so ... Mitt Romney.

[diamond]

Not true.

Most conserative christian voters would vote for Joel Liberman who isn't a Republican or Christian, he's Jewish ( due to Liberman's values and stance on the issues) over say Rudy G a Republican.

Go refigure Mr Vest.

dbs

 

[coemgen]

Doesn't stand a chance for President - most right wing christian republicans believe the Mormans to be a cult. They'd never vote for this guy no matter how "family based" his policies are.

I actually agree with this. Comparing Judaism and Christianity to Mormonism is like comparing apples and oranges to rocks.

 

[diamond]

there's tolerence for ya folks.


back to the topic, i do think conservatives would put aside different religious differences and vote for mitt before a watered down republican.




dbs

 

[coemgen]

It's a fact issue, not a tolerance issue.

There's history behind the Jewish and Christian texts. There's little to none when it comes to Mormonism. There's no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. That's why the Smithsonian doesn't even recognize it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well it got "nasty" only because apparently some people feel that FYM is below their intelligence level and want to insist that others feel and think a certain way apparently in an apparent effort to bolster that belief. If it's that bad I don't know why you'd (the general you or anyone who feels that way) bother coming here at all. I don't appreciate being talked to and treated in that way, and I'm not going to just let it slide.

And I now officially retract my apology.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Please note the wink....it was meant to be funny. If you care to continue this diatribe, I am available through PM. I will now contact Dave Letterman Jessie Jackson to appear on their shows to humble myself even more.

 

[Dreadsox]

Apart from that, he strikes me as incredibly fake.

And that is what has turned me off to the man. I feel that at a minimum, he has moved from being the person I voted for, to a candidate for President. When this transition occure, he moved towards the right on almost every issue I can think of. In particular the gay marriage issue and his educational policies have completely soured me on him.

 

[Dreadsox]

Doesn't stand a chance for President - most right wing christian republicans believe the Mormans to be a cult. They'd never vote for this guy no matter how "family based" his policies are.

I think the right wing would go for him, as long as he espouses their beliefs politically.

He has a beeter chance than Rudy at getting their support.

 

[diamond]

It's a fact issue, not a tolerance issue.

There's history behind the Jewish and Christian texts. There's little to none when it comes to Mormonism. There's no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. That's why the Smithsonian doesn't even recognize it.

Who said Mitt was going to have his constituents read the Book of Mormon?

I happen to view the Book of Mormon as a Christain text but that is not the issue and don't need archelogical to validate it's authenticity.

I think the right wing would go for him, as long as he espouses their beliefs politically.

He has a better chance than Rudy at getting their support.

Dread has it right here and he isn't even a Republican; but a very tolerant Christian whom I've come to know here and personally.

Lastly if you look at our standard beliefs posted below most would say that they interface well with most Christian beliefs:

The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

out,

dbs

 

[coemgen]

Who said Mitt was going to have his constituents read the Book of Mormon?

I happen to view the Book of Mormon as a Christain text but that is not the issue and don't need archelogical to validate it's authenticity.

I never said he was going to have people read the book of mormon. In fact, if he's the man for the job, so be it. His faith alone shouldn't be the reason to vote against him. I'm bringing this up because I was refering to the comment earlier about how the religious right (of which I'm not a part of), won't support Romney.

If the lack of archeological evidence for the book doesn't bother you, that's fine. I know it bothers people who hear Mormonism being called Christian, when it's not.

Lastly if you look at our standard beliefs posted below most would say that they interface well with most Christian beliefs:

Although I'm sure you're a great guy and you sincerely believe your faith, this is not a true statement. Christian scholars and even regular religious scholars would agree with me on this.

The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Yes, you do believe that, but you don't believe in the Trinity, which is essential Christian doctorine. You believe in them as separate beings, not three in one. Most cults don't believe in the Trinity.

