Crookshanks

01-05-2007, 04:48 PM

So they aren't Orthodox Christians.

Are they going to hell for rejecting the Nicene Creed?
No, they're going to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 04:53 PM

No, they're going to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.Do they reject Jesus?

Are all the Jews going to hell too, Crooky?

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 04:55 PM

Do they reject Jesus?

Are all the Jews going to hell too, Crooky?

Come on, quit questioning people's faith in what they choose to believe. That's not fair to anyone.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 04:58 PM

Come on, quit questioning people's faith in what they choose to believe. That's not fair to anyone.How is asking what someone believes not fair?

Crooks believes Mormons are going to hell because she thinks they reject Jesus as their savior.

Jews reject Jesus as their savior, so it's a completely fair question.

If someone is afraid to talk about their beliefs on the internets, I can respect that fear. All they have to say is they are afraid to answer my questions.

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 05:00 PM

How is asking what someone believes not fair?

Crooks believes Mormons are going to hell because she thinks they reject Jesus as their savior.

Jews reject Jesus as their savior, so it's a completely fair question.

If someone is afraid to talk about their beliefs on the internets, I can respect that fear. All they have to say is they are afraid to answer my questions.

Yeah, but you know the answer to the question. Are you only asking it so that the "non-religious" folks who post here (Boutons) can immediately lay into the Crooks?

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 05:02 PM

Then again, who am I to stick up for someone else on the internet, it would sort of be hypocritical of me..............ask away.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 05:03 PM

No, I just really want to know. Given the religious right's affinity for Israel, it would be interesting to know where they think all the Israelis are going to spend their afterlives.

Why be afraid to express your beliefs on an anonymous message board?

PixelPusher

01-05-2007, 05:07 PM

No, they're going to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, rejects Jesus.

um...ok.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 05:14 PM

PixelPusher

01-05-2007, 05:17 PM

Folks who through no fault of their own have never heard of Jesus?

Spiritual Darwinism

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 05:18 PM

Really, the mormons have some wacky beliefs (and underpants), but they are pretty high on the J-man--not orthodox-ly, though.

I would ask those others who don't count them as Christians the same question:

Are the mormons going to hell for not agreeing with the Nicene Creed?

Are Jews going to hell for rejecting Jesus as their savior?

Muslims?

Buddists?

Hindus?

Folks who through no fault of their own have never heard of Jesus?

I asked that very question to my Catholic Priest about a year ago. His view was that for those people that aren't Christian, they get the opportunity after their death for one last shot as accepting Jesus Christ as their savior and express their feelings about the one true God. If they do this, then they're in the clear.

I don't know if it was his view or that of the entire Catholic church, but that's what he told me.

By the way, I'm a very skeptical and inquisitive type of Catholic.

smeagol

01-05-2007, 05:20 PM

So they aren't Orthodox Christians.

I don’t believe they are Christians given the differences in belief systems.

Are they going to hell for rejecting the Nicene Creed?

Only God knows who goes to Hell.

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 05:21 PM

By the way, the Catholic Priest I talked too explained it a lot better then I did, but that's pretty much what I got out of it.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 05:28 PM

I don’t believe they are Christians given the differences in belief systems.What would they have to change for you to accept them as Christians?
Only God knows who goes to Hell.That certainly seems like a cop out to me considering that the orthodox seem to have pretty clear requirements for getting into heaven.

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 05:32 PM

Man this guy cracks me up.

Anti-Christian Bigots
Jan. 11, 2005

Ok, I have seriously had ENOUGH of this fucking bullshit from you mother fucking hypocrites! I can't go anywhere online anymore without having to deal with crap about my religious beliefs. What the FUCK ever happened to the First Amendment? Huh! You assholes seem to think it's there to protect YOU and only YOU! Well go fuck yourselves, it's NOT! Guess what, it's there to protect everyone from religious persecution - EVERY-FUCKING-ONE!

Religious persecution? What am I talking about? I'm talking about how every smart-ass Atheist, Agnostic, or Pagan online thinks it's their fucking mission in life to insult, belittle, and degrade the Christian religion. You don't believe in a damn thing? Fine! Fuck you and have at it! Do you think any of us give a rat's ass what you do or don't believe in? What, you think it BOTHERS us that you don't believe in God? I could really fucking care less! You don't have faith in anything beyond what your senses tell you, that's YOUR problem, not mine! Keep it to yourself, fucktard!

