Social con group to McCain: Just say no to Mitt

posted at 9:51 pm on April 3, 2008 by Allahpundit

“Utterly unacceptable”? Even I wouldn’t go that far, and I’ve been cool to the idea of putting him on the ticket for months. Quote:

“If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and will either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur,” concludes the text of the ad.

Click the first link above to see the full text of the ad, which zeroes in predictably on abortion and gay marriage. Here’s the background as regards the latter; if Mitt did the Log Cabin Republicans some big favor, it’s obviously been lost on them. Meanwhile, the My Man Mitt site is in high dudgeon, flinging links aplenty claiming that the ad is misleading. The curious part is why any of this should be troubling to Paul Weyrich, who endorsed Romney for president as recently as four months ago, long after his positions on these issues had shaken out. This makes him the anti-Dobson, I guess.

Exit question: What’s this really about? After 18 months of Romney running for president, suddenly these guys have a problem with his record?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

He is mormon. And yes mormonism is satan inspired. Anything that leads one to sin and anything that leads away from the True Christ and anything that is anti-Biblical is satan inspired.

Mormonism fits all three categories.

SaintOlaf on April 4, 2008 at 7:36 PM

I see apocalyps … Nice work, linking to a video put forth by a company that makes it’s living bashing Mormons for profit. I have to emphasize this–they get paid to bash mormons.

Vanceone on April 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM

La la la.. . what do I see? Hmm.. Well, I see you attacking me all the while ignoring what that video contained, which was the fact that Joseph Smith dropped a magic rock into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeded to dictate the Book of Mormon. I suspect that the seer stones aren’t often mentioned in LDS conversation because they make Joseph Smith seem peculiar (in a bad way) and reinforce the fact that Joseph was heavily involved in folk magic practices. This conflicts with the modern LDS distaste for such things and with their more romanticized notions of Joseph Smith. Personally, I don’t care what Joseph Smith did, or what Mormons do, if it weren’t for the fact that you guy’s insult the intellectual integrity of Christians everywhere by implying that Mormonism and Christianity share the same philosophical tenets. When you do that someone who knows better is going to speak up. Don’t make the comparison and you can have all the fun you want presenting reenactments of the translation of the Book of Mormon using a magic stone and their use in early church history. Have at it.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 7:38 PM

As an aside, I don’t know what American History books Hollowpoint and R2B have been reading on persecution in this country’s history, but I would challenge them to name a religious group that these lovely pieces of legislation were meant for:

Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862)
Poland Act (1874)
Edmunds Act (1882)
Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887)

Between those, the Utah War and not to mention the Smoot Hearings… Naw, they’ve been treated like everyone else. ;)

SkinnerVic on April 4, 2008 at 6:33 PM

So you’re in favor of polygamy and religious tests in the judicial system that only allow Mormons to sit on juries? Or the coverup of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Brigham Young thumbed his nose at the Constitution, federal law and the US government. The US government had little choice but to act in the face of abuse of power committed by Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders. Don’t pretend it was a simple case of religious persecution.

Hollowpoint on April 4, 2008 at 7:39 PM

right2bright on April 4, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Is Utah a country?

Buy Danish on April 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Look dude, it must be a drag having to spend your entire life on this blog putting down mormons…

Roger Waters on April 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM

I noticed you didn’t apologize for falsely accusing me. Anyways, um, if you look back to the beginning of this thread you’ll notice is wasn’t me who started talking about Mormonism. I posted only about Romney having a liberal political record. It’s the Mormons who brought it up — not me! So there again you are wrong and are falsely accusing me. I didn’t start it. The truth is, you cannot disagree with Mitt’s political record and not be called a bigot by a certain group here. It’s kinda wacked… lol.

What are you up to now, anyway? 2000 posts today or something?

3 strikes and you’re out! Wrong again Roger. I haven’t posted much lately, well, today I have. Anyways, your ridiculous little opinion has been noted. I patiently await the expected barrage from the rabid and misguided attack mongers.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Roger Waters on April 4, 2008 at 7:19 PM

Roger – Stop sending me those creepy apologies, I have blocked your PMs and I am not interested in “getting to know” you.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Hollowpoint: It’s kind of hard to have others on a jury when they aren’t there. I am not surprised to find you suddenly have a hidden anti-Mormon bias.

Look, Brigham Young did NOT “thumb his nose” at the Constitution, etc. The federal government imposed a whole bunch of, basically, John Murtha’s as judges, legislators, etc. on Utah. They never bothered to inform Brigham when he was replaced; instead they sent an army. Last time I checked, it’s only courtesy to tell a governor he’s replaced, rather than invade.

And any “abuse” means you can strip people of the right to vote? Are you defending the actions taken against the LDS people? It reads like the liberal wet dream against Christianity. Yet you defend it, since it’s Mormons. Nice.

Apocalyps: I know all about the “seer stone.” Tell me, what was the Urim and Thummin? How about the snake on a stick that Moses used, or Aaron’s staff? Time to reject all of early Jewish stuff, too! Get to it–tear out the five books of Moses!

Saint Olaf: I’m sorry that coming closer to Christ and living His commandments, which is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches, is “Satan inspired” in your view. News flash: we use the Bible. Another News Flash: I bet you think Catholics are “Satan inspired” too, since they (GASP!!!) have the Apocrypha, and the Pope, which no doubt you also regard as Satanic.

It’s been fun, but I have to take off. Good luck to you, Gentleman, and may you be judged as harshly as you judge Mormons (that would only be fair, right? Do unto others, etc).

Vanceone on April 4, 2008 at 7:57 PM

One of the reasons true conservatives will not support Mitt Romney was because he has flipped on quite a few issues, including the issue addressing one of the most basic moral questions: life. He spent his life and political career as a pro-choice activist, defying his church’s stand on the subject, but then suddenly had an epiphany right before running for president that he was wrong on whether or not there is a basic right to life. All of a sudden you no longer agree with Planned Parenthood that a child can be cut to pieces (literally) in the mother’s womb on the whim of the mother? Now all of a sudden you have a profound desire to protect that un-born child? Yes, people can change. No problem there. But, it is a major obstacle for voters who have pro-life values. Now who is going to be the first one here to call me a bigot?

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 8:02 PM

SaintOlaf, no, I am NOT a mormon. I dont go to any church. Wasnt raised to go to any church. But, if you are a christian, I hope I am not one of those based on your bigotry and stupidity.

Apoloyps said: “Roger – Stop sending me those creepy apologies, I have blocked your PMs and I am not interested in “getting to know” you.”

Further proof that Schmucabee supporting “christians” are liars….just like their hero Satan Huckabee himself. The day I send you a PM is the day the world ends. what a loser.

Roger Waters on April 4, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Of all the commentors on HA. Roger Waters is by far the most hateful person I’ve seen here.

SaintOlaf on April 4, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Roger, we really don’t think you’re the enemy, you’re just working for him. Apparently, you and some of the others here like Skinner Vic and Vanceone have been seduced by the dark side of the Force. You should be concerned about this because the view you adopt as your philosophy of life will have a profound effect on many decisions you make and your eternal destiny when this life is over. You’re always welcome on our side. Converted Mormons make great Christians. No joke.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 8:16 PM

apacalpys, your reading comprehension isnt very good. Maybe you didnt get through high school. I already stated that I am not a mormon or LDS.

