so ... Mitt Romney.

[Ormus]

4- You really want to get the message across that Mormons are a cult! I've tried to supply you with valid information that states otherwise, and I could supply you with endless information, but it is all in vain, because no matter what, your mind is already made up.

I've had plenty of religious arguments here over the years, and I certainly know the feeling.

 

[coemgen]

1- Ha Ha, coegman please reread my post on the trinity, and understand our interpretation of "ONE" God. We believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and believe that they are "ONE" in purpose and "ONE" in heart, but not "ONE" in substance, as you believe. But our interpretation is wrong and yours is right??? ofcourse

Well, let’s consider what the Old and New Testaments say:
Deuteronomy 32:39
"See now that I myself am He!
There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.

1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy [a] like the LORD;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 7:22
"How great you are, O Sovereign LORD! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears.

Isaiah 43:10-11 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Mark 12:32
"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

Romans 3:30
“since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

1 Corinthians 8:4
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

I ask you yet again, how do you reconcile that? Your answers are insufficient so far.

2- I'm sorry but our interpretation is exactly in line with the Bible
Mathew 19
16- He asked "what do I have to do to have eternal life"?
17-Jesus sais " there is none good but one, that is God(or Heavenly Father, but why would Jesus talk about himself like that?)" he continues " if thou wilt enter into life, "Keep the Commandments"
18, 19 - Which Commandments do I have to keep? Jesus lists all of them
20- Young Man says he has kept all of them since he was young, "WHAT LACK I YET". He's asking Jesus, what else do I have to do aside from keeping the commandments(works).
21- Jesus says " if thou will be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." Aside from keeping the commandments it is vital in life to follow Christ, follow his teachings, his commandments, be obedient to them.

Jesus always talked about himself as God. Haven’t you read the Bible? Also, even using the KJV, Christ is simply saying that keeping the commandments isn’t enough. You need to get rid of all your hinderances “and come follow me.” That’s what the guy lacked. And also, are you believing in a triune God now? Those commandments didn’t come from Christ, yet you’re saying they did? Would you make up your mind?

I'll skip ahead

He required his disciples to follow his teachings and commandments
32- and said that they would be rejected at the judgment day if they did not do so.
33- He declared that "not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,"
34- suggesting that confession of his name, while necessary, is insufficient for salvation.

It’s funny you skipped ahead to Matthew 19: 32-24 considering Matthew only has 30 verses – at least that’s according to the KJV I have. How did you do that? Is this the Mormonised version of the KJV? Are we creating truth here by altering God’s sacred word? Yeah, that’s not the sign of a cult.

So, in reality, after a look at the context of the whole story of "The Rich Young Man" and the ENTIRE verse that you tried to quote, the actual meaning is the complete opposite of what you were getting at.

Your use of sarcasm takes an ironic twist now, doesn’t it?

The confusion over grace results principally from the writings of the apostle Paul. But if Paul really taught that grace alone was sufficient for salvation, we have to consider a number of questions-

Why did Paul write so often to Christian congregations admonishing them to abandon their sinful ways?

Simply because you can’t really follow Christ if you’re consistently sinning and not doing anything about it. So what?

Why did Paul have to tell believing Christians that those who committed various sins could not be saved in the kingdom of God?

Simply because if they had that level of sin in their lives still, they truly hadn’t accepted Christ as lord. So what?

Why did Paul teach that Christ is "the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe?"

I don’t think this verse fits your argument very well. It actually fits mine much better.

Why did Paul say that "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation?"

Again, let’s look at the FULL verse to get it’s actual meaning. “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
He’s essentially saying “Leads to” not “we must work”. He’s comparing godly sorry to worldly sorrow. Otherwise, you’re saying we must work out our death?

Why did Paul tell the Philippians to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling?"

He’s not talking about having to do work here to gain salvation, he’s talking about once you’re saved you must revere and respect God. Again, look at the text.

When discussing "the grace of God that bringeth salvation," why does Paul say that it teaches "that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world?"
Why does the epistle to the Hebrews say that Jesus was "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him?"

