So Obama is the only Christian running in the 2012 election?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So Obama is the only Christian running in the 2012 election?

Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Nope. That's just Hamby

Nope. That's just Hamby attempting a "trick of language" to suit his agenda.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
not to mention that that

not to mention that that verse is clearly meant for the biblical hebrews, and does not of necessity have to be universalized.  note the reference to egypt.  it certainly has no "christian" context, since, according to the NT, christians are de facto foreigners anywhere on earth.

perhaps a picture of israeli soldiers hauling palestinian women out of their cars at gunpoint would be more apt, but then again a strong argument could be made for the israelis being the true "foreigners" in that situation.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Who is a Christian is a more amusing question than who is a Jew. If we go by some models there can be atheist Christians.

Richard Dawkins, the THE himself, says that is what he is.

Go figure.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Who is a Christian is a more amusing question than who is a Jew. If we go by some models there can be atheist Christians.

Richard Dawkins, the THE himself, says that is what he is.

Go figure.

I've never understood the "mormons aren't real Christians" nonsense found throughout North Atlantic countries like the US. Whatever happened to "they all read parts of the same book" claim?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

Kapkao wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Who is a Christian is a more amusing question than who is a Jew. If we go by some models there can be atheist Christians.

Richard Dawkins, the THE himself, says that is what he is.

Go figure.

I've never understood the "mormons aren't real Christians" nonsense found throughout North Atlantic countries like the US. Whatever happened to "they all read parts of the same book" claim?

Because from what I recall Mormon's have their own book, that only Smith could read with his magic glasses, and they have magic underwear.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yeah but that's effectively

Yeah but that's effectively no different from the practice of ignoring or embracing any particular piece of christian scripture to denote denominations. They still accept traditional christian teachings, they just added another book.

It was all made up, the only real difference is when it was made up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Yeah but that's

Vastet wrote:
Yeah but that's effectively no different from the practice of ignoring or embracing any particular piece of christian scripture to denote denominations. They still accept traditional christian teachings, they just added another book. It was all made up, the only real difference is when it was made up.

so then would you call christians jews or vice-versa, since they share the majority of their books?  there has to be a line somewhere. 

i refuse to call mormons christians for two main reasons: one, they attach no central importance to the death and resurrection of jesus christ, and two, they have only recently (within the last 30 years or so) insisted, as part of a huge publicity campaign, that they are "just another christian denomination."  one look at quotes from mormon leaders before the late '60s/early 70s, including smith himself, shows that they made every effort to disassociate themselves from mainstream christianity, and some claim they still do behind closed doors. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Who is a Christian is a more amusing question than who is a Jew. If we go by some models there can be atheist Christians.

Richard Dawkins, the THE himself, says that is what he is.

Go figure.

I've never understood the "mormons aren't real Christians" nonsense found throughout North Atlantic countries like the US. Whatever happened to "they all read parts of the same book" claim?

Frankly I haven't noticed a substantive difference in any of them. Essentially all of the differences are in the what does it matter category.

Historically Christians got themselves official by requiring unanimous agreement on who was a Christian. The two holdouts at Nicea wound up dead. Then there were several distinctly different but large groups like Manchians and Gnostics that challenged the civil authority given them by the emperor so doctrinal purity became important in the same way an army requires an oath from members. Trivial doctrinal issues are often used to challenge authority and of course divert revenues.

As I have observed the religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. 80% of US catholics favor birth control. The dominant form of Catholicism in Cuba is Santeria which the Pope did not mention in two visits. They are not organized with the intention of going their own way. No threat then no interest.

The Mormons went their own way. They pulled out of any cooperation with Christian Churches. They adopted jewish customs like polygamy and magic underwear. They are a threat of the same kind as the Gnostics. They had their own hierarchy off to the side. They did not fit into the existing system. Other than the aboriginal religions they got the worst treatment of any religion in US history in return.

My best guess anyway.

Some day I am going to read enough to find what was said about the gods from other planets in the original words. The way it is explained today is either a retelling in light of modern science or the Book of Mormon was a work of science fiction at least a century ahead of its time. I expect to find the original is nothing like the retelling.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Yeah but that's effectively no different from the practice of ignoring or embracing any particular piece of christian scripture to denote denominations. They still accept traditional christian teachings, they just added another book. It was all made up, the only real difference is when it was made up.

so then would you call christians jews or vice-versa, since they share the majority of their books?  there has to be a line somewhere.

Christian "theology" does not admit the politics. Nor is there any exposition of the politics per se. I can however recite the political situation at the time. John Hyrcanus, grandson of The Hammer, was a Judean aka a Jew. He conquered Samaria, Idumea and the Galilee and imposed circumcision on them as well as direct rule by his family and relatives the priest kings. It is not credible in any sense to say the other three were jews in any form if they did not practice circumcision. (Lift your robes. If circumcised pay the temple tax. Threat to authority and finances if they get away.)