Dude, no offense, but if there is a hell….you are going.
Burn baby burn. I didnt know mormons converted to christianity. I thought that was the reason the evangelicals hate the mormons so much….they do all that sheep stealing. HA HA HA!!

Roger Waters on April 4, 2008 at 8:21 PM

apacalyps – the very reason you don’t seem to understand what I was saying – is the very reason I say it. You and SaintOlaf for example, are too dense to understand not only what Christ stands for (need a hint – love and charity), but the principles our country was founded on -others on this blog aren’t. Your sarcasm about my supporting Huckabee is typical of your inability to understand what the core issue is. Your social and religious views are destroying the US as much as any far left idiot when you insist they should be the views of all and you have the right to legislate it. You say you are a conservative – so you believe in small government – but I’d bet that you’d be willing to put all your social and religious values into law – the antithesis of what small government is.

unaffiliated on April 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Apocalyps: I know all about the “seer stone.” Tell me, what was the Urim and Thummin? How about the snake on a stick that Moses used, or Aaron’s staff? Time to reject all of early Jewish stuff, too! Get to it–tear out the five books of Moses!

So you know about the magic rock and that doesn’t trouble you? Why not? Please read the following:

“But though we, or an ANGEL from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

The book of Galatians clearly warns us about any man or angel bringing another gospel, while claiming that it is the same gospel. This is precisely what the Book of Mormon does. The angel called Moroni in Mormonism allegedly gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith who was to translate them into English. This was supposed to be the “restoration” of the gospel, which assumes that the gospel needs to be restored (ie, Joseph Smith was given another gospel by the angel Moroni in Mormonism). How much clearer does God need to make it other than what is in Galatians?

And by the way, this passage speaks directly to this issue of the seer stone. The only way you can get out of this is if you change what the Bible says. Mormons have a sneaky way of changing what the Bible says because it conflicts with their beliefs.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 8:32 PM

The day I send you a PM is the day the world ends.

Roger Waters on April 4, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Now you’re being nice? No more messages sent to me. How’d I get so lucky??

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 8:38 PM

You say you are a conservative – so you believe in small government – but I’d bet that you’d be willing to put all your social and religious values into law – the antithesis of what small government is.

unaffiliated on April 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Do you even know what you’re talking about?

I would recommend some further reading for you as the founding fathers established a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to enforce the laws. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Constitution stated, “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”

A Republic i

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM

This part below got garbled in the above post.

A Republic is ‘rule of law’ not the rule of the mob. A republican form of government is where citizens elect representatives who will then enforce the laws by which we are to be governed.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Hollowpoint: It’s kind of hard to have others on a jury when they aren’t there. I am not surprised to find you suddenly have a hidden anti-Mormon bias.

Vanceone on April 4, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Nice persecution complex you have there. So you’re saying Mormon leaders like Brigham Young did no wrong and acted in a perfectly democratic, peaceful, non-discriminatory manner? Please.

Were Muslims to basically take over a state and attempt to legalize polygamy and basically islamify the state government, you can bet the federal government would take action, and with the blessing of almost everyone here. What early Mormon leaders did in Utah wasn’t terribly different than that hypothetical. To say so isn’t “anti-Mormon bias”, it’s history.

Hollowpoint on April 4, 2008 at 8:50 PM

The one reason I like Lindsey Graham for the position, is that I think he’s the 2nd best for the presidency, also, he’s a senate powerhouse who can keep votes intact and he knows how the rules and procedures of congress and how to move legislation expeditiously. Do you want this in Greek?

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 3, 2008 at 11:18 PM

I almost passed out laughing. Thanks. I needed that totally. Lindsey Graham – Powerhouse. Fabulous. Say good-bye to the republic everyone and grab your wallet….

Branch Rickey on April 4, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Look at that.. jumped from 274 posts to 314…. hmm, not bad. This was the most popular thread on all of Hotair today – by a longshot.

Seeya….

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Your social and religious views are destroying the US as much as any far left idiot
unaffiliated on April 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Wow! You really think Christian social/religious views are destroying this country?

The truth is exactly the opposite!

You and SaintOlaf for example, are too dense to understand not only what Christ stands for (need a hint – love and charity),

You call us too stupid to understand what you’re saying and in the same breath say Christ is only about love and charity?

You probably think you’re saved too…right?

Ok so according to you, Christianity is destroying this country, you’re saved and you need to eliminate Christianity from the U.S.A.

Interesting.

SaintOlaf on April 4, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Man I hate when Allah posts about Romney. It always ends the same; Mormons are evil, bible pervertin’ whores of satan and “Christians” are bigots.

That said, I see the “Christians” who post here never seem to offer what flavor of Christianity to which they belong. Rather then merely identifying yourselves as Christians, how about strapping on a pair and let us know where you hang your religious hat. That way we can dissect the history of your church, everything your pastors or ministers have ever “preached”, every sin your fellow parishioners have committed etc, etc.

You state Joseph Smith is a false prophet, I submit that Martin Luther was a pussy who couldn’t hack the seminary so he quit and started his own church. All you have to do is state you belive in Christ and viola, SAVED! Plus as a pastor you are even allowed you to have sex…with women!!! Not to mention that he was an anti-semite. Does that make all of his Protestant offspring anti-semites?

Wasn’t the KKK a Protestant social club in the true conservative south?

Well? Let’s here it! Belly up to the bar “Christians”, let’s have those various demoninations and we can get cracking. Is Westboro Baptist represented here? Who speaks in tongues? Who has a private prayer language? Who handles snakes? Quit hiding behind the term “Christian” and let’s examine your real affiliation.

Love you long time…

Lug

Lugnutmegger on April 4, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Lugnutmegger on April 4, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Willard? Is that you? Don’t be a sore loser Willard.

You could always run for governor of utah.

You won with 98%….that’s something to be proud of!

SaintOlaf on April 4, 2008 at 9:36 PM

SaintOlaf,

Clever…by half. Still waiting for your answer. Are you really that big of a pussy to not share with the group your denomination affiliation?

Love you…not as long as before…

Lug

Lugnutmegger on April 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Lugnutmegger on April 4, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Either you believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God or don’t, which implies you believe him a fraud. If you do, you’re a Mormon. If you don’t, you’re not. To say so doesn’t make one a hateful bigot- it makes one practitioner of a different religion (or none at all).

Should all Mormons be held accountable for the actions of Smith, Young and the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Of course not. However, any debate about religion is going to include discussion about how each was founded.

And yes, there are going to be trolls who make unproductive, offensive statements. If you can’t face the possibility that someone’s going to pee in the pool, don’t swim in it.

Hollowpoint on April 4, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Hollowpoint on April 4, 2008 at 9:42 PM

All good points and that was not my argument. Many arguments seem to be lost on you. My point is if you are going to debate religion, shouldn’t the religion, or non-belief of each participant be included so each side has the opportunity to present point/counterpoint?