Again, these aren’t saying that our works lead to salvation, they’re saying a saving faith must include obedience. This matches what James says. It doesn’t negate the idea that we are saved through Grace alone.

Each of these passages suggests that grace alone is not sufficient for salvation. Consequently, when reading the epistles of Paul, one must keep a much broader picture in mind. For example, Paul told the Romans,

18-That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

From this passage, it is clear that grace alone is insufficient and that it must be coupled at least with faith and with one act, confession.

OK, you got me, if you want to consider confessing faith as a “work,” I’ll give it to you. We don’t consider it really a work – it just means you believe. It’s simply part of the process. You basically only have to have a beating heartbeat to be able to confess faith. (unless you’re baptized by the Mormon church, I guess).

In several of his epistles, Paul wrote that salvation came by grace, not works. For example, he wrote of Christ "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
19- He told the Romans that "if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
20- He asked his readers, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Was Paul teaching that good works were not the basis of salvation? If so, how are we to understand passages like Revelation 20:12-13, which say that God will judge men "according to their works"? The answer lies within Paul's epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, in which he clearly explained what he means by "works." He declared that "Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because (they sought it) not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone."

He wasn’t teaching that good works weren’t the basis for salvation. He’s teaching that Grace is.

And once again, your use of Revelation 20:12-13 is a horrible misinterpretation and a failure to use the full context of the entire passage. Again, this is very typical of Mormons. That’s why Mormonism is a cult.
Go look up the passage again, and this time acknowledge the part about the book of life. If you read just a bit further – I know you can do it – you’ll see that he’s talking about two books the book of life, and the book of death. Those in the book of life – those who are saved by God’s grace, aren’t judged by their works. Only those in the book of the dead are – those who didn’t accept his grace. They’re judged by their works because that’s all they had. Our works are never good enough. So, once again, if you look at the ENTIRE passage, it actually goes against the point you were trying to make. READ THE WHOLE PASSAGE!!!!!!!

Your last bit there that Paul declared supports the stance of Grace alone. Why are you using it in your argument against it? If you take out the part you added “(they sought it)” it makes sense. They didn’t attain righteousness because they didn’t seek it by faith, but through the works of the law. Let’s stop trying to twist what the Bible says, OK?

3- We believe in the Jesus from the Bible, I don't know what Jesus you believe in?

This is from, "What Mormons Think of Christ" (an LDS publication, pages 32-34):
"Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much is believed and taught on this subject, however, it is utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation."

This is from 1 John 1:7, i.e. The Bible: (Even the KJV that you use exclusively!)
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin"

This is from Hebrew 9:14, KJV
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

This is from Revelations 1:5, KJV
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelations 1:5).

Are you sure you believe in the Jesus of the Bible?

4- I urge you to look deeper

I urge you to accept the obvious and stop twisting the truth.

 

[diamond]

The Jesus we believe in is much greater than the Bible.

 

[diamond]

Well, let’s consider what the Old and New Testaments say:
Deuteronomy 32:39
"See now that I myself am He!
There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.

1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy [a] like the LORD;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 7:22
"How great you are, O Sovereign LORD! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears.

Isaiah 43:10-11 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Mark 12:32
"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

Romans 3:30
“since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

1 Corinthians 8:4
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

I ask you yet again, how do you reconcile that? Your answers are insufficient so far.


Jesus always talked about himself as God. Haven’t you read the Bible? Also, even using the KJV, Christ is simply saying that keeping the commandments isn’t enough. You need to get rid of all your hinderances “and come follow me.” That’s what the guy lacked. And also, are you believing in a triune God now? Those commandments didn’t come from Christ, yet you’re saying they did? Would you make up your mind?


It’s funny you skipped ahead to Matthew 19: 32-24 considering Matthew only has 30 verses – at least that’s according to the KJV I have. How did you do that? Is this the Mormonised version of the KJV? Are we creating truth here by altering God’s sacred word? Yeah, that’s not the sign of a cult.