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

We can't be saved by the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. There are no laws of the Gospel! We can't be saved by ANYTHING outside of God's grace through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Baptism is a public sign of your faith, it doesn't get you into heaven though. You can be forgiven without it. Also, all you have to do to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit is accept Christ and ask for them. You don't have to have hands laid on you.

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Of course you do, because the church's beliefs are constantly changing. Multiple wives are good. Multiple wives are bad. Black people are bad. Black people are good. Either this is all wrong, or God isn't the all-knowing, unchanging God that he claims to be.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

If they’re both of God, how do you explain Galatians 1:9 “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

This must be in the book of mormon, because it's not what the Bible says.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So people can create their own truth?


Listen, there are admirable things in the Mormon faith, but it doesn't align with Christianity's core beliefs. It's worth looking into.

 

[Ormus]

I happen to view the Book of Mormon as a Christain text but that is not the issue and don't need archelogical to validate it's authenticity.

If there's any consolation, scholars have had a field day over the historicity of the Bible, but it hasn't stopped people from believing in it.

That's kind of why I chuckle about most organized religions these days. They each have their own "scholars" that point out all the flaws in "other" religions, while flat out dismissing the inconsistencies found in their own.

 

[coemgen]

Ormus, there's a big difference to the Bible leading to archeological finds and the book of Mormon failing to turn up any.

Also, some of the places and names mentioned in the book of Mormon are taken from the Bible, and the letters are switched. Wow. Sounds credible.

 

[Varitek]

Bono says...

 

[coemgen]

And I have no problem coexisting!

A difference of opinon isn't a bad thing. Heck, I have in-laws who are Mormon. I love them like anyone else and they love those of us in the family who disagree on them. They're family. Their beliefs don't negate who they are as people.

You can disagree and discuss differences and still coexist. I'm sure Bono would agree.

 

[runbyu1]

Yeah serious! I'm tired of all the hate here. Why do people have to go out and bash another religion? Is there something about it that they find threatening or are they scared of it? Latter-day Saints are Christians and most all of them I know are extremely good people. Calling them a cult is just ridiculous. Arguing over doctrinal issues is just a way of spreading hate. When the mormons say they allow people the privilege to worship how where or what they may, they aren't saying you can make up your own beliefs to be saved, but they are saying they are tolerant and aren't going to tear people down, much like what is going on here. If you profess to be Christian, act like Christ and stop spending so much time tearing other people's faith or beliefs down. Peace out.

 

[coemgen]

Yeah serious! I'm tired of all the hate here. Why do people have to go out and bash another religion? Is there something about it that they find threatening or are they scared of it? Latter-day Saints are Christians and most all of them I know are extremely good people. Calling them a cult is just ridiculous. Arguing over doctrinal issues is just a way of spreading hate. When the mormons say they allow people the privilege to worship how where or what they may, they aren't saying you can make up your own beliefs to be saved, but they are saying they are tolerant and aren't going to tear people down, much like what is going on here. If you profess to be Christian, act like Christ and stop spending so much time tearing other people's faith or beliefs down. Peace out.

I don't hate Mormons. Did you read my posts where I said I have family who are Mormon and I love them dearly and get along with them very well? We had Mormon friends in our apartment complex that moved a few months ago whom we hated to see leave. There’s no hate here. Disagreeing isn't hate. If that's the case, than everyone in FYM hates each other. And you're right, many Mormons are very nice people. I totally agree with you there.

I'm not scared of Mormons or Mormonism, but I will stand up for truth. If how I’m saying things offends you, then you deserve an apology, which I offer up. However, if the facts I’m presenting offend you, that’s something different.
And I think you have your references to Christ a bit wrong. He did say "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody gets to the Father but by me." He's not tearing other faiths down, he's standing for truth.

 

[Dreadsox]

If that's the case, than everyone in FYM hates each other.

In here...no way!

 

[coemgen]

 

[Ormus]

Ormus, there's a big difference to the Bible leading to archeological finds and the book of Mormon failing to turn up any.