Disregarding questions of exitance, Jesus was a Galilean. As late as the Mishna the Judeans call them Galileans. Emperor Julian (the Apostate) was friendly towards Judeans. He rescinded the ban on entering Jerusalem. He called them Galileans.

In the "time of Jesus" they were under civil rule by Herod who was an Idumean, another conquered people. However they were still required by Roman custom to obey Judean religious law because they were circumcised.

Then appears a religious group in Galilee. One of its oldest letters from an early leader says circucision is not required. No more temple tax. Later we find the terrorists from Masada raiding Galilean towns for food and fighters and they demanding protection from Rome. (That is from very old memory. I need to verify that the victims/complainants were Galileans. The raids and complaints did happen as per Josephus.)

Unless I come across something buried in the literature, meaning ignored by believers, that is about all that can be said. But it does not take much to infer the real problem was over the loss of income for lack of circumcision. While the credibilty and chronology of Acts is in serious question by most all scholars meaning I go to the extreme and consider it a joke it records an attempt by the Judeans to exterminate the Galileans -- Paul the bounty hunter back when his name was Saul. True or not it certainly suggests no love lost. Certainly no points of agreement are indicated by Julian. Talmud references go downhill from there.

Sharing the majority of books yes but that does not appear to have been the original movement. You can still find the earliest disagreements in the early salvation by faith alone or faith and works as opposed to the Judean works alone. Faith of course in Jesus. Works as in imitation of the works of Jesus and those he said to do. If those are enough something is missing, the law.

In the early writings the only talk of the law is what is no longer required. Circumcision is up front of course. But there are no unclean foods, no prohibition against mingling with pagans or against eating and drinking with them. Essentially none of the Judean laws that made the followers look and act differently from everyone else was gone. Even bragging about being better is not requireed.

Obviously there is a big hole there, do as thou wilt that is the whole of the law, when saved by grace. So you mean I can still be a bandit? A hit man? After eliminating at least 90% of the Torah what was left was elevated to sacred or revealed word and imposed. The Septuagint had been popular reading for new Galilens including the Book of Enoch but there is no indication either Galileans or Judeans took it as more than that until much later. Certainly by the 8th c. it was but what I have found does not suggest it is the earliest.

And technically it does not apply to Catholics at all as the hierarchy claims to final authority regardless of it. The source of authority is doctrine and scripture. Doctrine cuts scripture. Pope breaks doctrine. Scripture chokes Spock who isn't here yet.

It is in fact the protestants who elevated it. And that apparently to make up for the rejection of Papal authority.With people actually reading the bible it would not have taken long to see Jesus was silent on just about every "sin" or moral policy like murder and theft. Yes scripture is for counsel but not for authority.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
i refuse to call mormons christians for two main reasons: one, they attach no central importance to the death and resurrection of jesus christ,

While I can imagine what you mean from a doctrinal point of view I would prefer you spell it out because the central theme is after his resurrection he appeared in the New World taught the doctrines of the Mormons. If that is not importance I must miss the meaning. Certainly a different kind of importance but still important.

Besides the Christian imporance is theatrical not doctrinal. Any kind of death including of old age in bed will satisfy the doctrine. If a messy death is required where would Christians be without Saint Judas and the supporting cast of saints in the Judean mob?

Quote:
and two, they have only recently (within the last 30 years or so) insisted, as part of a huge publicity campaign, that they are "just another christian denomination."  one look at quotes from mormon leaders before the late '60s/early 70s, including smith himself, shows that they made every effort to disassociate themselves from mainstream christianity, and some claim they still do behind closed doors. 

True but ... They peaked out in US membership by emphasizing the differences so it is natural to shift strategies and emphasize similarities. From what I have read they still push the differences in Latin America where it is still growing.

It is all a matter of competition for the dollars. Sorry it is purely to save souls but we need money to save souls therefore it is still money.

Tell me how a new religion differs from a pyramid scheme. After it has maxed out the pyramid it has to change its approach.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@iwbiek A line does need to

@iwbiek

A line does need to be drawn, however there are fundamental differences between jews and christians that don't exist between mormons and other christian sects. There isn't a christian out there, to my knowledge, who embraces the torah as a holy book. But mormons use the bible.
The christian & mormon backbones are indistiguishable. It is only ritual and history that are disputed. Just like protestants and catholics and baptists etc.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
@iwbiek A line does need to be drawn, however there are fundamental differences between jews and christians that don't exist between mormons and other christian sects. There isn't a christian out there, to my knowledge, who embraces the torah as a holy book. But mormons use the bible. The christian & mormon backbones are indistiguishable. It is only ritual and history that are disputed. Just like protestants and catholics and baptists etc.