Your use of sarcasm takes an ironic twist now, doesn’t it?


Simply because you can’t really follow Christ if you’re consistently sinning and not doing anything about it. So what?

Simply because if they had that level of sin in their lives still, they truly hadn’t accepted Christ as lord. So what?


I don’t think this verse fits your argument very well. It actually fits mine much better.


Again, let’s look at the FULL verse to get it’s actual meaning. “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
He’s essentially saying “Leads to” not “we must work”. He’s comparing godly sorry to worldly sorrow. Otherwise, you’re saying we must work out our death?





He’s not talking about having to do work here to gain salvation, he’s talking about once you’re saved you must revere and respect God. Again, look at the text.


Again, these aren’t saying that our works lead to salvation, they’re saying a saving faith must include obedience. This matches what James says. It doesn’t negate the idea that we are saved through Grace alone.


OK, you got me, if you want to consider confessing faith as a “work,” I’ll give it to you. We don’t consider it really a work – it just means you believe. It’s simply part of the process. You basically only have to have a beating heartbeat to be able to confess faith. (unless you’re baptized by the Mormon church, I guess).


He wasn’t teaching that good works weren’t the basis for salvation. He’s teaching that Grace is.

And once again, your use of Revelation 20:12-13 is a horrible misinterpretation and a failure to use the full context of the entire passage. Again, this is very typical of Mormons. That’s why Mormonism is a cult.
Go look up the passage again, and this time acknowledge the part about the book of life. If you read just a bit further – I know you can do it – you’ll see that he’s talking about two books the book of life, and the book of death. Those in the book of life – those who are saved by God’s grace, aren’t judged by their works. Only those in the book of the dead are – those who didn’t accept his grace. They’re judged by their works because that’s all they had. Our works are never good enough. So, once again, if you look at the ENTIRE passage, it actually goes against the point you were trying to make. READ THE WHOLE PASSAGE!!!!!!!

Your last bit there that Paul declared supports the stance of Grace alone. Why are you using it in your argument against it? If you take out the part you added “(they sought it)” it makes sense. They didn’t attain righteousness because they didn’t seek it by faith, but through the works of the law. Let’s stop trying to twist what the Bible says, OK?


This is from, "What Mormons Think of Christ" (an LDS publication, pages 32-34):
"Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much is believed and taught on this subject, however, it is utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation."

This is from 1 John 1:7, i.e. The Bible: (Even the KJV that you use exclusively!)
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin"

This is from Hebrew 9:14, KJV
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

This is from Revelations 1:5, KJV
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelations 1:5).

Are you sure you believe in the Jesus of the Bible?


I urge you to accept the obvious and stop twisting the truth.

By attempting to label us something we're not you lose this argument mr coemgen.

As far as taking thinks out of context AntiMormons take the cake for that.


That you believe in a man made doctrine of the 'Trinity' that was composed by men 3 centuries after true Christians went under ground as they were being murdered for their beliefs, composed by an assembly of men who took it upon themselves to try and define God, have you ever read the document and what authority did these men have other than polictical?:


We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

You can believe that garbled attempt of an explanation of the GodHead by polictically appointed men in the 3rd Century or you can believe this:

Btw is the word "trinity' found anywhere in the KJV of the Bible?

Lastly to say Mormons don't believe in Jesus because we have more information than books that were written more than 2000 years ago is showing your lack of religious tolerance.

dbs

 

[coemgen]

diamond, let's look at the Bible. I can make my argument simply by using it.
No, the word "Trinity" isn't used in the Bible. So what? Does that alone mean the concept can't exist? I don't think so. That's not logical.
Plus, as I've said dozens and dozens of times here (which have yet to be acknowledged, I guess) you believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three separate Gods. You also believe we can each become a God. These beliefs are contradicted by the Bible. See the many verses I posted (and you just quoted) where both the Old Testament and New Testament refute these beliefs? Once again, how do you reconcile this? I keep asking this and I haven't received an answer.
So you see, I don't have to believe a "garbled attempt of an explanation of the Godhead by politically appointed me in the third century" because the Bible is sufficient in explaining the Trinity. I sure as heck am not going to get my theology from a scary Mormon painting either.