What kinds of "archaeological finds"? Excavating an ancient city that is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean anything if that same city is mentioned in extensive extra-Biblical sources.

Also, some of the places and names mentioned in the book of Mormon are taken from the Bible, and the letters are switched. Wow. Sounds credible.

Oh I agree. But here's the really funny thing about all of this: when it comes to science making a fool out of Mormonism, Christians, etc. come out of the woodworks to say that that's evidence that Mormonism is a false religion. But when science makes a fool out of some Biblical concepts (i.e., literal creationism, Noah's ark, etc.), many of those same Christians are ready to decry that same science as a tool of Satan.

It's inconsistent, hypocritical, and most certainly self-serving. That's really my only point here.

 

[coemgen]

No. The Bible has actually been used to find stuff that hasn't been found before. It's proven to be a guide of sorts for archaeology. That's my point. There is no evidence of the cities described in the book of Mormon. With the Bible, it's people are historical. Archaeology is proving more and more of it right as time goes on.

You have proof against creationism! I'd love to hear it.
And Noah's ark? If they haven't found it does that mean it didn't exist?

 

[Ormus]

No. The Bible has actually been used to find stuff that hasn't been found before. It's proven to be a guide of sorts for archaeology. That's my point. There is no evidence of the cities described in the book of Mormon. With the Bible, it's people are historical. Archaeology is proving more and more of it right as time goes on.

I'd love some examples.

You have proof against creationism! I'd love to hear it.
And Noah's ark? If they haven't found it does that mean it didn't exist?

Yes. It's called "evolution." The world is not 6,000 years old, we did not co-exist with dinosaurs, and the incest required for a single family to create billions of people is Biblically prohibited.

And Noah's Ark? There's so many holes in that story that it's downright laughable.

1) All the water on Earth is the same water we've had for billions and billions of years. As such, with all the water required to flood the Earth--and then for all of it to suddenly disappear--is not scientifically supported.

2) There is zero geological evidence of such flooding ever occurring. And evidence of flooding would certainly exist in glaciated regions or areas with deep permafrost, as some of these areas have been in a deep freeze for many thousands of years.

3) Even if an ark were to exist, it is not possible to have collected all the species of the world, considering that there are millions of species of animal. Considering that their known world would have excluded all Arctic/Antarctic species, Australian marsupials, and the entire New World (not to mention localized species outside of their known world), it is physically not possible.

4) The amount of death in such a short period of time should yield archaeological evidence of such massive destruction. If we can see evidence of a mass extinction from 65 million years ago, we would most certainly see evidence of a massive global slaughter that would have only occurred a few thousand years ago.

The entire myth of Noah's Ark is an exaggeration of the Sumerian/Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" flood myth. Even then, the "Epic of Gilgamesh" embellished from the earlier Akkhadian "Epic of Atrahasis." Linguistic evidence is very clear, as it demonstrates that "Gilgamesh" directly copied from "Atrahasis." The main difference is that "Atrahasis" clearly describes a river flood, as the Tigris and the Euphrates were/are known to flood. "Gilgamesh," however, decided to exaggerate it to a global flood.

This is how legends are formed.

 

[Ormus]

Oh yes, and I forgot about the earliest flood myth of them all, the Sumerian "Epic of Ziusudra." The most interesting aspect of this epic is an ancient mistranslation. The Sumerian word, "KUR," was mistranslated in Akkadian to mean "mountain." In fact, the word really means "country."

It's a several thousand year old game of telephone.