You assholes run around whining about "The Christians do this, the Christians do that, the Christians, the Christians, the Christians, it's all their fault, I hate the Christians, blah blah blah blah blah!" Newsflash: Every bad thing in the fucking world is NOT our fault!

Yes, Christians started wars in Christ's name - like 500 fucking years ago, idiot! Isn't it about time you got over that? We're not running around killing "non-believers" anymore, so why are you still bitching about something that happened back then? You know what? I don't fucking care! That's right, I don't give a rat's ass if my great-great (x10) Grandfather was the fucking pope and had your great-great (x10) Grandfather thrown to the fucking Lions. I really don't give a fuck - now shut up about it, you dull-witted cunt!

Yes, a lot of Christians do have a really bad habit of shoving their beliefs down other people's throats and looking down on those who don't accept Christ. So, what, you figured you'd fight fire with fire? Did you think it would somehow make you feel better to do EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING THING to Christians? Well I hope it helped boost your pathetic little ego, cuz it's over now. It's bigotry, it's religious intolerance and "The Christians started it" is NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE for you to do it! Galen ain't havin' this shit ANYMORE you cocksucking fucks!

Here's how it's gonna work. From now on, you insult my religion in even the smallest way, I'm going to magically transform into the most intolerant fucking asshole you've ever met and make it my goal for the next few minutes afterward to put down everything you hold dear. Yeah, the Christians started it, then you picked it up and turned it into your own personal Anti-Jesus pissing match, now I'm jumping in the game. That's right asshole, Lord Galen is sinking right the fuck down to your level and you're gonna wish like hell you'd never pulled me down there!

Now, here's a tiny preview. Don't bother responding, your opinion doesn't matter, dickhead.

Atheists: Shut your fucking pie-holes. Just because you don't have the mental capacity to reach beyond what your five senses tell you, that is not our problem. Pick up a 3rd grade science book asshole and you might discover that the universe if FILLED with shit that we can't explain or even prove. But I guess that doesn't mean a damn thing to you, right? And here's a lesson in what that word "Atheism" means - it means a lack of ANY religious belief whatsoever. It does NOT mean "anti-religion" it means NO fucking religion whatsoever! By being an anti-Christian prick, you've just picked a side and by the very definition of the word, Atheists aren't supposed to even believe in there BEING a side to pick!

Pagans: Y'know, I share a whole lot of Pagan beliefs myself, so I really hate to say this, but I'm sick of you assholes too! You sit around believing in 50 different fucking gods and goddesses and then call us a "baby religion" because we fucking picked ONE and stuck with it??? Bite me hard, shitsacks!

Jews: What's the fucking deal with you? People insult us and you just sit back and don't say a DAMN word about it! Hey, genius, we believe in the SAME God! There picking on your Jehovah too, dipshit! The least you could fucking do is stick up for us instead of sitting back on your hands while the religion that's closest to your own gets sniped by assholes! I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I've always felt a kinship with the Jewish people. Jesus was a Jew, his Apostles and Disciples were all Jews, the first Christian church was founded by JEWS! So, sorry if I feel like maybe the Jewish community should be doing a little more than...um, nothing.

If you leave this rant feeling like I'm an intolerant bastard, GOOD! That's how you're supposed to feel! That's pretty much how I feel about each and every one of you right now, so I hope it feels nice getting a taste of your own fucking medicine you assholes!

For the record, no, I don't have anything against anyone for believing differently than I do. I respect it and even encourage it. Variety is the spice of life and all that. I'm not intolerant or bigoted about people and their beliefs, but I can damn sure ACT like I am and from now on I intend to make it a point to do exactly that! I'm sick and damn tired of putting up with you anti-Christian assholes and your fucking BIGOTRY against my people! You take any opportunity you can to make some snide little remark about us or to belittle us in some way. Oh sure, most of you won't come right out and insult us because you're fucking pussies; you'd rather hide behind your sublty-worded inuendos and subliminal mind-fuck retard games. Enough of it. I ain't havin' this shit anymore and any of you who think you've got the fucking balls to go a round or two with me, you just bring it on!

Actually, don't. It would be a whole lot better (for you) if you just shut your fucking mouth and take this as a learning experience. Hopefully you got the message:

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSULT, BELITTLE, OR DEGARDE MY BELIEFS - NO MATTER WHAT!

This is the last time I'm speaking about this. The next thing you hear on this subject from me is going to be me insulting everything you hold dear - just like you assholes constantly do to my people! This IS it! You're not better or smarter or more "open minded" than Christians. You're not entitled to look down your noses at us just because you think we do it to you. Two rights don't make a wrong.