"Lastly to say Mormons don't believe in Jesus because we have more information than books that were written more than 2000 years ago is showing your lack of religious tolerance."

I didn't say Mormons don't believe in Jesus because you have more information, I'm saying it because the additional "information" you have contradicts the texts written 2,000 years ago, and in fact, paints another picture of Christ. (And leads to paintings like the one you shared.) Is it a lack of religious tolerance to stand for the truth? If so, you're intolerant, too! Disagreeing and proving something wrong using religious texts isn't a lack of religious tolerance. I tolerate your faith, I just firmly disagree with it based on how it contradicts the Bible . . . and believes in it at the same time.
Like I said before, too, I have Mormons in my family. I have no problem with them as people. They're great people! I have every right to disagree with them though. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[diamond]

diamond, let's look at the Bible. I can make my argument simply by using it.
No, the word "Trinity" isn't used in the Bible. So what?

Does that alone mean the concept can't exist? I don't think so. That's not logical.

Plus, as I've said dozens and dozens of times here (which have yet to be acknowledged, I guess) you believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three separate Gods. You also believe we can each become a God. These beliefs are contradicted by the Bible. See the many verses I posted (and you just quoted) where both the Old Testament and New Testament refute these beliefs? Once again, how do you reconcile this? I keep asking this and I haven't received an answer.
So you see, I don't have to believe a "garbled attempt of an explanation of the Godhead by politically appointed me in the third century" because the Bible is sufficient in explaining the Trinity. I sure as heck am not going to get my theology from a scary Mormon painting either.

"Lastly to say Mormons don't believe in Jesus because we have more information than books that were written more than 2000 years ago is showing your lack of religious tolerance."

I didn't say Mormons don't believe in Jesus because you have more information, I'm saying it because the additional "information" you have contradicts the texts written 2,000 years ago, and in fact, paints another picture of Christ. (And leads to paintings like the one you shared.) Is it a lack of religious tolerance to stand for the truth? If so, you're intolerant, too! Disagreeing and proving something wrong using religious texts isn't a lack of religious tolerance. I tolerate your faith, I just firmly disagree with it based on how it contradicts the Bible . . . and believes in it at the same time.
Like I said before, too, I have Mormons in my family. I have no problem with them as people. They're great people! I have every right to disagree with them though. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant. Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree with you if you stopped calling them names.

My point about the Trinity is that it is man made doctrine, (not in the Bible) that Creed is man's feeble attempt to lump together 3 distinct different entities into one and what you based the whole foundation of your argument.

The GodHead is not a man made creed but a clearer explanation of who The Father, The Son and Holy Ghost actually are.

You have chose to ridicule that explanantion.

You have also chose to misrepresent that we worship multiple gods when you know we don't.

We pray to God our Father and worship him thru the Son Jesus Christ the same as most Christians and you have totally misrepresented that fact.

If Christ were God the Father (as you claim) he would not have told Peter that his Father In Heaven revealed his ( Christ's true idenity) when Peter said he knew that Christ was the Son of God.

Christ would have something like 'Flesh and Blood have not revealed it to thee but my Father in Heaven has revealed it to thee Who I happen to be standing before you'

But Christ didn't say that because Peter and Christ were on the same page both knowing they both had a Father in Heaven the same way that you and I do with Christ being our brother.

You make simple things complicated coemgen.

When Bono sings that we're one, you and I are not literally one, only One in Purpose.

peace,

dbs

 

[Varitek]

Can we split this thread into mitt romney and mormon argument threads? I'm sick of checking for Romney news and getting more mormon arguments.

 

[-macphisto-]

It’s funny you skipped ahead to Matthew 19: 32-24 considering Matthew only has 30 verses – at least that’s according to the KJV I have. How did you do that? Is this the Mormonised version of the KJV? Are we creating truth here by altering God’s sacred word? Yeah, that’s not the sign of a cult.