Lug

Lugnutmegger on April 4, 2008 at 9:47 PM

Excellent point Lug.

How bout it you “christians”? Speak in tongues for us. We need a laugh. I got a snake you can handle…but only if your a good looking broad.

Roger Waters on April 4, 2008 at 10:10 PM

I already did Mitt. Try and keep up. Check page 3.

SaintOlaf on April 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

SaintPilaf,

Indeed you did! I am currently enjoying a good COD4 Team Deathmatch fragfest and reading this at the same time. I see you are stiull hiding behind the Body of Christ stuff though. I am a nutty Pentacostal…but mainly a “Christian”.

Pentacostal, huh? Trinitarian or Oneness? Don’t you have to speak in tongues as a sign of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit?

I have a neighbor who is Pentacostal here in Atlanta. I saw him practicing speaking in tongues the other day and I asked him what he was doing. He stated he was practicing speaking in tongues. Is that something you can practice? Isn’t that supposed to be spontaneous?

As a side note, if you know a good healer, send him/her my way because my back is killing me.

You know, I can see the Catholics or Lutherans, maybe even the Southern Baptists mocking the Mormons…but Pentacostal; pfft!

Love you like the first time…

I’m out for a while, COD4 is a calling.

Lug, out!

Lugnutmegger on April 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Pentecostal?

Arent those the nutjobs that flop around on the floor like a fish out of water when they become “overcome with the spirit”? HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Yeah, I guess if you are the type that practices speaking in tongues and flopping around on the floor…you would be the kind of person gullible enough to fall for a fraud like Huckster.

Speaking in tongues. HA HA HA HA HA!!! How absurd. HA HA HA HA!!!

Meanwhile their paid ministers are banging the broads like that fraud Jim from the Jim and Tammy show.

Remember when that evangelical fraud got busted buying porn mags and buying hookers and then the dude goes on TV and goes “I have sinned” and he is all crying and stuff. HA HA HA HA HA!!! WHAT A CLOWN!!

Or that recent evangelical minister who was really into anti-gay sermons and then we find out the dude is paying gay men to give him massages with a bit extra on the side. Hypocrites. Hypocrites. Whited sepulchers but inside full of dead mens bones. Pharisees. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

And you friggers have the nerve to spend so much time putting down somebody elses religion…as wierd as it may seem. Take out the beam out of your own eye first you bunch of born again hypocrites.

I am a republican and used to be proud of my party but this election cycle has taught me that my party has its embarrassments just like the democrats do. Yes, I supported Mitt because he is an MBA type like me…not because of his religion. I was shocked to see the bigotry that I had no idea existed with these so called “christians”. Comical…yet ultimately sad.

Roger Waters on April 5, 2008 at 1:27 AM

Page four? Is this malarkey still going on?

Personally, I don’t care what Joseph Smith did, or what Mormons do, if it weren’t for the fact that you guy’s insult the intellectual integrity of Christians everywhere by implying that Mormonism and Christianity share the same philosophical tenets.

apacalyps on April 4, 2008 at 7:38 PM

And just what is your “intellectual integrity”, over which you exclude Mormons from the name “Christian”? As they worship Rabbi Joshuah as the Messiah (in their way) and you do (in your way), it must be over some finer matter than the mere adoration of Jesus as God’s Christ that causes you to give the LDS the cold shoulder.

So, what is it? As it’s not faith but “intellect” that separates you in some radically important way from the Mormons, what are the “philosophical tenets” that define you as Christians and them as heretics?

Is it Chalcedon? Are Mormons to be placed with the Copts and Armenians and Ethiopians as non-Chalcedonian heretics? (Not that even “philosophical” types like ap[o]calyps actually understands what all that Christological nonsense at those councils was supposed to mean…) Are Syrian Aramaic-speakers not Christian?

Or do you take your stand over the Filioque? Are “real Christians” those who refuse to accept the view that the Holy Spirit proceedeth forth from the Son as well as from the Father? (This is a position not based on scripture, though whether or not it’s true, I have no idea.) Are Catholics Christians?

Or is it the sacraments? The Orthodox & Catholic churches have a continuity of sacerdotal ordination going back (they claim) to the apostles. If you say the line has somewhere become corrupt (and I do have the strong feeling that you’re some sort of Protestant or other), then why is it better to follow someone who claims to have taken the priesthood unto himself? (Simon tried to buy it; Protestants try to steal it.)

Lugnutmegger has several times thrown the gauntlet down: tell us your own affiliation and why a person (why I Tzetzes) ought to be (say) Baptist rather than Anglican, or Presbyterian rather than Lutheran, or Methodist rather than Assyrian Christian. Why is your way better than that of our Assyrian brethren?

St. Peter, recalling how he and other apostles became first-hand auricular witnesses [they were eye-witnesses as well], says that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation”. If you happen to be for sola scriptura, please tell me why I should subscribe to your scripturae interpretatio over that of the Greek Orthodox Church?

Instead of stupid Mormon-bashing, like

And yes mormonism is satan inspired.

SaintOlaf on April 4, 2008 at 7:36 PM

please tell me what your way is and why it’s to be preferred to all other forms of Christianity.

(In case you’re wondering, I consider myself a Christian, which I think is good enough to merit classification as such. But I’m sure you Mormon-haters would think me a heretic as well: I’m more inclined to Plato and Hinduism than to Calvin or Jerome (though inclinations are not dogmata and I reserve certain degree of agnostic freedom). And in fact, the only real problem I have with Mormons is that they, like you, use that silly Old Testament too much. But they certainly are Christians. You say that their way to Christ is not the right one; I want to know why yours is better than that of other Protestant denomenations. Let’s hear those “philosophical tenets”.)

I’ll check back again tomorrow (Saturday), probably in the afternoon, and see if anyone can go beyond smearing Mormons and on to persuading me why I should join them.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM

D’oh! Meant to write ap[o]calyps.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:11 AM

D’oh! Meant to write denomination. Got tripped up by the nominative form.

(Still, skip the typo and answer the question, if you can.)

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:14 AM

Thank you Tzetzes. Thanks for not saying we are not Christians.
By the way, you notice there have been no responses to your post. Maybe a little too intellectual and true for some to even try to debate? God Bless.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 11:33 AM

I’ve always enjoyed your comments, Tzetzes.

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Jeez, this is a dumb thread. For God’s (Christian, Jewish, Mormon) sake, can’t anyone move through this?

For my money, Mitt Romney is a class act. So was his dad. I’m grateful he put his family through this hellish mess of an election campaign and sorry he doesn’t yet have a place in the mix. McCain and the rest of you should probably mature a little more and look at the man on his merits. He has accomplished more than any other candidate in the race.

He make a good VP, an even better CIC. C’mon McCain, give him the nod.

eaglesdontflock on April 5, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Hollowpoint – You make a few good points in your 9:42 post, of which I will add to one specifically:

Either you believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God or don’t, which implies you believe him a fraud. If you do, you’re a Mormon. If you don’t, you’re not. To say so doesn’t make one a hateful bigot- it makes one practitioner of a different religion (or none at all).