The Torah might get lip service but the Talmud and other commentary rules. It is nothing new. You don't know a thing about the law until you have studied how the courts apply them.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There isn't a

Vastet wrote:
There isn't a christian out there, to my knowledge, who embraces the torah as a holy book. But mormons use the bible.

can you clarify?  because the torah is nothing more than the first 5 books of the bible, and pious christians accept it as holy in the exact same manner as pious jews--i.e., as an inspired revelation delivered verbatim by god to moses on mt. sinai.  the only thing that differs is exegesis.  what jews refer to as the "hebrew bible" (tanakh) is exactly the same as what christians refer to as the "old testament," with a few additions by catholics and orthodox.

also, it was only after several centuries, and intense debate, that the new testament was canonized.  before that, the only "scriptures" you could count on all christians accepting was the hebrew bible (or rather the septuagint).  mormons, however, accepted additional scriptures directly from joseph smith from the very beginning, and nobody had any right to debate what was in the "canon" of the book of mormon.  in this way, the book of mormon has a helluva lot more in common with the quran than the bible, and mormons a helluva lot more in common with muslims than christians.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Does anything you said have

Does anything you said have anything to do with my point? It certainly doesn't appear to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While I

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

While I can imagine what you mean from a doctrinal point of view I would prefer you spell it out because the central theme is after his resurrection he appeared in the New World taught the doctrines of the Mormons.

for christians, the central, non-negotiable tenet of their religion is the salvific power of the death of jesus christ.  mormonism has no concern with ideas like blood atonement and substitutionary death in the new testament sense.  (in fact, i'm trying to remember if mormons don't have a docetic conception of the cruifixion.)

i don't think jesus's preaching to the indians is supposed to be the central event of the mormon world history.  smith used it mostly for etiological purposes, and today it is emphasized more than in the past because of the whole "we have the same jesus as you" publicity campaign. 

honestly, i would argue the intended central event of mormonism never happened.  as i said in a previous post, mormonism has more parallels with islam than christianity, and here an islamic analogy is extremely helpful.  muhammad had his hijra, which is the central event of islam and the beginning of the present era for muslims, and because of it muhammad died a successful prophet.  joseph smith tried to have a hijra of his own, several times--to ohio, then missouri, then finally illinois--but never succeeded.  the mormons were constantly driven out until smith was finally slaughtered like the dog he was and died a penniless, felonious failure.  perhaps that was helpful to future mormon missionary efforts among christians, since they were able to hold smith up as a suffering christ figure, but it's obvious that smith would have rather been of the muhammad type.

i suppose most mormons today would identify their central event as the translation of the BOM by smith and the establishment of the mantle of prophethood.  mormon soteriology seems to be mostly gnostic in nature, with higher levels of eternal existence granted to those who have been admitted to higher levels of initiation.  smith was a freemason and on his own admission borrowed heavily from masonic ceremonies, while maintaining that mormons had rediscovered the "true" freemasonry, which had been corrupted over time.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Does anything

Vastet wrote:
Does anything you said have anything to do with my point? It certainly doesn't appear to.

so then just say you can't or won't clarify.  no need to be a dick.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Does anything you said have anything to do with my point? It certainly doesn't appear to.

I intended in modest detail to demonstrate money could in every case explain the issue you raised. Perhaps I misunderstood your posts. Apologies. Even I am not perfect.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Vastet

iwbiek wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Does anything you said have anything to do with my point? It certainly doesn't appear to.

so then just say you can't or won't clarify.  no need to be a dick.

I was talking to A_Nony_Mouse in that quote. You posted too quickly and I didn't notice. Sorry for the confusion.

Ok, so the torah wasn't a great example. But I still see major differences between jews and christians that the mormons don't mirror. The jesus is a prophet to the jews, and god to christians (mormons included).
The only difference between a mormon and any other christian is the book of mormon. While the whole philosophy of judaism is different than christianity. Unless I've been lied to by jews.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
While I can imagine what you mean from a doctrinal point of view I would prefer you spell it out because the central theme is after his resurrection he appeared in the New World taught the doctrines of the Mormons.

for christians, the central, non-negotiable tenet of their religion is the salvific power of the death of jesus christ.  mormonism has no concern with ideas like blood atonement and substitutionary death in the new testament sense.  (in fact, i'm trying to remember if mormons don't have a docetic conception of the cruifixion.)

i don't think jesus's preaching to the indians is supposed to be the central event of the mormon world history.  smith used it mostly for etiological purposes, and today it is emphasized more than in the past because of the whole "we have the same jesus as you" publicity campaign.

The story line as I understand it is after the resurrection Jesus preached the gospel in the new world. I don't see how that would negate the crucifixion riff. I sort of rememeber the BOM being called an additional testament. 

Quote:
honestly, i would argue the intended central event of mormonism never happened.

Who would argue the golden plates were real?