Your right, I didn't realise the error until you showed me, I somehow messed up on the verses, I'm sorry.
There isn't a "mormonised" bible, we use the same KJV as you do, just a mistake on my part.

 

[coemgen]

My point about the Trinity is that it is man made doctrine, (not in the Bible) that Creed is man's feeble attempt to lump together 3 distinct different entities into one and what you based the whole foundation of your argument.

The GodHead is not a man made creed but a clearer explanation of who The Father, The Son and Holy Ghost actually are.

You have chose to ridicule that explanantion.

All I'm asking is for you to tell me how your belief in three separate Gods jives with the Bible saying over and over that there's only one God. You still haven't answered that!

Why not?

If Christ were God the Father (as you claim) he would not have told Peter that his Father In Heaven revealed his ( Christ's true idenity) when Peter said he knew that Christ was the Son of God.

It's not like that though. Christ and the Father are both God, but distinct persons. Christ is God in the flesh. The term "father" is used as a relational term to describe God in heaven. Peter was right in saying Christ is the Son of God. It's a relational thing.

You make simple things complicated coemgen.

Do I?

When Bono sings that we're one, you and I are not literally one, only One in Purpose.

Bono wasn't singing about the Trinity though. You're comparing two different things . . . again.

 

[coemgen]

Your right, I didn't realise the error until you showed me, I somehow messed up on the verses, I'm sorry.
There isn't a "mormonised" bible, we use the same KJV as you do, just a mistake on my part.

Hey, no problem. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[coemgen]

Can we split this thread into mitt romney and mormon argument threads? I'm sick of checking for Romney news and getting more mormon arguments.

I'm fine with getting back to this. The discussion of the faiths started up because we were talking about how Christians wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Although a moderator allowed us to continue, I'm fine with wrapping it up.

 

[-macphisto-]

I think this pretty much sums up this argument

I don’t think this verse fits your argument very well. It actually fits mine much better.

this argument is going no where fast, all of your arguments are subject to interpretation.

I don't care that you don't believe what we believe, but I wish you could just have respect for our religion, and our beliefs

 

[diamond]

All I'm asking is for you to tell me how your belief in three separate Gods jives with the Bible saying over and over that there's only one God. You still haven't answered that!

Why not?



It's not like that though. Christ and the Father are both God, but distinct persons. Christ is God in the flesh. The term "father" is used as a relational term to describe God in heaven. Peter was right in saying Christ is the Son of God. It's a relational thing.


Do I?


Bono wasn't singing about the Trinity though. You're comparing two different things . . . again.

No I'm applying the acurate concept of the idea of Oneness.

Regarding your mantra about is there is One God, we believe that.

There is only one God that we pray to and this you know.

As far as we're concerned there is one God, God the Father, and through his Son Jesus Christ, he created the Heavens and the earth.

That is all we need to be concerned about for our salvation.

Jehovah (Lord) YAWEH of the Old Testament is Christ (Lord) of the New Testament, Christ lived with God along with all of us.

I don't think you believe in the Pre Existence, though do you?


When in the Old Testament the Prophets talked of one God that was directed at the pagans who worshiped many gods unlike you me and other Christians who worship one.

I think you already know this coemgen and I really do not think you're looking for any useful information other than to debate doctrinal issues when you and I both know full well as Christians that we could be doing better things in this life, like helping, assisting and serving our fellowman thereby glorifying our Father in Heaven.

Don't look for me to burn up precious time addressing every one of your strawman issues you attempt to raise; it diverts from our true purpose in life.

take care,

dbs

 

[coemgen]

No I'm applying the acurate concept of the idea of Oneness.

Regarding your mantra about is there is One God, we believe that.

There is only one God that we pray to and this you know.

As far as we're concerned there is one God, God the Father, and through his Son Jesus Christ, he created the Heavens and the earth.

That is all we need to be concerned about for our salvation.

Jehovah (Lord) YAWEH of the Old Testament is Christ (Lord) of the New Testament, Christ lived with God along with all of us.