I’ve never had a problem with people’s opinion considering him a prophet or a fraud – that’s free will and their determination. What’s not appropriate is to pass off innuendo, smears, lies and opinion as fact (re: others here do that quite often about LDS – don’t take part in it).

As for your other point on the Utah War, not so much agreement…

Nice persecution complex you have there. So you’re saying Mormon leaders like Brigham Young did no wrong and acted in a perfectly democratic, peaceful, non-discriminatory manner? Please.

All “History” is contextual and you just heaved out the prior 30 years of which had Mormons run, burned and chased out of FIVE states and losing a leader by violent execution in the process. As this article describes the hatred driving their forced eviction spot on as, “beyond anything since France’s eviction of the Hugenots.” It’s a good read, I highly recommend it.

So, I believe the people in Utah had every right to expect the worst and be as defensive as Brigham was given Buchanan’s posture and actions.

Were Muslims to basically take over a state and attempt to legalize polygamy and basically islamify the state government, you can bet the federal government would take action, and with the blessing of almost everyone here. What early Mormon leaders did in Utah wasn’t terribly different than that hypothetical. To say so isn’t “anti-Mormon bias”, it’s history.
Hollowpoint on April 4, 2008 at 8:50 PM.

Your hypothetical premise is flawed from the beginning – let’s break it into parts:
1) It was a territory – not a state
2) Polygamy was not illegal
3) They were operation in a “legal” fashion until Buchanan decided otherwise. It’s also implied that Mormons weren’t willing to be subject to laws, which is false (See Article of Faith 11 for a statement on where they stand).

As with my above statement, your inability to see both the context of the conflict for what it was both from the Mormon perspective and the Federal government trying to intervene in a very poor way made for a ripe conflict. Trying to put it into some context with Islam is a straw man argument because Utah Territory wasn’t a problem for the previous ten plus years – why would it be then?

Seriously, Buchanan was a LOUSY president – made Carter look like a absolute saint. They call that “Buchanan’s Blunder” for a reason…

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 11:33 AM

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Thank you both. We’ll see if anyone can persuade me why their private interpretation is better than my patchy and imperfect knowledge of Platonism. I’m open, but the onus is on them!

As for the spelling of Apocalypse, I suppose I did spell it correctly after all, but something happened. I had turned the second A into an O in square brackets (to denote an emendment) and then added an E at the end in angled brackets (to show the restoration of a letter ommitted, presumably in haste, by the writer). But the computer seems to have rejected the angled brackets, both times. (Insert frowny-face here…)

“That’s a small matter, Tzetzes” I can hear you say. But I work all day proofreading Greek, and it isn’t a small matter to me! (Insert smiley-face…)

By the way, Babmi & Sulla, whence come your names? And I to be expecting the first of you to flatter the country with your talk of hope, and the latter simply to march on Washington with his armies?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Nothing so esoteric. we have a 2nd home in a small farming community. They try desperately to keep Bambis out of town. They eat the crops and their animals suffer. The forest service would come through occasionally and take out the deer. Since then the town has put a fence all around the town and the fields. (I guess you can tell how small the town must be) Which is the more humane thing to do. I’m not against hunting, but I do love to see the deer. Besides it’s the first movie I remember seeing and it broke my heart.
By the way, you proof read Greek? That sounds fascinating! Obviously, thus your name!
Your turn Sulla.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM

Every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in…

Enter The Matrix/We Are Going Down A Rabbit Hole´¯`·.¸

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM

The forest service would come through occasionally and take out the deer. Since then the town has put a fence all around the town and the fields. I’m not against hunting, but I do love to see the deer. Besides it’s the first movie I remember seeing and it broke my heart.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM

I love animals. They’re delicious.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM

Hmm. You really put forth an effort there with the questions. But, I have to wonder? Do you really want to know the differences between Mormonism and Christianity or are you just one of the Christian bashers? see, usually there are two different types of people. Those who want to hear the truth about the Bible and creation and those who don’t, they are known as the scoffers. They will ask hundreds of questions or make hundreds of accusations. I am convinced that most of them don’t really want an answer anyway, they want to tie up all my time and prevent the gospel from getting out. So which one are you?

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM

OK Apacalyps I guess you didn’t read what you quoted – I’m not against hunting. I don’t do it, but lots of people in my state do and that is how they feed their families. Good for them, they don’t take hand outs. I also enjoy beef, but I would probably choke on deer – just the thought.
Nice to have you comment on something so unpolitical, or non religious. See you can do it.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Whoops your comment came in while I was commenting, so take it back about non religious. I guess you can’t.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM

By the way, Apacalyps, to your comments at 2:54, you talk about what you believe and let a Mormon comment on what we believe. Don’t you try and tell us the phony stories you have read, about Mormons from dubious sources.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Oh, yes, um, what “kind” of Christian am I? Well, I don’t really believe in denominations. I liken denomination to divide. That said, I’m not particularily against denominations, it’s just that at the time of Christ there were no denominations. People were just followers of Christ. The word Christian is first mentioned in the Bible in Acts 11:26,

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Syria).” Acts 11:26

These were called Christian. So I am just a Christian.

But, if you want a church denomination that best describes my beliefs, then I could be best describes as an Independent, Tempermental, Fundamental, right-wing, radical, Baptist. The name “independent” means that the church patterns itself after the New Testament example and stands alone under the authority of the Bible and not apart of a national organization that would exercise authority over the local church. What Is An Independent Fundamental Baptist?

I do not attend this particular church, but this is a general Statement of Faith for an Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Church.

In summary, I prefer an Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Church that uses the King James Bible only.

Hope that helps.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM

Great post man! Beware of Apacalyps question to you – it’s irelevant and disengenous. His interest is purely in conversion, not for any intellectual discussion or scrutiny of his beliefs. He and I have already tried to have a compare/contrast of philosophy once and it decayed into chaos primarily because he insisted on informing me of my beliefs and getting saucy in the process. I still don’t have a clue of his “philosophical tenets” – maybe you can get him to be forthcoming without him trying to erroneously define others in the process.

Good luck!

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 3:33 PM

By the way, Apacalyps, to your comments at 2:54, you talk about what you believe and let a Mormon comment on what we believe. Don’t you try and tell us the phony stories you have read, about Mormons from dubious sources.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Hi Bambi. I hope you are doing well.

I can talk about all sorts of things, not just religion. Just so you know. It’s because we are in a forum in which politics and religion regularily intermingle with each other that it dominates the discussion. I will admit though, it is my favourite subject. I like constantly learning.

Don’t you try and tell us the phony stories you have read, about Mormons from dubious sources.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM

No. You won’t have to worry about me telling “phony stories” as you put it. God knows that I want to be accurate and would never purposely tell a lie to promote my point. The question is will you accept the truth?

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM

I have!

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM
apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM

I’m sorry, but your reference to the Matrix hasn’t resolved me. What I’d like to know is why I should be an “independent Christian”, instead of (say) a Copt.