Quote:
as i said in a previous post, mormonism has more parallels with islam than christianity, and here an islamic analogy is extremely helpful.  muhammad had his hijra, which is the central event of islam and the beginning of the present era for muslims, and because of it muhammad died a successful prophet.  joseph smith tried to have a hijra of his own, several times--to ohio, then missouri, then finally illinois--but never succeeded.  the mormons were constantly driven out until smith was finally slaughtered like the dog he was and died a penniless, felonious failure.  perhaps that was helpful to future mormon missionary efforts among christians, since they were able to hold smith up as a suffering christ figure, but it's obvious that smith would have rather been of the muhammad type.

The movements in the aftermath of starting the LDS are all presented as forced as a consequence of persecution as in Islam. But in Islam that is part of the story of the spread of the religion. For the LDS it is a matter of historical events around Brigham Young saga. What Smith might have wanted to be is unrecorded. I would not leap to an extreme. The simplest assumption is he wanted to stay where he was and enjoy his harem.

As to where he got the rituals for the religion they are mainly Jewish. Ritual baths aren't called Mikvahs but does that matter? The magic underwear is Jewish. Polygamy is Jewish. Being a prophet is Jewish. Mohamed drew on the same OT source materials.

If one wants say dog then certainly that would apply to Falwell and his ilk. Anyone creating a cult following would be in that category including Rabbi Scheerson and dozern of his kind over the centuries and to this day. I do not see how any of these are particularly worthy of death solely for that. Just because we have the Roman custom of monogamy does not condemn polygamy. With the claim that Paul was a citizen of Rome his preaching Roman values is expected.

All cult founders and prophets are scam artists and crooks. The penalty is in proportion to the harm not summary execution although I willing to entertain the idea.

Quote:
i suppose most mormons today would identify their central event as the translation of the BOM by smith and the establishment of the mantle of prophethood.  mormon soteriology seems to be mostly gnostic in nature, with higher levels of eternal existence granted to those who have been admitted to higher levels of initiation.  smith was a freemason and on his own admission borrowed heavily from masonic ceremonies, while maintaining that mormons had rediscovered the "true" freemasonry, which had been corrupted over time.

Nor do I see anything inherently backward in gnosticism. Up and coming politicians in Rome made financial contributions to temples and in return were initiated into the higher mysteries. It was required for advancement in Rome. Seems to me just an institutionalized variant on shamans having special knowledge. That the gnostics lost a power struggle in the early church does not appear to be significant.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:iwbiek

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Does anything you said have anything to do with my point? It certainly doesn't appear to.

so then just say you can't or won't clarify.  no need to be a dick.

I was talking to A_Nony_Mouse in that quote. You posted too quickly and I didn't notice. Sorry for the confusion. Ok, so the torah wasn't a great example. But I still see major differences between jews and christians that the mormons don't mirror. The jesus is a prophet to the jews, and god to christians (mormons included). The only difference between a mormon and any other christian is the book of mormon. While the whole philosophy of judaism is different than christianity. Unless I've been lied to by jews.

ah, my mistake.

look, there are a helluva lot more differences between christians and mormons than an additional book.  mormons don't accept the trinity, and are avowed polytheists.  jesus is considered a god among many.  he and his father, elohim, are two distinct entities.  they were both once human, and any human can become a god if he has access to the right passwords (and, according to joseph smith, as long as he's a man, white, and has multiple wives).

i guess the reason i think this distinction is important is because i consider mormons a greater real threat to american liberty than any other religious group.  joseph smith said himself, in his famous "white horse prophecy," that one day mormons would turn the usa into a theocracy, and the position of mormon leaders since then has been to affirm that prophecy.  throughout their history, from the joseph smith days, mormons have sought to take political power wherever they go, usually by flooding the constituency with mormons, who all vote as a bloc.  mormons hold a lot of powerful positions in the us gov't today, and now a mormon is making a bid for the presidency, with a pretty good shot.  their "just another christian denomination" campaign they've been running for the last 30 years is blatant dishonesty, aimed at making americans comfortable with them, and it's working.

evangelical christianity is bad enough, but mormonism is a straight-up threat to personal liberties and human rights on the order of saudi wahhabism or iranian "revolutionary" islam.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The story

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The story line as I understand it is after the resurrection Jesus preached the gospel in the new world. I don't see how that would negate the crucifixion riff.

it doesn't.  the point is, christianity considers the crucifixion--i.e., the substitutionary death of jesus--as the central salvation event, and the blood of jesus as the agent that brings us into a relationship with the one god.

mormonism does not attach any special salvific quality to the crucifixion.  for them, it's just another story among many.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The simplest assumption is he wanted to stay where he was and enjoy his harem.