I don't think you believe in the Pre Existence, though do you?


When in the Old Testament the Prophets talked of one God that was directed at the pagans who worshiped many gods unlike you me and other Christians who worship one.

I think you already know this coemgen and I really do not think you're looking for any useful information other than to debate doctrinal issues when you and I both know full well as Christians that we could be doing better things in this life, like helping, assisting and serving our fellowman thereby glorifying our Father in Heaven.

Don't look for me to burn up precious time addressing every one of your strawman issues you attempt to raise; it diverts from our true purpose in life.

take care,

dbs

You want so badly to believe that don't you? When the Bible says over and over there is only one God, it's not talking about "oneness." It's in the context of a discussion over there being multiple gods, which were believed in during those times, too. Also, some of the verses say "there is no other God before me or after." There is ONE God, not three that agree with each other. That's found nowhere in the Bible. I think it'd make it clear that they were three separate gods if it's the word of God put together in part to understand the god(s) we worship. Instead, it makes it very clear that "there is but ONE God." It isn't until you pick up the book of Mormon that you hear differently. Hmmmm.

Pre-existence. No, I don't believe it. I do believe God has always existed and has never changed. That's what the Bible says. Yes, this includes Christ. See the book of John. "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God." Notice it doesn't say "the Word was another god." Hmmmmmm.

Strawman issues? We're talking about essential Christian truths. It's funny you consider them something so flippant. Yes, we should be helping, assisting and serving our fellowman. That stuff alone doesn't make anyone a Christian though.

 

[coemgen]

I think this pretty much sums up this argument


this argument is going no where fast, all of your arguments are subject to interpretation.

I don't care that you don't believe what we believe, but I wish you could just have respect for our religion, and our beliefs

I do respect you guys and the right to believe what you believe. I just disagree.

You're taking a single response of mine to sum up my whole argument? Here we go again — taking a part of the whole to change the definition of the whole. The majority of my side of the argument has been taken from the Bible itself. Anyone can go back and see that.

 

[yolland]

I'm fine with wrapping it up.

Yes, please; let's do it that way. It's really just the three of you pursuing this topic and I don't see anything further productive coming out of it at this point, just bad feelings. That will spare me the headache of trying to split this, which frankly I don't have time for at the moment; this thread is way too long and its arguments too intertwined to be split without a lot of hassle.

If we're going to go back to discussing Romney purely as a politician however, the thread needs to stay civil this time or it will wind up closed.

Thanks.

 

[-macphisto-]

I do respect you guys and the right to believe what you believe. I just disagree.

You're taking a single response of mine to sum up my whole argument? Here we go again — taking a part of the whole to change the definition of the whole. The majority of my side of the argument has been taken from the Bible itself. Anyone can go back and see that.

It's how you look at it, there's no middle ground,one sided, it's either hot or cold, were not Christian because we don't interpret the Bible the same way you do. That sums up the argument.

 

[coemgen]

I think we're done there, macphisto23. Yolland wants us back on the topic of Romney.

 

[diamond]

Interesting vid clip showing how Mitt handled a heckler.

http://blip.tv/file/151254

dbs

 

[deep]

best quote so far in this Presidential race
is from Romney -

"I said to my wife 'In your wildest dreams, did you ever think you would be married to a man running for President of the US? And my wife replied ' Mitt, you're not IN my wildest dreams'"

 

[love2bmama]

I have to say, the idea of a Mormon president scares the shit out of me. Seriously.

 

[deep]

why?

 

[love2bmama]

it's just that Mormonism seems to me to be mostly about mind control. It scares me, frankly. I have mormons in my extended family and have had several very close friends that are LDS, and my husband and I seriously considered converting to LDS several years ago. Then I did some research.

I don't want to start a big anti-mormon thing here, and I value the concept that the president's religion shouldn't be a consideration, but I have yet to meet a mormon that could, or would, separate their faith from anything else in their lives. Their religion controls every aspect of their lives. That's why the idea of a mormon president scares me. Anyone who truly believes in the mormon doctrine has suspended their disbelief way beyond what I could consider safe for the leader of the free world.