Why should I follow Erasmus’ recension of the New Testament to the exclusion of all others? (By the way, I love the KJV and it’s the one I always use when quoting in English. I also love the 1545 Luther-Bible. But I use those for their place in the linguistic tradition, not because I think them inerrable.)

You cite the Actus Apostolorum, where there are post Christum prophets at 11.27sq and and 13.1sqq, but you deny that the Mormons (or anyone else?) can have prophets today. Is that denial based in your interpretation of the one and only acceptable recension of the text or the one and only acceptable translation thereof? You say the people in Acts were “just Christians”; do you really think there was no hierarchy or organization? That Peter was not in fact the Bishop of Rome? That Paul, after his vision, did not report to the authorities at Jerusalem? That the Apostles (ἀπόστολος meaning “person sent out”) were sent out as merely “independents”?

Those are a few questions which pop up, but the one I most want you (or any of the other Mormon-bashers) to answer, and without which I won’t be satisfied, is “why should I follow your way rather than that of the Armenian Orthodox Church or the Nestorians?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM

That’s lovely. It’s a pity you can’t have the deer and other creatures roam freely into town, but it’s much better to fence them out than to shoot the poor things.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:56 PM

I’ll check back again tomorrow (Saturday), probably in the afternoon, and see if anyone can go beyond smearing Mormons and on to persuading me why I should join them.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM

Tzetzes,

Frankly I’m not concerned with whether you join my church or not.

What concerns me more is the fact that you are not saved and yet claim you are.

what am I talking about you say?

The Spirit of God will reveal all truth to true believers.
Just as your spirit and your deeds will reveal your true master.

Jesus said “Judge not according to appearances, but JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT.”

The fact is Tzetzes, you proclaim to be saved, and in the same breath, you sinned.

Huh?

Your basic problem,like many other false “Christians”, is that you probably don’t even recognize your sin because it is so ingrained.

Your sin is idolatry.

And you very clearly showed your sin, while in the same breath declaring you are saved.

Tzetzes, You’re not saved.

All idolaters have their place in the lake of fire.

Everyone who is not saved will burn in hell for eternity.

Idolatry is when you construct a graven image or a false god in your mind.

You say you believe in hinduism and mormonism and that the Word of God is a “silly book”. It’s idolatry.

If you don’t believe that the Word of God is whole and completely accurate (as God promises to keep it) then it’s idolatry. If you don’t believe that you must keep God’s commandments, then it’s idolatry.

You have constructed a false god in your mind that suits your lifestyle of sin.

Your false god will not save you.

Your false jesus will not save you(pay attention mormons).

There is only one way to be saved.

And that is to repent,turn from your sin and put all your trust in the blood of Jesus Christ which redeems us.

You must be filled with the Holy Spirit!

“For the kingdom of God is not in word,but in power!”

No man can be righteous by his own efforts and The Holy Spirit of God can not live in an unholy temple.

That is why we must be righteous.

The only way that we can be righteous is not through a natural process but through a supernatural process(through Christ that lives in you).

You will know when you are truly saved.

Christ will give you a NEW HEART, a heart that wants to be obedient to God and obey His commandments.

It is a miracle. Praise God!

“And hereby we know that we know Him,if we keep His commandments.

“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not”

“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit”

Examine your life Tzetzes, turn from your sin, seek after righteousness and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (The same Holy Spirit that you and Roger waters and lugnut have mocked and will certainly be punished by on judgment day)

Repent while you still can.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven”

“And then I will profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that worketh iniquity”

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM

You may be a saint, but you’re hardly a cardiognost and I have no idea what you’re on about. And I don’t recall having said I was “saved”.

What I did say is that I’d like you to explain why your form of Christianity is to be preferred to all the rest. What church are you from and why should one join that, rather than the Greek Orthodox Church. Can you answer that?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Beware of Apacalyps question to you – it’s irelevant and disengenous. His interest is purely in conversion, not for any intellectual discussion or scrutiny of his beliefs.
SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 3:33 PM

SkinnerVic, what are you talking about? I defeated you in that debate quite handily. Unfortunately, you got tricky and deceptive. Case in point: Instead of honestly and openly telling people what Mormons believe (like Jesus is Satan’s brother) you tried to point out what you thought were flaws in my soul, and how much of a bad Christian I was for rebuking Joseph Smith and his magic rock. You’ve proved that in our debate Skinner time and time again by dancing around what Mormons really believe and not just coming out just telling us. And now look at you. Reread what you say above. You’re doing the same thing again!! An ad-hominem attack. LOL.

I still don’t have a clue of his “philosophical tenets”

No clue? Cute, but I would hope your thoughts run deeper than you indicate. I highly recommend you go over our debate mister. You’re not reporting the facts truthfully. Not only that, I just listed them here for you. Here and here.

SkinnerVic, what are we going to do with you? You can be a Mormon. No problem. It’s a free country. I have nothing against you personally. You sound like a nice guy. But, when will you realize that Mormons are not Christians? Your one of those who refuses to understand that the coupling of those terms defines impossibility. Christianity and Mormonism are mutually exclusive terms. Why don’t you see that?

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM

You’ve stated your position (and it’s interesting that your one website says that Baptists are not Protestants). But why that way and not the Greek Orthodox Church. Why is your interpretation of the Gospel to be preferred?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Tzetzes,

You said you were a Christian..that is a the same as saying you are saved.

The true Church is the Body of Christ…do you know what that means? It’s the supernatural process I was describing of believers being filled with the Holy Spirit and guided into “all truth”.

Like apacalyps was saying about denominations=divisions.

There is a true church and there are false churches.

False churches do not believe in the completeness,fullness and accuracy of the Holy Bible.

Members of false churches are not saved,are unrighteous and do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them into “all truth”.

Mormonism is a false church because it is A. anti Biblical(extra Biblical material that is anti Biblical) B.Leads it’s members to sin C. Leads it’s members away from the True Christ.

But yet you have a problem with me stating that mormonism is satan inspired? Does God lead men to sin? Does God lead men to believe in the non validity of the Bible? Does God lead men away from His Son Jesus Christ?

No.

But who does?

The Adversary.

The enemy always tries to corrupt God’s Word with false and very similar idolatries that lead men away from the True Christ and down a path of destruction.

The enemy wants to kill and destroy man and wants to be sure they lead a life of sin all the way till the end.

The enemy wants man to suffer in hell for eternity with him.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Aren’t we all glad that saint oh laugh is not out judge?
Sorry, I guess that wasn’t very nice. Oh well!

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Our, our, our…..

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 4:27 PM

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 4:24 PM

In my book, a Christian is someone working to salvation by looking to Christ, a salvation that comes not till after this life. So if you want to think I’m not yet saved, that’s fine with me because I agree!

But I’m glad that we now have your criterion for what makes a real Christian: “acceptance of the completeness, fullness and accuracy of the Holy Bible”.