history gives no credence to that assumption.  smith made no secret of the fact that, just like muhammad, he had aspirations for political power.  that's what got him driven from place to place--not his unorthodox beliefs, but the fact that people didn't cotton to being ruled according to this new, strange religion, and they saw that that was exactly what was about to happen.  i mean, look at all he did in nauvoo, illinois: got himself elected mayor, made the city charter so that he could basically rule by decree, raised a private army and strutted around in uniform, and, when his enormous debts ruined his credit entirely, printed his own money.

as for his harem, he constantly wavered on the idea of polygamy, since his wife refused to accept it.  he never got to enjoy it with the same kind of reckless abandon as brigham.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Being a prophet is Jewish.

being a prophet is iranian.  we have no evidence of prophecy entering the jewish ethos until after the babylonian captivity.  zarathustra was the first prophet in the strict sense of the word, and he no doubt took his cue from the soma-inspired aryan singers of proto-vedic hymns.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Does anything you said have anything to do with my point? It certainly doesn't appear to.

so then just say you can't or won't clarify.  no need to be a dick.

I was talking to A_Nony_Mouse in that quote. You posted too quickly and I didn't notice. Sorry for the confusion. Ok, so the torah wasn't a great example. But I still see major differences between jews and christians that the mormons don't mirror. The jesus is a prophet to the jews, and god to christians (mormons included). The only difference between a mormon and any other christian is the book of mormon. While the whole philosophy of judaism is different than christianity. Unless I've been lied to by jews.

ah, my mistake.

look, there are a helluva lot more differences between christians and mormons than an additional book.  mormons don't accept the trinity,

Are Unitarians no longer Christians? If one tries to argue the only Christians are Eastern Rite Catholic and Roman Catholics and their Protestant spin-offs are the only Christians there are a half dozen other groups who call themselves Christians who would disagree with you.

It strikes me odd that an atheists are declaring doctrinal purity for Christians who have not come to an agreement among themselves after some 1700 years of trying.

Quote:
and are avowed polytheists.  jesus is considered a god among many.  he and his father, elohim, are two distinct entities.  they were both once human, and any human can become a god if he has access to the right passwords (and, according to joseph smith, as long as he's a man, white, and has multiple wives).

The trinity is just an artifact of Greek thought. To them a person had four parts, body, mind, soul and spirit. The Christian god has no body therefore mind, soul and (holy) spirit. 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The story line as I understand it is after the resurrection Jesus preached the gospel in the new world. I don't see how that would negate the crucifixion riff.

it doesn't.  the point is, christianity considers the crucifixion--i.e., the substitutionary death of jesus--as the central salvation event, and the blood of jesus as the agent that brings us into a relationship with the one god.

mormonism does not attach any special salvific quality to the crucifixion.  for them, it's just another story among many.

There are two threads to the death of Jesus. Death is the manner of salvation not the manner of death. The other thread cues St. Judas is causing a messy death as required for human blood sacrifice. So far as I remember from the dubious pleasure of 12 years of RC school education the former is doctrinal, the latter is explanatory. All the early disagreements were over real death of real human not the manner of death.

Another idea imposed on the gospels is the hidden (gnostic) meanings of the parables were not revealed to apostles only until after resurrection. That the same was taught elsewhere is not excluded.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The simplest assumption is he wanted to stay where he was and enjoy his harem.

history gives no credence to that assumption.  smith made no secret of the fact that, just like muhammad, he had aspirations for political power.  that's what got him driven from place to place--not his unorthodox beliefs, but the fact that people didn't cotton to being ruled according to this new, strange religion, and they saw that that was exactly what was about to happen.  i mean, look at all he did in nauvoo, illinois: got himself elected mayor, made the city charter so that he could basically rule by decree, raised a private army and strutted around in uniform, and, when his enormous debts ruined his credit entirely, printed his own money.

The Koran makes no assertion of intent to political power. Of course no one knows what really happened but that cuts both ways.

As to details on Smith I see no bearing of those points upon the issue at hand. I am certain the LDS have their side of the story.

Should they be considered Christian? I do not have a dog in that fight. If I did I would also find myself needing an opinion on Catholics pagans or christians? Self declared is self declared. I would prefer both cock fights and that fight be equally illegal.

If Mormons declare they are despite the opinion other christian groups so what? I see nothing specifically precluding it when there is a body of Protestant thought that Catholics are not Christians.

In today's environment invidious comparisons to Islam are not helpful and were never rational. All religions are equally stupid. For an atheist to have any other opinion is to side with some variant of theism. That is not rational either.

Quote:
as for his harem, he constantly wavered on the idea of polygamy, since his wife refused to accept it.  he never got to enjoy it with the same kind of reckless abandon as brigham.

Fine by me but it was still based upon jewish polygamy. Many of the ideas are from the OT. All Christian groups arbitrarily pick and choose from the OT also. That is not a discriminant.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Being a prophet is Jewish.
Quote:
being a prophet is iranian.  we have no evidence of prophecy entering the jewish ethos until after the babylonian captivity.  zarathustra was the first prophet in the strict sense of the word, and he no doubt took his cue from the soma-inspired aryan singers of proto-vedic hymns.