That said, I can't imagine much worse than the president we have now, so maybe it would be a comparative improvement.

(edited for spelling, oops!)

 

[deep]

The leader of the Senate, Harry Reid is Mormon in good standing and I don't see the things in him you describe


and I did not see Romney's religion driving his views while Governor of Mass

he seems more to be catering to the GOP right, the same as McCain


now if one of your family members ran for office I could understand that scaring you

 

[diamond]

another good article from NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/o...ei=5087 &em&en=2652e145e7327670&ex=1176350400

 

[LyricalDrug]

I think most liberals don't care that Romney is a Mormon, but I can't see him winning the Republican nomination, since that party is basically held hostage by the extreme Christian right. Romney is only polling at around 4% right now.

I bet it'd be fun to go "hunting" with ol' Mitt, though... check out Romney's latest gaffe:



--------------------
Huckabee questions Romney hunting claim

Sun Apr 8, 5:59 PM ET

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was wrong to suggest he was a lifelong hunter even though he never took out a license, campaign rival Mike Huckabee said Sunday.

"I think it was a major mistake," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. "It would be like me saying I've been a lifelong golfer because I played putt-putt when I was 9 years old and I rode in a golf cart a couple of times."

"I think American people are looking for authenticity," Huckabee added. "Match their record with their rhetoric."

A message left Sunday with a spokesman for Romney was not immediately returned.

Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, was dogged last week about his hunting activities after he remarked at a campaign stop that he has been a hunter nearly all his life.

The next day, his campaign said Romney had gone hunting just twice — once as a teenager in Idaho and last year with GOP donors in Georgia. Officials in the four states where Romney has lived also told The Associated Press that he never took out a license.

Romney explained later that his staff was wrong and that he had hunted rabbits and other small animals for many years, mainly in Utah. Hunting certain small game there does not require a license.

On Sunday, Huckabee said Romney's comments undermined his credibility as a candidate.

In contrast, Huckabee said, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, also in the 2008 race, showed his honesty by recently reaffirming he supported abortion rights.

Last week in South Carolina, Giuliani defended his record favoring the use of public money for abortions. South Carolina is early voting state dominated by conservatives who oppose abortion rights.

"Now, I disagree with him. I don't think we ought to use federal tax dollars for abortion, and I wouldn't if I were president," Huckabee said.

"But I thought it was at least a statement of extraordinary honesty and candor on the part of Giuliani that he would go into South Carolina, a very pro-life environment, and just say, look, this is who I am. I'm not going to change just to get your votes," he said.

Huckabee spoke on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

 

[diamond]

Doesn't anybody get it?
He was hunting wabbits in Ut.
No hunting lic. needed there.

Goosh Napoleon!
Idiots!

 

[diamond]

Campaign 2008

Romney targets Pelosi in foreign-policy speech
By Sam Youngman
April 10, 2007
White House hopeful and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) harshly criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) trip to Syria during a speech on foreign policy Tuesday.
Speaking at the George Bush Presidential Library Center in College Station, Texas, Romney embraced the courage of President George W. Bush before decrying “the divisiveness, the bitterness, the smallness, the disunity” of foreign-policy politics in Washington.

“And then the Speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror,” Romney said, in excerpts released by his campaign. “At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade.” Romney said the state of the U.S. military had declined during the Clinton administration, and he called for expanding the military by 100,000 troops.

The former governor also offered a staunch defense of Bush’s efforts in Iraq, echoing many of the president’s talking points as he endures intense criticism over the war effort.

“Running away from Iraq now would embolden our enemies, giving them the sanctuary they need to plan more devastating attacks against our country,” Romney said. “In this difficult time, some in Congress are trying to deny our troops the resources they need. This is a grave error. We need to rally behind the effort, and support our men and women in uniform in this time of war.”

 

[deep]

Romney

can't call himself a real hunter
until he shoots an attorney in the face

 

[BVS]