Now, could you tell me why your canon (not to mention your interpretation thereof) is inerrable? You mention the completeness of the Bible: are those who reject the canonical books of Jubilees, Enoch and Makabian therefore not Christian?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Those are a few questions which pop up, but the one I most want you (or any of the other Mormon-bashers) to answer, and without which I won’t be satisfied, is “why should I follow your way rather than that of the Armenian Orthodox Church or the Nestorians?“

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM

I’m not requesting you follow my way. I am a wicked, vile, sinner. There is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). He is the Way to God, the Truth to God, and the Life to God. Let’s make that clear. The Bible says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). You need not follow my way, but the truth, which are in God’s own Words.

Now, the question is do Mormons have the right Jesus? The right God? Since you want to defend Mormons Tzetzes, you can see the importance in this can’t you? Because the idea here is often in the discussion Christians are talking about Jesus Christ and it has become very apparent to me that the Jesus they are talking about and the jesus Mormons are talking about are completely two different people. Why is that important? Because the power of faith does not just rest in the act of believing. That is very much a core part of it, but more so what you’re putting your faith into. The greatest faith in someone false is not gonna be faith that saves you. A false messiah, a false jesus, does not bridge the chasm between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. The real Jesus.

Would you agree Tzetzes?

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

I’m not defending Mormons. I’m asking those of you who say that their Jesus is not the “real” Jesus what the “real” Jesus is.

If pledging oneself to Christ while having an incorrect understanding of him means that one is not a real Christian, then I want to know whether you think monophysites like the Copts (for example) are real Christians or not?

That is, what part of Christology divides real Christians from false Christians?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM

SaintOlaf,

It’s the supernatural process I was describing of believers being filled with the Holy Spirit and guided into “all truth”.

If that “supernatural process” you refer to requires me to speak in gibberish and fall on the floor than you can call me Crispy, because I would choose high-diving in the lake of fire.

BTW, I like this new “in your face, take no prisoners” Christianity the modern day “Body of Christ” represents. I look forward to your version of Sharia law here in the United States of Christ. You freaks scare the hell out of me.

You may want to attempt to be a little more pragmatic.

I went to an Easter egg hunt with the kids this year at one of the many Baptist churches in the area. Prizes were given out and I am proud to say we received the Jesus Christ paddle ball game. Nothing screams piety more than bashing Christ’s face with a ball attached to a string. We have been paddle balling for Christ for over a week now.

Tzetze, you are one well read individual. You are my idol. Wait! Great now I am going to hell again for my idolatry!

Love you twice on Sunday…

The original Danite, Lug

Lugnutmegger on April 5, 2008 at 4:50 PM

That is, what part of Christology divides real Christians from false Christians?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM

For the answer we need to look to the Scriptures. What does God’s Word say? Okay I know.. which Bible is correct? Well, I learned that if you want to find out the truth about something you need to learn the history of it. So I have researched the history of the Bible. This was to satisfy myself. I wanted to be sure that what I was believing in was true.

There’s lot’s to this, but these are the basics.

It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text from Antioch is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the new perversions come, including the Catholic Bible (Rome got her manuscripts from Alexandria).

Here’s the story:

In the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, new copies of the New Testament were written. There was not a printing press at this time in history, so exact copies were by hand, compared to the Original, and then distributed to the various Churches. These copies of the Originals were from Antioch, Syria, and became known as the Antioch Manuscripts, then later as the Textus Receptus. The Originals, it is known, lasted at least into the 3rd Century A.D.

Then a 2nd set of manuscripts came along. They came from Alexandria, Egypt. These manuscripts were corrupt having many changes and omissions to them. These are known as the Alexandrian Manuscripts. They came out in the 3rd Century A.D. and were made by an man named Origen Adamantius.

Origen Adamantius (185-254 A.D.) was President of a group of teachers at the School of Philo located in Alexandria, Egypt. His preference was for Greek philosophy including Gnosticism, Platonism and Mysticism (considered heresy by Christian churches). He believed these were all of God. So when he was presented with a set of the Antioch Manuscripts – he RE-WROTE them blending in his own pagan philosophies – in the mistaken belief he was correcting them.

So friend we have a choice. We can get our Bible from Alexandria, or we can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV (version I have), then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, or a Catholic Bible, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan’s salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt

I’ll let the video take over from here.

An excellent website for more info. King James Bible Page

I also recommend Gale Riplingers New Age Bible Versions

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

lug,

No, you’re going to hell for mocking the Spirit of God, not accepting Christ and disobeying God’s Law, not for being a well read person.

You mention the completeness of the Bible: are those who reject the canonical books of Jubilees, Enoch and Makabian therefore not Christian?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Now we get an interesting question.

I read the book of enoch and jubilees often and consider them useful though not essential.

A better question would be, when God promises to preserve His Word, is that fulfilled even though book of enoch is not in KJV? Or is it that the phrases from the book of enoch were preserved in the Bible for that purpose?

Jude clearly references Enoch,mentions it’s authorship and says that that phrase is prophecy. Is there different versions of Enoch? Yes. Is the book of jubilees written by Moses? I don’t know. Is it useful to me? Yes. Essential? No.

Is the book of enoch found in the dead sea scrolls canon? Maybe. Should it be in the KJV? Maybe…but not necessarily.
God works in mysterious ways and only He knows all.

Could it be that be that the book of enoch is canon but not necessary for the KJV? Yes. Could it be that people could be led to it well after their necessary salvation? Yes.

Is it important for studying history but not necessary for salvation? Yes.

Good question.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

It has always seemed to me (ignorant sinner that I am) that a Christian is someone who looks to Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and source of salvation.

But some of you know better than I do. So, following is a list of people who look to Jesus for their salvation. Could you please let me know which ones are not actually Christians? I’d like you, if you’d be so good, to copy the list into your own comment-box and mark the faux-Christian groups with “strike”.

Thanks!

*

Catholics
Methodists
Alexandrians
Waldesians
Arians
Lutherans
Copts
Quakers
Ebionites
Evangelicals
Nestorians
Calvinists
Antiochenes
Independents
Shakers
Meletians
Mormons
Armenians
Unitarians
Movementarians [j/k]
Greek Orthodox
Georgian Orthodox
Old-rite Russians
Pentecostals
Anglicans
Nazarenes
7th-day Adventists
Mennonites
Baptists
Anabaptists
Nasranis
Congregationalists
Ethiopians

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

The textus “ab omnibus receptus” is by Erasmus. In fact, he was in such a rush to publish it, that he “back-translated” half a dozen verses. He was missing around six verses, but he wanted to publish before his rival could, so he took the Vulgate and translated those verses into Greek!

But there are other versions. Why shouldn’t one just use the Peshitto, in Jesus’ own language? And, more germane to my actual question, why shouldn’t one just go with that same tradition and be a Syriac Christian?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

If you have a new version, or a Catholic Bible, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan’s salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.

In retrospect, the horns really should have tipped me off but he seemed like such a nice demon I felt compelled to buy.

Lugnutmegger on April 5, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Well you can certainly take mormonism out of that list as EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION YOU NAMED REJECTS MORMONISM!

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:16 PM

But you’re still missing the point about the Body of Christ, Tzetzes.

“The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power!”