There are plenty of problems with mainstream Conservative Christians. You wanna talk about those problems, fine. You wanna insult ALL of us because you hate the bigoted among us, that's not fine and that makes you just as bad as the people you claim to hate so much.

Spurminator

01-05-2007, 05:35 PM

That certainly seems like a cop out to me considering that the orthodox seem to have pretty clear requirements for getting into heaven.

It may seem like a cop-out, but it's a Scriptural cop-out.

Frankly, too many Christians obsess over who is going to hell and who is not. It's not our place to decide. All we can do is follow Scripture as closely as possible and encourage others to do the same. Those who presume to know who is saved and who is damned are also in violation of Scripture.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 05:37 PM

Then people who profess to being saved themselves are in violation of scripture?

Spurminator

01-05-2007, 05:40 PM

You're right, I should have just said damned. I believe the Scripture does lay out specific guidelines for salvation. That said, I do not believe it necessarily limits salvation to those guidelines.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 05:40 PM

Fair enough.

johnsmith

01-05-2007, 05:42 PM

I immediately dismiss anything Crookshanks posts because there is usually nothing to them. Just like this thread.

Wow, you sure have found a lot to talk about in this thread that has nothing to it.

ChumpDumper

01-05-2007, 05:44 PM

Lemonade.

jochhejaam

01-05-2007, 07:02 PM

You're right, I should have just said damned. I believe the Scripture does lay out specific guidelines for salvation. That said, I do not believe it necessarily limits salvation to those guidelines.
What is it that allows for your unbelief that salvation is attained by some means other than how the Scriptures states that it's obtained? Specifics would be great...or is it just a hunch?

I think the Bible's crystal clear regarding salvation. Hell is for those that choose to reject Jesus Christ, God's sacrificial Lamb, as being the Messiah who was sent to take away the sins of the World.
Not all Jews reject this message, but for those (doesn't have to be a Jew)
that do? Well, tragically, sadly, Hell awaits. I'd be quite interested if there is informaton out there that contradicts this. Let me know.

It's a copout and dangerous for people to water down the Gospel in an attempt to make Heaven all inclusive or more inclusive than what the Scripture allows.
It is what it is, and all are free to accept or reject it...as it is.

-Amen-

Spurminator

01-05-2007, 07:11 PM

There's nothing watered down about it. If you truly want Salvation, you're going to do your best to follow the Scripture. You're not going to try to half-ass it.

That said, God is all powerful. He can save whoever He wants, and it's not on US to predict who is going to hell.

"Judge not."

Crookshanks

01-05-2007, 07:51 PM

We're not judging - we're simply following what God said in the bible. He is very clear on what it takes to be saved and what the consequences are for those who choose to do otherwise.

"For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me." John 14:6

"And it is appointed unto man once to die, and after this the judgement." Hebrews 9:27

Does this sound as if there is any room for equivocation? There is NO way to heaven, except through Jesus Christ - so the answer to the question of who goes to hell?

Everyone who rejects Jesus - that includes people who practice other faiths such as Hindu, Buddhism and others.

jochhejaam

01-05-2007, 08:12 PM

[QUOTE=Spurminator]There's nothing watered down about it.

You stated that, "I believe the Scripture does lay out specific guidelines for salvation. That said, I do not believe it necessarily limits salvation to those guidelines".

I responded with, "What is it that allows for your unbelief that salvation is attained by some means other than how the Scriptures states that it's obtained"?

And your response to this is???

If you truly want Salvation, you're going to do your best to follow the Scripture. You're not going to try to half-ass it.
That said, God is all powerful. He can save whoever He wants, and it's not on US to predict who is going to hell."Judge not."
Okay...and is any of this supposed to be in response to something I said?
If so, and I know it's difficult for you, but in lieu of detached rambling, please provide specifics.
Thanks.

smeagol

01-05-2007, 08:18 PM

What would they have to change for you to accept them as Christians?

Aboandom their belief that the Book of Mormon is as important as the Bible.

That certainly seems like a cop out to me considering that the orthodox seem to have pretty clear requirements for getting into heaven.

It's not.

smeagol

01-05-2007, 08:22 PM

No human being knows who is saved and who is not saved.

Calvinism or Determinism is not what Christianity is about.

PixelPusher

01-05-2007, 09:43 PM

Does this sound as if there is any room for equivocation? There is NO way to heaven, except through Jesus Christ - so the answer to the question of who goes to hell?