 

[coemgen]

Here’s what I’m getting at. I found this at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/history.html

1. - No ancient cities named uniquely and originally by The Book of Mormon (eg, the city of "Zarahelma") have ever been located in the Americas.
2. - No ancient peoples or nations (eg, the "Lamanites" and "Nephites") unique to The Book of Mormon have ever been found or mentioned in any archaeological inscriptions.
3. - No individual persons (eg, Nephi, Lehi, Zoram or Shule) unique to the Book of Mormon (not found in the Bible) have ever been mentioned in any archaeological inscriptions found anywhere in the world.
4. - No genuine inscriptions in any language resembling Hebrew (which the Lamanites and Nephites supposedly spoke in the Americas) have ever been found in the Americas.
5. - No genuine inscriptions in any language resembling Egyptian (to possibly correspond to Joseph Smith's "reformed Egyptian" --the language in which The Book of Mormon was supposedly originally given) have been found in the Americas.
6. - No archaeological inscriptions have been found which might indicate that ancient inhabitants in the Americas had Hebrew or Christian beliefs, as is maintained in The Book of Mormon.
7. - No artifact of any kind (eg, the coins described in Alma 11:4-19, or weights and measures) has ever been found in the Americas.
8. - The Book of Mormon says that Nephi and Shule (who supposedly lived in the Americas in 600 BC) possessed "steel" implements along with the knowledge to "forge" steel (1Nephi 4:9, 16:18 ; 2Nephi 5:15 ; Ether 7:9), -----even though, "Iron remained unknown in the Americas until the arrival of Columbus" in 1492 A.D., and the forging of actual steel is much more recent.
9. - The Book of Mormon says that people it describes in the Americas (in about 90 BC) possessed and used silk (Alma 4:6 ; Ether 9:17 & 11:24), --whereas it has not been shown that silk was ever known by people in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans after the time of Columbus.
10. - The Book of Mormon supposedly predicts (in about 90 BC) that Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) --whereas Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4) as accurately predicted in Micah 5:2.
11. - The Book of Mormon says that believers were called "Christians" back in 73 BC (per Alma 46:15) --whereas the Bible (in Acts 11:26) states this first occurred in Antioch, which was in about 35 AD.
12. - No ancient copies (before the 1800s A.D.) of The Book of Mormon have been found anywhere, and opened for scholarly inspection ...including the golden "plates" that Joseph Smith supposedly used.

Then there’s this:

Time and time again we find that the history in the Bible is confirmed by the discoveries of archaeology, especially over the past century. Reformed Jewish scholar, Dr. Nelson Glueck, arguably one of the greatest authorities on the archaeology of Israel, once said, "No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single properly understood biblical statement. ...Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
To continue this same line of thought, Dr. Merrill Unger continues, "Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds."
So, as a result of many examples over many years of archaeological and historical research, the Bible's reliability concerning history has repeatedly been confirmed, and never clearly contradicted.
The Bible is increasingly confirmed in its historical facticity as further archaeological discoveries are made down through the years.
William R. Albright, professor of Semitics at Johns Hopkins University, became one of the most prominent and respected archaeologists of modern times, and after working at many sites in and around Israel, he states: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of history."
Yale archaeologist Millar Burrows maintains, "On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine."

Concerning the text of the Bible itself, Burrows says, "Such evidence as archaeology has afforded thus far, especially by providing additional and older manuscripts of the books of the Bible, strengthens our confidence in the accuracy with which the text has been transmitted through the centuries."
Because of abundant historical facticity of the Biblical accounts, the field of Biblical archaeology is so big that there are whole journals and university departments dedicated to its study in various places around the world.
The confirmation of the historicity of much of what the Bible records is very solid, and grows constant.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I think you have your references to Christ a bit wrong. He did say "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody gets to the Father but by me." He's not tearing other faiths down, he's standing for truth.

How very objective.

You have proof against creationism! I'd love to hear it.

The ratio's of parent to daughter isotopes show that the world is billions of years old. Life on Earth is not static and animals that did exist in the past have gone extinct. The empty biospace is filled by new species arising through evolutionary processes entirely naturally. There is no need to introduce the concept of God to explain these observations so why introduce an unexplainable element when a more elegant and simple explanation exists.

And Noah's ark? If they haven't found it does that mean it didn't exist? [/quote[What doesn't exist is a catastrophic global flood or the reintroduction of all animals onto land from an ark. Furthurmore the genetic bottleneck on human populations from such an event is hard to reconcile with maps of population migration and gene flow.