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

I still don’t see where LugNutMegger (or I) have mocked the Spirit of God. But I’ll have to take your word for it.

But, as to the canon (your criterion for Christian-ness), am I to understand that it is, after all, all right to use books not in the KJV?

Also, please address the list above. Thanks!

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Well you can certainly take mormonism out of that list as EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION YOU NAMED REJECTS MORMONISM!

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Obviously, from what you’ve said, you exclude the Mormons. But could you copy the list out and tell me which ones are in and which are out?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

D’oh! The question of the canon should have been directed to apacalyps.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Olaf,

Are you really stating that Mormons should not consider themselves Christian because some competing church says they are not? You really are an asshat.

What if the SBC, the Catholics, Lutherans etc decides that tongue-speakers like yourself are not Christian? Does that make you a heretic? Grow up!

Love you till I’m blue…

I’m out. See you in the next thread.

Lug

Lugnutmegger on April 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Again I will refer you to this post:

But you’re still missing the point about the Body of Christ, Tzetzes.

“The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power!”

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

It has always seemed to me (ignorant sinner that I am) that a Christian is someone who looks to Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and source of salvation.

And that is where you’re wrong Tzetzes.

You are missing a VITAL piece.

Not only do you have to have to have FAITH that the blood of Jesus Christ saves you…you have to repent and TURN FROM YOUR SINS!

Do you see?

You must be filled with the Holy Spirit!

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Olaf,

Are you really speaking for the entire whole of self-professed Christians? Do you represent the entire Body if Christ? Are you really stating that because some competing church doesn’t consider you Christian than you are not Christian? What if the SBC, Catholics, Lutheran, etc decided that tongue-speakers like you are not Christian? Does that make you a heretic? Grow up you jack-hole!

I’m out, can’t argue with crazy. See you in the next thread.

Love you til I’m blue…

Lug

Lugnutmegger on April 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM

But there are other versions. Why shouldn’t one just use the Peshitto, in Jesus’ own language?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Here are the different methods used to translate the original Biblical manuscript into English. We have Literal, Dynamic, and Paraphrase Bibles:

1.) Literal translation – Keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text. (Examples: King James)

2.) Dynamic equivalent translation – the translator works phrase by phrase, or sentence by sentence, to express the same thought as the original, for our modern language. (Example: New International Version (NIV), New English Bible)

3.) Free translation (paraphrase) – the translator exercises even more freedom in trying to convey the original message, not being concerned with using the key Hebrew, and Greek words that are in the text that is being translated. Paraphrase may omit large sections of text, or add other explanatory material not in the original. (Example: Contemporary English Version (CEV), “The Message”)

As we can see the King James Bible is a literal translation, a “word-for-word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It is faithful to the original text.

Remember, it is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the new versions come, including the Catholic Bible.

The King James is a “word for word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. That is your answer.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

And that is where you’re wrong Tzetzes.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM

I have desire to defend myself; I know I’m a sinner. I’m asking you, rather, to tell me what defines true Christianity and to apply that to the specific groups listed above. Please copy the list out and strike the false Christians out.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Yes, fine. You’re talking about different ways of rendering into English the Greek & Hebrew texts (and a bit of Aramaic). But there are more traditions than those: there’s the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and both testaments in Aramaic (the Peshitto).

But the question at issue is what makes a Christian. I’d like to see that in application. Could you please also copy the list out and strike the false Christians out? I’d love to compare your version with that of our local saint.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM

And I’m not going to check off your list. Sorry.

The Bible says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10:9

A Christian is any person, no matter what his colour, class or creed may have been, who believes the Record that God has given of His Son in the Word of God.

But, as I said before you need the right Jesus. Because the power of faith does not just rest in the act of believing. That is very much a core part of it, but more so what you’re putting your faith into. The greatest faith in someone false is not gonna be faith that saves you. A false messiah, a false jesus, does not bridge the chasm between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that.

As an example Mormons believe in a different jesus a different god. They are not Christians as defined in the Bible. They have changed the nature of God.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

A Christian is any person, no matter what his colour, class or creed may have been, who believes the Record that God has given of His Son in the Word of God.

But, as I said before you need the right Jesus.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

So, the Mormons have an incorrect concept of Jesus and are thus not real Christians. But the groups in that list also have widely varying conceptions of Jesus (most notably in the relationship between his human and divine parts). So which of them are right (and thus true Christians) and which are wrong?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM

But the question at issue is what makes a Christian. I’d like to see that in application.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Tzetzes, I am trying to establish here that the Bible is the template we use to answer your question. That is why I put forth some of the history of the Bible to show you the King James in our hand today matches the original manuscripts (ie, God’s Word). And having researched this subject very thoroughly, I believe and can say with all certainty that the KJV Bible is infallible, inspired, inerrant word of the living God.

Now, if you want, we can establish what a Christian is — using the Bible.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Now, if you want, we can establish what a Christian is — using the Bible.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM

So, the Mormons are Christians after all! What a relief that that questions’s over!

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM

So, the Mormons have an incorrect concept of Jesus and are thus not real Christians.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Yes. You are correct. The Mormon jesus is not the jesus of the Bible. They have changed the nature of God.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM

And another thing…

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Yes. You are correct. The Mormon jesus is not the jesus of the Bible. They have changed the nature of God.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM

That’s not all I said. I was conceding your point for the sake of argument, and then continued,

But the groups in that list also have widely varying conceptions of Jesus (most notably in the relationship between his human and divine parts). So which of them are right (and thus true Christians) and which are wrong?

I know you strike the Mormons from that list, but who else would you strike as non-Christians.

(Reminds me of Julius Caesar, “with a spot I damn him.”)

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Skinner’s got his chips and beans out, grabbed a seat and watching ringside…

For the record Apacalyps, you’re a legend in your own mind. There was no winner in that discussion, only losers. I wasted my time on explaining something that you neither desired to even comprehend nor willing to abide my my requests to be civil – that is why I left plain and simple. You kept going for 6 more posts after I left mumbling foolishness with regards to LDS theology. People can read that interchange themselves if they like and reach their own conclusions rather than your twisted narrative of a “win”.

Keep going with Tzetzes, it’s informative and entertaining…

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM

But the groups in that list also have widely varying conceptions of Jesus (most notably in the relationship between his human and divine parts).

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Wickedpedia is not a great source for information. Many lies and falsities there. Can be a fast help, but I wouldn’t fully trust it without checking other sources. And again, the point is who is it coming up with the definition of Christianity? Man or God? Looks to me like it is man defining it at Wickedpedia instead of relying solely on the Scriptures, as I tried to establish for you earlier. The question is what does the Bible say and do those on your list line up with it? We must remember that the Bible must always be our template when trying to establish the truth.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16

And so who does the Bible say is God? That’s where we start.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Tzetzes,

Are you serious?

Movementarians? Where do you get your info from..the Simpsons?

But I’ll humor you. Most of the denominations you named are either long dead denominations or from cartoons.

Unitarianism is a cult so was Ebionism.

There are true Christians in all of the real denominations you mentioned though not all are true Christians.

There are many false Christians and many false conversions.