Everyone who rejects Jesus - that includes people who practice other faiths such as Hindu, Buddhism and others.
And so millions of souls are damned to burn in hell by default; simply for being born on the wrong continent or in the wrong century.

Your God cares more about club membership than how people live their lives.

Spurminator

01-05-2007, 10:57 PM

Spurminator

01-05-2007, 11:03 PM

Okay...and is any of this supposed to be in response to something I said?

Yes. Yes it was.

Maybe you'd care to read it again.

Spurminator

01-05-2007, 11:05 PM

Joch and Crookshanks, do you believe Baptism is necessary for Salvation?

Crookshanks

01-06-2007, 01:01 AM

Joch and Crookshanks, do you believe Baptism is necessary for Salvation?
No I don't. I believe that just accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is what saves you. I believe that baptism is an outward sign of your salvation and is done as a sign of obedience. That's why I also believe that infant baptism does nothing more than get the baby's head wet!

Guru of Nothing

01-06-2007, 01:09 AM

No I don't. I believe that just accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is what saves you. I believe that baptism is an outward sign of your salvation and is done as a sign of obedience. That's why I also believe that infant baptism does nothing more than get the baby's head wet!

As does obedience.

Spurminator

01-06-2007, 01:55 AM

No I don't. I believe that just accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is what saves you.

But Acts 2:38 seems to state that being Baptized in the name of Christ cleanses you of sin.

Before we get really off course, let me say I agree with you here. But this is an example of the kinds of conflicts that arise when Christians presume to know who is going to hell. The church I grew up in believed Baptism was essential for entrance into Heaven. They believed members of churches who did not get baptized, or sprinkled water, were not true Christians. They used the letters of Paul as guidance for how worship was to be performed... No woman leaders, no instrumental music...

What does this have to do with the Scriptures you quoted? Well, you are defining "through Christ" by your set of rules. The Mormons believe in Christ. They ask his forgiveness for their sins just as you do. How can you know for sure, based on Scripture, that they are condemned?

Some Christians believe Catholics are damned. Some believe Methodists and Lutherans are damned... Some Church of Christ leaders believe half of the Churches of Christ in the country have veered away from Scripture to the point that THEY are damned.

It's a cluster. All because those Christians are so obsessed with deciding who's going to hell instead of ministering to people on the glory of Heaven. Do they condemn others because they are concerned for their souls? No. They condemn them in order to congratulate themselves for being God's Chosen. And I get the feeling that, if they had a choice, they would keep the list as exclusive as possible.

Guru of Nothing

01-06-2007, 02:33 AM

But Acts 2:38 seems to state that being Baptized in the name of Christ cleanses you of sin.

Before we get really off course, let me say I agree with you here. But this is an example of the kinds of conflicts that arise when Christians presume to know who is going to hell. The church I grew up in believed Baptism was essential for entrance into Heaven. They believed members of churches who did not get baptized, or sprinkled water, were not true Christians. They used the letters of Paul as guidance for how worship was to be performed... No woman leaders, no instrumental music...

What does this have to do with the Scriptures you quoted? Well, you are defining "through Christ" by your set of rules. The Mormons believe in Christ. They ask his forgiveness for their sins just as you do. How can you know for sure, based on Scripture, that they are condemned?

Some Christians believe Catholics are damned. Some believe Methodists and Lutherans are damned... Some Church of Christ leaders believe half of the Churches of Christ in the country have veered away from Scripture to the point that THEY are damned.

It's a cluster. All because those Christians are so obsessed with deciding who's going to hell instead of ministering to people on the glory of Heaven. Do they condemn others because they are concerned for their souls? No. They condemn them in order to congratulate themselves for being God's Chosen. And I get the feeling that, if they had a choice, they would keep the list as exclusive as possible.

Positively! ....4th Street.

ChumpDumper

01-06-2007, 02:36 AM

Everyone who rejects Jesus - that includes people who practice other faiths such as Hindu, Buddhism and others.Including Jews?

All going to hell?

jochhejaam

01-06-2007, 07:15 AM

Yes. Yes it was.

Maybe you'd care to read it again.

As I figured, nothing. Way to break it down.
And it doesn't merit another read.

jochhejaam

01-06-2007, 07:35 AM

If you hadn't already noticed, my modus operandi is that if I'm pinned down and can't defend what I've stated I just move on to another subject. So here goes...Joch and Crookshanks, do you believe Baptism is necessary for Salvation?