The captivity is a myth without physical evidence. You can't get there from here. The Septuagint uses the word. What people choose to call Zarathustra based upon the Septuagint is their choice. The Septuagint from the mid 2nd c. BC is the oldest presentation of the concept separate from oracular communications although it is clearly a variation upon it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Are

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Are Unitarians no longer Christians?

i don't give a shit what unitarians call themselves because unitarians haven't consistently expressed an interest in turning my country into a goddam theocracy.

not only have mormons expressed that, but they're actually succeeding in it through a clever campaign of misinformation designed to give themselves a friendly, familiar face.  just look at the data to see how public opinion of mormons have changed since they started with their bullshit in the early '70s: it's overwhelmingly more favorable and tolerant.

if most mormon leaders got their way today, it would be brigham's salt lake city all over again, complete with forced marriages to thirteen year-old girls and avenging angels.  honestly, i think tehran might be nicer.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
GNU Atheism's particularly notable take on Romney's religion

It's relevant enough, since Hamby's... op-ed is posted there.

one gnu atheist wrote:
How is Mormonism ”clearly not Christianity” exactly? It's a variant with some unusual features to be sure, but when a religion regards Jesus Christ as an incarnated deity, holds rituals honoring him and regards praying to him as an effective way to influence the world how the hell is it not a form of Christianity? Other sects may say they are not True Christians (TM) just as they do Catholics, but I'm surprised to see you doing the same, (Hamby).

another gnu atheist wrote:
Mormons are Christians, but they are not Scotsmen.

yet another gnu atheist wrote:
Much as the evangelicals would like to deny it, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.

Hamby wrote:
Y'all are thinking like anthropologist non-religionists. Yes, Mormonism is clearly a descendant of Christianity. No question. But Mormons do not believe in the Christian plan of salvation through faith in Jesus and being "born again."

We might as well say that Christianity is really just Zoroastrianism. Sure... it's a direct descendant. But the beliefs are different enough that *practitioners* view them as different. And that's what matters in this context. Not whether or not the Christians know that Mormonism is their bastard child. Whether or not Christians are being hypocritical by accepting a Mormon even though their dogma rejects him.

Note: your ranting again, Hamby. Not all that impressively, either.

additional gnu atheist wrote:
‎(Hamby), you seem to be coming from a certain protestant perspective. There are many strains of xian that do not follow the general protestant mold. When it comes to grouping sects, I think it makes more sense to group them as they group themselves. Do you strike other restorationism groups from xian grouping as well?

Hamby, once again making fallacious garbage wrote:
To (additional gnu atheist), et al. I *am* taking the mainline perspective because it *is* the mainline perspective. I've had my finger on the pulse of protestant Christianity (far and away the most prevalent in America) and yes... Protestants have viewed Mormons as a cult until Romney.

I'm perfectly aware that there are smaller sects of Christianity who view Mormonism less judgmentally.

additional gnu atheist, once again wrote:
So where do you come down on Catholic or Orthodox, both of whom discount to some degree these upstart confused protestants, and both of whom are discounted by the mainline protestants themselves?

Hamby, proving he genuinely has something of a narrow mind in some respects wrote:
Levi, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to me.

Well there's a fucking surprise...

Hamby, demonstrating said narrowmindedness wrote:
Can you explain to me why it's relevant to my argument that splinter sects of Christianity *might* not think Mormons are also a cult?

Catholic doctrine eliminates Mormonism as "true Christianity." To my knowledge, the Pope has not made a firm declaration on the subject, but a cursory review of the blogosphere reveals that Catholics in general are keenly aware of stark differences between the two, most notably, the Mormon's claim to exclusivity.

additional gnu atheist wrote:
I am merely suggesting that there is no central authority that can say whether a given sect may be called christian. There are MANY very disparate groups that claim the name, and most of those are discounted by at least some of the other sects.

If you were to start a church that centered on the life and character of christ, I think that would fairly clearly mark you as a christian.

another gnu atheist wrote:
The largest category of Christians is, by far, Catholics. As I understand it, Catholics consider Mormons to be Christians. I know that some Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, but it seems to me that some Protestant sects seek to exclude as many groups as possible from the "Christian" label.

Regardless, I get the point that some Protestant leaders in the US do not consider Romney to be Christian, and yet support him. I suspect they would support Santorum, who is Catholic, and thus again not "Christian" according to their taxonomy. I think it is incorrect to assume they have a binary assessment policy. Perhaps it's something like: Christian is best, "follower of Jesus" next; "follower of the true God" next (under the presumption that they'd support a Jew over a Muslim); "believer" next (under the presumption that they'd support a Muslim over an atheist). Those are all religious assessments, not political ones.