 

[Ormus]

Here’s what I’m getting at. I found this at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/history.html

Hey...you're essentially preaching to the choir here. I'm not a fan of Mormonism, but I'm less of a fan of what I perceive to be self-centered double-standards.

Then there’s this:

It's interesting stuff, and my point was not to say that the Bible is wholly non-factual. My sole point in all of this is to say that religion ultimately boils down to faith. And, as AEON stated in a thread about God and science...

That is why I am often pointing out to my Christian brothers and sisters that Genesis is not meant to be a science book. I am not saying that Genesis is wrong; I am only saying that it is purposely vague. Otherwise it would billions of pages long.

The main points of the creation story are this:
1) God created the universe (which makes perfect logical sense since He is only the being that transcends matter).
2) God made humans into spiritual beings in order to have a relationship with His creation.
3) The first humans chose to trust their own desire instead of trusting God (and the following generations now struggle with the same dilemma).
4) In order for humans to overcome their natural tendency to choose their own passions over God’s will – they need supernatural intervention (Grace) – and in order to receive this gift all someone needs to do is demonstrate faith in God (Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham…etc)

Christians need to ask themselves why God chose to only spend a few paragraphs of the entire Bible to the creation story. Even in Genesis, the central story that arises from the text is story of Abraham.

Specific points aside (where we'd likely have unsurprising theological differences), I agree with the notion that the Bible is not a science book. I do not consider it to be a reliable history book either. The creation and flood myths are not much different than the King Arthur legends. It's thought that there's a likely historical "Arthur," but his legend is most certainly embellished to the point of preposterousness.

However, it is a book on morality and the relationship one should have with God, which I think most people consider to be the most important aspect of the Bible. And if that's the case, there's no reason that Mormons cannot express a relationship with God that's specific to their scriptural and faith traditions. Whether or not it corresponds to accurate history is secondary to issues of morality.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I think you have your references to Christ a bit wrong. He did say "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody gets to the Father but by me." He's not tearing other faiths down, he's standing for truth.

How very objective.

You have proof against creationism! I'd love to hear it.

The ratio's of parent to daughter isotopes show that the world is billions of years old. Life on Earth is not static and animals that did exist in the past have gone extinct. The empty biospace is filled by new species arising through evolutionary processes entirely naturally. There is no need to introduce the concept of God to explain these observations so why introduce an unexplainable element when a more elegant and simple explanation exists.

And Noah's ark? If they haven't found it does that mean it didn't exist?

What doesn't exist is a catastrophic global flood or the reintroduction of all animals onto land from an ark. Furthurmore the genetic bottleneck on human populations from such an event is hard to reconcile with maps of population migration and gene flow.

 

[coemgen]

Listen, I know both of you, Ormus and A_Wanderer, have brilliant minds. I've always respected your intellect. Frankly, I haven't spent much time reading into the topics of the flood and everything. I know many Christians who consider these stories as myth, too. If the only truth in them is moral, than so be it. I haven't personally arrived at that conclusion yet one way or the other. I can totally see immense value in what AEON said. I've heard that before and it makes sense.

My point though has been to compare the Bible with the book of Mormon. Jesus. Paul. Moses. etc. truly existed. There's proof of this outside of the Bible. Yet, the book of Mormon doesn't have this. Nothing unique to it has been found! Even the fact that it has so much unique to it raises questions. There's texts outside of the Bible that talk about the whole world turning dark around the same time Christ died on the cross. This observation is included in the Gospels. Texts outside of the Gospels confirm it. There's numerous prophecies made in the OT and fulfilled in the NT, and they're not things Christ could just do or say after reading the OT. There's something going on here.

The book of mormon is completely different. In fact, it's been rewritten many times. Parts of it at least.

Also, the other thing is they claim to be Christian when the two faiths share many, many different core beliefs.