Couldn't help but notice.

Okay Boutons and Spurminator, here's your answer.
Since you weren't specific I'll assume you're referring to Water Baptism (and please don't ask "is there any other kind").

No. Water baptism is an important symbolic way of publicly stating that you have received salvation.

There are numerous "death bed" confessions where salvation is received before passing on and in this case water baptism isn't a possibility.

smeagol

01-06-2007, 09:08 AM

You keep dwelling on the point when the answer is pretty easy: Only God knows who is saved.

People on Earth can only try to follow as closely as possible what God has taught us is the path to Salvation, but nobody knows who God decides to save at the end of the day.

ChumpDumper

01-06-2007, 02:23 PM

smeagol

01-06-2007, 03:36 PM

I don't buy that. You can judge who is and isn't a Christian based on a summit meeting of bishops, but there isn't enough evidence to tell you who is going to heaven?

Your confidence in one answer doesn't jibe with your complete lack of confidence in the other.

"I know who can be called a Christian but I don't know who is saved."
Being a Christian is defined by following Christs teachings. The Mormons introduced the teachings of John Smith and his Book of Mormon and they have placed it on par with the Bible.

It's fairly simple to see why they are not Christians.

With regards to slavation, though: How can a mere human be certain of who is saved and who is dammed? Nobody knows what's inside a man's heart, only God.

And frankly, no human knows for sure who is saved and who is not: Not the Pope, not the Protestant pastors, not the Orthodox Patriarchs.

But chump: the two issues are completely different.

Spurminator

01-06-2007, 09:44 PM

My reading comprehension is at the level of a third grader. I need every post spelled out for me, "Dummies" style, in order to follow along. That, or I simply claim to not be satisfied with an answer that I don't have a rebuttal for.

ChumpDumper

01-06-2007, 10:39 PM

Being a Christian is defined by following Christs teachings. The Mormons introduced the teachings of John Smith and his Book of Mormon and they have placed it on par with the Bible.But that's all about Jesus too. Just because someone made up some new stories about Jesus, does that invalidate the entire Christianity of the religion?
It's fairly simple to see why they are not Christians.Not really. They believe in Chirst as the savior, do they not? Is the Nicene Creed the real litmus test for you, or are there others?
With regards to slavation, though: How can a mere human be certain of who is saved and who is dammed? Nobody knows what's inside a man's heart, only God.How can a mere human be certain of anything when it comes to religion?

Guru of Nothing

01-07-2007, 02:59 AM

jochhejaam

01-07-2007, 08:31 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: Originally Posted by jochhethejahatheham

My reading comprehension is at the level of a third grader. I need every post spelled out for me, "Dummies" style, in order to follow along. That, or I simply claim to not be satisfied with an answer that I don't have a rebuttal for.

Ad Hominen? That's all you got?
You were manhandled throughout this post because you couldn't substantiate your baseless assertions, and that left you in the position of trying to redeem yourself (in your mind) through Ad Hominen. Well done indeed. :lol

Think things through before you post, and you'll find you may not get caught with your pants down so often.

Spurminator

01-07-2007, 02:56 PM

Ad Hominen? That's all you got?

When in Rome... (And it's spelled "Ad Hominem." Yep, I've also got that.)

You're not interested in contributing thoughts to meaningful discussion, you're too obsessed with how I'm arguing a point instead of the point itself. You lean on semantics and circular reasoning so you can yell "scoreboard" at the end as if this was some kind of contest.

Basically, you've asked me to provide Scriptural, or other, evidence that one can be saved by Christ in some way that is not directly referenced in Scripture. If you don't understand the inherent fallacy in such a demand, I don't see the point in putting much time into a dialogue with you. You might as well ask if God can make a square circle or if I can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The burden is not on me to prove anything because I have made no absolute assertions related to Salvation; all I have done is left the door open for God, in His divine and supreme power, to apply Christ's sacrifice for our sins in any way He sees fit. It's not "watered down" and it's not "dangerous." People who believe this will not be tempted to live in hedonistic sin and "hope for the best" when Judgment comes.

Anyone who wishes to see the Kingdom of Heaven should his life according to Scripture. If not, they risk missing out on Salvation. I assume we agree on this, you just want me to word it in a way that sounds more exclusionary or absolute.

Now here's where you chime to pout about how I either put words into your mouth or did not directly respond to your question. And another jochhejaam-heavy thread moves forward at a complete stand-still.

smeagol

01-07-2007, 03:01 PM

But that's all about Jesus too. Just because someone made up some new stories about Jesus, does that invalidate the entire Christianity of the religion?