Hamby wrote:
I've scoured the interwebs, and cannot find an official Catholic proclamation about Mormons. But pretty much all I've found is this: "Well... they believe in Jesus, and that's good. And they're good people. But their doctrine isn't Christian."

edit; you might say this is a short critique on Hamby's protestant-oriented cheapshot of religion (Mormonism) and the fact that religion is, well... divisive. Standard "NSS!" remark, here.

That is because it IS a critique, but with a smile! Laughing out loud

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian Murtagh, gnu atheist

Brian Murtagh, gnu atheist and relevant poster wrote:
  Most of the Christians I work with (all pretty fundamentalist, mostly Baptists and Evangelical) would consider Obama's liberal Christianity as being no more True Christian (TM) than the LDS church, so from the ”as seen by the practitioner” standard it's a wash, except that Romney would probably govern in a style closer to how their ideal True Christian (TM) candidate would.

Ok, we finally have a winner. Most christians at least acknowledge that most other christians are wrong about something regarding theism, save for fundies.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Are Unitarians no longer Christians?

i don't give a shit what unitarians call themselves because unitarians haven't consistently expressed an interest in turning my country into a goddam theocracy.

I am unaware of any LDS expression of such intent and I would have thought the US Cavalry parade though downtown Salt Lake City marked paid to any such pretensions. The closest to promoting a form of theocracy are the born again types with abortion and creationism as lead issues.

What have you found I missed and got any URLs? However debating whether or not they are christians given the creation/abortion agenda would suggest non-christian to be a positive thing.

Quote:
not only have mormons expressed that, but they're actually succeeding in it through a clever campaign of misinformation designed to give themselves a friendly, familiar face.  just look at the data to see how public opinion of mormons have changed since they started with their bullshit in the early '70s: it's overwhelmingly more favorable and tolerant.

It would seem there are two venues for the establishment of a theocracy, revolution or both 2/3rds of Senate and 3/4 of the state to ratify several amendments to the constitution. I don't how a pretty face contributes to either. But I will read your URLs.

Quote:
if most mormon leaders got their way today, it would be brigham's salt lake city all over again, complete with forced marriages to thirteen year-old girls and avenging angels.  honestly, i think tehran might be nicer./quote]

Again please give me the URLs. With a US population of under 6 million leading to a max of 2 million combat available sort of obviates the revolutionary approach. Left with the constutional amendment approach pardon if I wait for the amendments to be introduced before getting excited about it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i don't have url's because i

i don't have url's because i have the quaint habit of reading books.  i recommend one nation under gods.  while i don't like that the author is an evangelical christian and lapses into theological polemic occassionally, he's a solid historian and his documentation is extremely thorough (the endnotes take up at least a quarter of the book).  he quotes from original sources at great length, especially on the issue of the mormon political agenda, and nearly every source he quotes is readily available on the internet.  in particular, he constantly references doctrines and covenants, especially earlier editions that have since been heavily edited, smith's own fanciful history of the mormon church, and recorded statements and sermons of every subsequent mormon prophet.

and you know as well as i do that the constitution needn't be amended--ignoring it can and has been just as effective, if not more-so.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
i don't have url's because i have the quaint habit of reading books.  i recommend

one nation under gods

.  while i don't like that the author is an evangelical christian and lapses into theological polemic occassionally, he's a solid historian and his documentation is extremely thorough (the endnotes take up at least a quarter of the book).  he quotes from original sources at great length, especially on the issue of the mormon political agenda, and nearly every source he quotes is readily available on the internet.  in particular, he constantly references 

doctrines and covenants

, especially earlier editions that have since been heavily edited, smith's own fanciful history of the mormon church, and recorded statements and sermons of every subsequent mormon prophet.

and you know as well as i do that the constitution needn't be amended--ignoring it can and has been just as effective, if not more-so.

 

Back in the day I did look into a few of these polemics. They all turned out to be what Feynman called Cargo Cult science. Like the cargo cult types they had all the appearances of real science, footnotes, citations, but when you looked into the appearances you discover they are bogus.

There is also a special talent in presenting material out of context and in the worst possible light. If one wishes to play that game bring out both the Torah and the Talmud. If you want to hang Catholics bring on the Borgias. And if you want to hang Obama quote is pastor. If you want to hang Islam keep talking about Jihad and never mention the rescue effort after the major earthquake in Iran was also called a Jihad. Of course you are free to stick with medieval papal propaganda.

Even if it were absolutely, 110% true the possibility of success is so low, so beyond serious consideration, that I would have to rate it beyond the threats of being taken over by Papists, Mexicans and Scientologists in that order.

But given legistlative success in the states and even at the federal level I would rank your source as a clear and present danger to the republic.

You have to learn to stop taking fruitcakes seriously.