Again the point:

“The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power!”

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Point remains: there are great variations in Christology. You say that having the “wrong Christ” makes one not a Christian. From those above who have “different Christs”, which ones are not Christians?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Yes, Movementarians are from the Simpsons. That’s why I put “j/k” afterwards. (Stands for “just kidding”.)

But, to the serious matter, I now see that you strike unitarians and Ebionites off the list, along with Mormons. Are those the only three? Old-rite Russians are kosher?

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Okay, this has gone on for a long time, and I still haven’t gotten an answer to a simple question. So I’m going off now for a shower and a night out.

What I can take from this conversation (from you who teach “not in word, but in power”) is that the Mormons are just self-evidently super-yucky bad-bad. People in Acts believed in prophets after Christ, and that was fine; but it’s not all right if the Mormons do it. The Russians, Ethiopians and Syriacs have books not in the KJV canon; that’s fine and they’re (apparently) still Christians, but it’s not all right if the Mormons do it. Protestants reject the deuterocanonical KJV Apocrypha, and that’s fine; but Mormons reject the unbiblical Nicaean Creed, and it’s not fine. The Mormons are not correct Christians because their Christ isn’t the “right” one, but of many Christologies, you won’t tell me which are authentic and which are not. I ask you to tell me which Christians you approve of (as genuine Christians) and which you don’t; you won’t answer that, but just say basically “well, not the Mormons!”

I’ll come back late tonight and see if you light-bearers can shed any light on the question of which of these creeds are acceptable and which aren’t.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM

I dread to even say a word, but I have to interject. I’m sitting here watching Conference (for you who understand – well just finished) and I can see 4 (four)King James version of the Bible. I don’t see one that says “for Mormons only.” At Church we study from that same Bible about Jesus Christ, His life, His miracles, His death (for out sins), and His most important resurrection. We believe he is the literal Son of God. We believe what the Bible says – He prayed to His Father in Gethsemane, that He and His Father are one in purpose, that He taught us how to pray to our Father. Well almost the same as you believe. Ah, but the difference, we believe in the Bible Jesus and God, not the Nicaean Creed Jesus. For that alone, we are not Christian according to our friend above. We are perfectly willing to let God be the judge and not you Apocalyse or st olaf.
From our Articles of Faith:
11. 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.
I wish we would be accorded the same privilege.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM

For the record Apacalyps, you’re a legend in your own mind. There was no winner in that discussion, only losers.

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Hi Skinner. I still like you buddy. In a purely heterosexual way, of course. I’m into women. Um, anyways, the Apostle Paul often used a military metaphor to describe the Christian life:

“Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.” 2 Timothy 2:3-4

All I strive for is to be is a “good soldier of Jesus Christ.”

I wasted my time on explaining something that you neither desired to even comprehend nor willing to abide my my requests to be civil – that is why I left plain and simple.

I know sometimes I am firm with people and a little sarcastic, but all through the Bible God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, etc.

For instance in Mathew 12:34, Jesus called the Pharisees, “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”

Jesus pronounces eight “woes” on the scribes (or lawyers) and Pharisees in this chapter (23:13-16,23,25,27,29). Seven times He calls them “hypocrites” and five times He says that they are “blind”. He calls each a “child of hell” and says that they are like “white sepulchres…full of dead man’s bones, and of all uncleannes” (Matthew 23:27), and also “full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (23:28).

And Elijah in 1 Kings 18:27, mocked false prophets of Baal.

etcetera, etcetera.

A Christian’s witnessing should normally be with “compassion” but sometimes with sober warnings of Hell depending on circumstances. It should, of course, always be biblical, truthful, and done in loving concern.

Skinner, I don’t mean to be mean. I don’t want you to go to hell, dude.

People can read that interchange (our debate) themselves if they like and reach their own conclusions….

I hope they do. That’s why I preferred it on the record.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Hey Tzetzes have a great night. See you on the other side.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 6:28 PM

yep, its true. Apacalpys is the loon that was guaranteeing that Schmuckabee would be the next president when it was obvious to those with at least a double digit IQ that he had lost. he is that wierd no-lifer who is all into the Matrix as well as his perverted form of militant christianity.

Saint Olaf seems to be in the same category.

So, you two guys are spending another saturday on the web playing keyboard warrior putting down a religion different than yours. oh dear. Imagine the lives these geeks must have. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

I still to my assertion that if either of these dweebs could get a date (I mean with the OPPOSITE sex), they wouldnt be so angry at successful people….like Mitt Romney. HA HA HA HAHA!!!!

couple of a$$ clowns.

Roger Waters on April 5, 2008 at 6:31 PM

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 6:20 PM

That’s fine, I don’t take it personally man – I’ve got a thick hide from 25+ years being a hardcore agnostic before I converted LDS. The things I’ve been called and called others during those years would make you weep… hence the reason I’m emphatic nowadays about keeping discussions civil.

I’m going to second Tzetzes request:

I’ll come back late tonight and see if you light-bearers can shed any light on the question of which of these creeds are acceptable and which aren’t.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Please identify them, I’m out till Monday – have company in town and Priesthood Session to attend shortly (Bambi knows what I’m referring to). Peace out!

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 6:31 PM

There you go Apacalyps you had to mention demon possessed vipers and out comes Roger Waters, the demon possessed mormon viper and blasphemer of the Holy Spirit.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Sure hope Aint Olaf likes hot weather. He is going to be burning for a loooooooooooooooong time.

sucks to be him…plus he couldnt ever get a date while on Earth so he has to camp out in front of his keyboard

He probably visits porn sites….yep, most likely…frustrated loser dweeb

Roger Waters on April 5, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I don’t know about you Bambi, but the Jesus Christ I know is not the brother of satan,nor the son of a god who used to be a human on another planet with other gods above him.

And unlike you I do not follow extra Biblical texts that negate the Word of God(Anti-Biblical texts).

nor do I follow false doctines that compel me to sin(polygamy/idolatry).

If you want to be a Christian why don’t you just leave the cult of mormonism and become Christian instead of trying to make mormonism appear Christian(which it is clearly not).

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I guess you don’t believe that we are all the children of God, as we do.
I guess you don’t believe there was a war in Heaven and satan and his followers were cast out. What was he doing in Heaven in the first place? Good heavens!
I guess you don’t understand that we believe we are ALL CHILDREN OF OUR GOD.
I wonder Skinnervic if we are in the same city. Anyway enjoy your meeting. Maybe you would be better able to answer some of these questions instead of me. Enjoy tomorrow, I thought today was great, and I’m looking forward to hearing Tom speak.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Olaf & Apocalyps & Hollowpoint:

Here’s a little something from the Book of Mormon, another Testament of Jesus Christ…. our companion to the KJV…

2 Ne. 25: 26
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a dremission of their sins.

Visit lds.org if you want to learn more. Don’t be blinded by misconception. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hide truth. We LDS don’t shy from sharing it.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:04 PM

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Thank you both for your posts. We’re enjoying conference here too. Seems to be all about testimony. Take care.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Thank you Tzetzes for posting honest and reasonable discussion.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5