Yes, we're all free to believe what we want to. I'm thankful I live in a country where I can do so. Tremendously thankful. I know there are many people who believe many different things than me, and I totally respect that right and the people themselves. However, I can't believe that all faiths lead to the same place, when there's so many vast differences. Just like many fight for truth in science and history, I believe there are spiritual truths, too. And just like there's fraud and counterfiets in science and history that are called out, they should be called out in the spiritual aspect of life, too. And some of it does come down to faith, but there's a difference between the faiths that have an historical element to them and those that have none at all.

Scientology -- written by a science fiction writer who once said the best way to make money was to start a religion.
And like Mormonism, its followers claim you can believe the Bible and its teachings as well. When, at the most basic comparison of it with Christian core beliefs, one can clearly see they're different.

What's going on here?

 

[deep]

There's texts outside of the Bible that talk about the whole world turning dark around the same time Christ died on the cross.

What are your sources that sopport this statement?

 

[coemgen]

First, here’s the Gospel accounts of it.
Matthew 27:45 “From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.”
and
Luke 23:44 “It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour,”

Then there was an historian named Thallus, who wrote in 52 A.D. a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. His work was apparently lost, but quoted by a man named Julius Africanus in about 221 A.D. and the quoted part referred to this darkness. Thallus explained the phenomena as a solar eclipse.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Africanus then makes the point that it couldn’t have been a solar eclipse given the time of year the crucifixion took place.

Then there’s this other guy, Paul Maier, who wrote a book in the 1960s called “Pontius Pilate.” He wrote, “This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian . . . it was a “cosmic” or “world event.” Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 A.D., reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was “the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day (i.e., noon) so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.”

I pulled some of this stuff from the Web and “The Case for Christ.”

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And I now officially retract my apology.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Please note the wink....it was meant to be funny. If you care to continue this diatribe, I am available through PM. I will now contact Dave Letterman Jessie Jackson to appear on their shows to humble myself even more.

I don't honestly care-you won't even acknowledge how rude and yes arrogant you were. Don't worry, I don't want or expect or need an apology. It's not a diatribe, merely an effort to get you to see and maybe even acknowledge that you were wrong and offensive rather than the condescending comments that I somehow misunderstood you etc. The fact that you don't like the criticism doesn't make me wrong, and believe it or not I am restraining myself. And it's certainly not the first time that you have made comments here indicating that you think the intelligence level of FYM is below yours (I remember many), I have just never said anything. Sorry, we are all just inferior. I don't have PM's, thankfully-and I don't wish to continue anything.

Yeah and I don't appreciate the double teaming snide comments either.

 

[diamond]

What's going on here?

You appear to be more exclusive in your religous tolerance than inclusive.

While there are many Mormons that serve in public office both Republican and Democrat while their constituents love and support them you appear to have a narrower view of them.

I have many friends of many different faiths:

Bahai
Hindu
Unity
Muslim
Judiasm
Catholic
Methodist
Baptist


Being Mormon we're taught to love and appreciate all people and all different faiths as that is where a person is at in their spiritual growth.

While there area approx. 6000 different Christian Churches in America that differ with one another and some bicker back and forth, our view is their is room for all.

We also believe that during the Millennium that there will be many churches of different faiths on the earth. Perhaps during that time religous philosophies will mesh together as Christ will sort things out until we all come to a unity of faith.

I don't think a devout Catholic, Lutheran or Jehovah Witness is going to burn because their religous belief doesn't perfectly align with mine.

I think that displays insecurity.

I appreciate the astute and kind words from people such as:

Melon/Ormushead
Dread
Varitek
runbyu1
U2Democrat
blueyedpoet
verte76
nbcrusader
Macfistowannabe
Zoocoustic

And as far as splitting hairs over doctrinal issues I really don't need to do that nor do I label ppl who aren't members of my church.

The LDS faith works for me brings me contentment, offers more of life's answers for me and has helped me love my fellowman even more.


out,

dbs