To paraphrase Hermann Goering, 'Declare the country in danger, denounce nay-sayers for lack of patriotism, it is the same in every country.' Of course he left out a point. Declare the government propaganda successful and do it anyway, even though 63% of Americans and 72% of Brits were against the conquest of Iraq.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You have

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You have to learn to stop taking fruitcakes seriously.

ok, this is straight out the pot calling the kettle black.  you're always crying ad hom on everybody for calling you an antisemite, insisting they read your arguments in detail, and demanding data to support their attacks.

read the book, check the facts, then talk to me about "fruitcakes."  if you don't feel like taking the time to do that, just bow out.  really, you can do it.  there's no shame in it.  i do it all the time.  i would totally understand: i have 3 jobs, a wife, a baby son, and a fair piece of property that needs constant maintenance.  i already spend way too much time on here to begin with.

i never figured you would be such a persistent defender of mormons, anyway.  are you worried that my doomsaying about the mormons will distract people from the big, bad jew menace?  because i swear i'm not in any way trying to steal your alarmist thunder, dude.

or do you want to prove you're the better scholar?  fine, you got it.  you're the better scholar.  i'm sure your dick has a good four inches on mine too.

and just to prove i'm sincere, i'll gladly concede the last word.  take it away.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You have to learn to stop taking fruitcakes seriously.

ok, this is straight out the pot calling the kettle black.  you're always crying ad hom on everybody for calling you an antisemite, insisting they read your arguments in detail, and demanding data to support their attacks.

read the book, check the facts, then talk to me about "fruitcakes."  if you don't feel like taking the time to do that, just bow out.  really, you can do it.  there's no shame in it.  i do it all the time.  i would totally understand: i have 3 jobs, a wife, a baby son, and a fair piece of property that needs constant maintenance.  i already spend way too much time on here to begin with.

I should waste my time on possible threat far below the Scientologist threat for what reason? As I said, 110% correct, why should I do anything but chucke?

I also have a VERY long standing policy against READ HIM and you will know I am right posts.

If you wish to make the case yourself please feel free to do so. I will not engage in an ex partite debate. Or you can have the author log on here and I will discuss it with him myself. I will not play the third party game. It is no different from an admonishion to read the bible. I will debate the bible. Get the authors to log on and defend themselves. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Josephus ane Herodotus are all the same save the last two are from sources known to have existed.

Quote:
i never figured you would be such a persistent defender of mormons, anyway.  are you worried that my doomsaying about the mormons will distract people from the big, bad jew menace?  because i swear i'm not in any way trying to steal your alarmist thunder, dude.

or do you want to prove you're the better scholar?  fine, you got it.  you're the better scholar.  i'm sure your dick has a good four inches on mine too.

And when I call jews dictators I add the tator to be polite. Is this clever enough for government work?

Quote:
and just to prove i'm sincere, i'll gladly concede the last word.  take it away.

I defend no one. I speak only for the facts as I know them. I agree the name I give to the facts is different. I agree what I call the facts is different. I agree what I call the name of the facts is different. Please read Lewis Carroll.

I have described Zionism as it describes itself, period. I have NEVER deviated from what Zionism says it is. Not ONCE!

I agree with every word down to the last jot and tittle of what Zionism says it is.

How can I be more clear than that? Those are the facts.

What I call the facts is of course different from what Zionists call the facts. I give the facts a different name. The zionists call it an occupation. I call it a jewish military tyranny. And while the Zionists call the name, redeeming the land their god gave to them I call a war crime.

Should I type slower so you can follow? Is "Through the Looking Glass" over your head?

We are both atheists. All religions are fungible. All believers are idiots. Idiots chose not to convert to Christianity. Don't whine about stupid decisions. I am not interested. Not converting means accepting the consequences of the decision. That the idea of a jewish people independent of religion was invented by the Zionists is such a well known fact that I was sort of surprised Sand needed to write the book. I know several established facts he did not include in addition to all he did include and years before he published.

I also hold that anyone who lets Israel get away with calling itself "jewish" truly, deep down in his heart, hates Jews. If theft, murder and tyranny is what it maens to be a Jew thank your god the world is still cowed by holodile tears. If it were not for that it would have vanished long ago. The link is from Haaretz 4/17/12, probably today for you. www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/before-we-lose-the-protective-shell-1.424719

It is good to know you are not and cannot possibily be a Jew. You may be a Zionist but that makes you a political Jew not a real Jew. No atheist can claim to be a Jew without claiming to be a Zionist thief, murderer and totalitarian animal. Again there are facts. That is what I choose to call the facts. Call them what you want. I will freely debate what you call them.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ iwbiek Man you know way

@ iwbiek

Man you know way too much about the history of yhe abrahamic religions for me to truly argue against you, but I still feel there's a significant difference between mormons and jews vs christianity. I simply can't logically continue the argument with my ignorance on the subject. So I'll concede.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.