When you believe in "new" stories which conflict with what Christianity has been teaching since the Crucifiction, you are not a Christian.

Did you read what ES posted as some of the Mormon's beliefs?:

1) God is a created being of flesh and bone;
2) Jesus is his actual physical son that was conceived when he, God, slept with Mary;
3) God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three separate people who take turns holding the office of the Godhead;
4) God was a faithful Mormon man on some other planet, and received as reward dominion as god over this planet, Earth;
5) Faithful Mormons become gods over their own planets when they die;
6) Mormons are supposed to populate their planets with spirit children;
7) God is married to his goddess wife;
8) We are spirit children of God the Father conceived through his wife;
9) There are three levels of heaven;
10) Jesus and Satan are brothers;
11) God decided men needed salvation, so Jesus and Satan developed competing salvation plans, and God picked Jesus';

Every one of these 11 beliefs contradicts what Christians have believed for 2000 years.

What additional proof do you need?

Not really. They believe in Chirst as the savior, do they not?

If somebody believes Christ is there savior but also believes God lives in Mars and when we die we all get to party in Venus before we are allowed in Heaven, which is located in one of Uranus' moons, I don't think they are Christans either.

How can a mere human be certain of anything when it comes to religion?

I'm certain Mormons, JW, Seven Day Adventists and "Christian" Scientists are not Christians.

ChumpDumper

01-07-2007, 03:07 PM

And yet you allow for the possibility of their being allowed into heaven for their belief in Christ.

How Christian of you.

smeagol

01-07-2007, 03:46 PM

And yet you allow for the possibility of their being allowed into heaven for their belief in Christ.

How Christian of you.
Is there a point somewhere in your comment?

ChumpDumper

01-07-2007, 05:29 PM

Sure. If you missed it, don't worry about it. You're going to heaven.

jochhejaam

01-07-2007, 08:07 PM

[QUOTE=Spurminator]When in Rome... (And it's spelled "Ad Hominem." Yep, I've also got that.)

You're not interested in contributing thoughts to meaningful discussion, you're too obsessed with how I'm arguing a point instead of the point itself. You lean on semantics and circular reasoning so you can yell "scoreboard" at the end as if this was some kind of contest.
You talk about me scoreboarding? Okay, I guess you get 1 point for winning the spelling contest which gives you a grand total of ...1 point. Congratulations...
Care to explain the where my reasoning is circular?
The problem is that you fail to articulate your talking points, and when asked to go into detail you either ignore the question or resort to changing the subject alltogether <---(intentionally misspelled so you can add another point to your scoreboard).

Basically, you've asked me to provide Scriptural, or other, evidence that one can be saved by Christ in some way that is not directly referenced in Scripture.
Nope. You're the one that stated, and I quote, that "I believe the Scripture does lay out specific guidelines for salvation. That said, I do not believe it necessarily limits salvation to those guidelines".

So, you stated that you believe there are other guidelines that lead to salvation yet you offer absolutely nothing in the way of an explanation. Please share the reasoning behind such a brash statement.
Perhaps you have a book in the works titled Spurminator's Additional Guidelines To The Scriptual Guidelines For Salvation ?

The burden is not on me to prove anything because I have made no absolute assertions related to Salvation;
No again. You absolutely asserted (see your above quote) that the Scripture lays out specific guidelines, but that you don't believe salvation is limited to those guidelines. I'm not sure which is worse, watering down the plan of salvation or implying that you believe there are other avenues beyond "God's clearly stated guidelines" without offering a clue as to what those other guidelines might be.

Anyone who wishes to see the Kingdom of Heaven should his life according to Scripture. If not, they risk missing out on Salvation. I assume we agree on this, you just want me to word it in a way that sounds more exclusionary or absolute.
It's tempting to point out that "should his life" doesn't make sense as you did with my spelling error, but I'll take the higher road and refrain from doing so...

And we do agree on you're assertion that living the life according to scripture will lead to the Kingdom of Heaven. Where we disagree is with you stating that it can be done so outside of these guidelines.

Also, if you don't mind, explain how this insinuates that I'm asking you to be exclusionary? (It doesn't)

Now here's where you chime to pout about how I either put words into your mouth or did not directly respond to your question. And another jochhejaam-heavy thread moves forward at a complete stand-still.
More Ad Hominem <sigh>