MSNBC Host Martin Bashir uses Romney’s Mormon faith to condemn him to Hell

It just doesn’t get more absurd than this. Here is MSNBC’s Martin Bashir calling out Mitt Romney for ‘lies’ that he supposedly told, and using his Mormon faith to repudiate him. Bashir read a few verses that talk about liars deserving hell or something and said Romney can risk that or start telling the truth. But wait until you hear these awful, repulsive lies that Romney told.

The first was something ado about ‘who called who first’, with respect to Romney and Ted Nugent. Apparently Romney is a big fat liar in saying that Nugent contacted him, and must be going to hell because of that.

Then Romney reportedly said that there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy against him in the media, trying to undermine his campaign. Oh yeah, in the media’s eyes, he’s definitely going to hell for calling them out.



And finally, the most egregiously egregious lie of them all was that Romney had the audacity to say that Obama promised that his stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Woah, now wait a minute. Have we all been so misguided that in fact he never made this promise? Well, here’s where I have to credit Mediaite’s Noah Rothman, because they did the research on this one and found the truth:

In fact, a search for “8 percent unemployment stimulus” in Google reveals the first three results are from 2012 (WaPo and Politifact respectively) which take Romney to task for claiming Obama said that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent.

Somehow, the entire nation and the press was cleverly duped into believing that the Obama administration predicted that the 2009 stimulus funds would keep unemployment at or below 8 percent after the funds were fully spent. True genius.

This from the Washington Post:

Before passage of the stimulus bill, the Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would peak at 8 percent before beginning to abate this fall. But unemployment has already reached 9.4 percent, the highest level in a quarter-century, and the situation is not projected to start improving until long after the White House had predicted.

And the AP:

Just 10 days before taking office, Obama’s top economic advisers released a report predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent or below through this year if an economic stimulus plan won congressional approval.

There’s more, including a nifty graph published by none other than Christina Romer, the former White House chief Economist, that shows unemployment peaking at, you guessed it, 8 percent. So go read the rest of their analysis.

So Bashir is essentially condemning Romney to Hell via his Mormon faith over the fact that Obama’s lips never publicly muttered that specific promise even though his administration did release the figures.

See, this is why people don’t take jackholes like Martin Bashir seriously, because they themselves are the most egregious of liars and are simply trying to cover for Obama’s bankrupting policies. And as Rothman points out, there is a concerted effort to do exactly what Bashir does here in covering for the president. But no, there is no left-wing conspiracy against him in the media.

Watch below if you can handle it.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
Jeremy Poncy
Guest
Jeremy Poncy

If we’re already this divided, we’re screwed.

TJ
Guest
TJ

It would definitely take God’s merciful intervention for it not to come down to between Romney and Obama.

Nathaniel w. Stone
Guest
Nathaniel w. Stone

Romney isn’t Mormon enough

How do Mormons feel about a man who by executive order, in violation of the Bible and the state Constitution, enacted gay marriage in MA, while they were fighting for real Biblical marriage in CA?

dougtheavenger
Guest
dougtheavenger

total fiction. Romney never did that nor did he ever support gay marriage.

TJ
Guest
TJ

If Doug is a Mormon, evidently, he handles Mitt’s support of gay marriage in his actions as governor in MA by denial.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Support of gay “rights” does not translate into support of gay “marriage”. I believe that couples, whether they be homo- or hetero-, should be able to visit their partner in hospitals, receive death benefits, etc. But that does not mean they should have a right to marry. Romney does not support gay marriage in any form or fashion.

Mike Lee
Guest
Mike Lee

Who?

Randall Hayden
Guest
Randall Hayden

Yup, the slimestream media continues to protect Barry & denounce the accurate portrayal & criticism as lies.

It’s almost laughable, but some voters believe, to add to their disinformation.

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

I thought religious freedom was a First Amendment right in the USA. Apparently, Bashir didn’t get that Memo (US Constitution).

MsContrary
Guest
MsContrary

Martin Bashir is using Nazi Head Propagandist Joseph Goebbels’ playbook. What Martin Bashir utters is pure evil lies, because he does it on purpose with malice aforethought.

Nathaniel w. Stone
Guest
Nathaniel w. Stone

NO HE’S NOT – he quoted Romney’s own Mormon Book of Disciplines. Bashir is a Christian and a Brit, not a Pakistani.

There are PLENTY OF REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY – ever.

Much evidence against Romney.
Much evidence of his lies, radical liberalism, and unethical, political and business actions and tactics.

No self-respecting Christian TEA Party Conservative would vote for him.

Duke Chesnut
Guest
Duke Chesnut

Bashir was raised in Pakistan by Muslim parents, who immigrated to Britain, and if he now claims to be christian he would be executed for apostasy. He treats all westerners as Dhimmi who live in a conquered land to be ruled by sharia law.
If you doubt what I’ve written, google him, wiki him and get a feel of his hatred of the west and all christian values. In his faith is is ok to lie to infidels, and he has a national venue to spread his lies to us. Dhimmitude.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

Contrary is right. Did you even listen? You are obviously just typing epithets from the Romney Alinsky playbook.

Bashir was pointing out that Romney is not obedient to his own groups books or to the Bible. He is no more Biblical than Obama.

He’s just a pretty face with a dishonest ruthless heart.

drphibes
Guest
drphibes

Why is MSNBC such an excrement magnet? Can’t they draw bonafide talent?

MFM008
Guest
MFM008

wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaa so what, throw the diapers in the corner and take it like a man..or whatever. Tough talk happens and both sides give it.

Ray
Guest
Ray

I find this man very offensive.

Nathaniel w. Stone
Guest
Nathaniel w. Stone

Romney is more offensive. His dishonesty has been proven and recorded in print, video and live on stage by his own mouth.

Ray
Guest
Ray

It’s called the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. Sounds Christian to me. Who is this man who thinks he can judge others? It’s wrong to judge others just because they don’t belive exactly like you do. Remember: “Judge not that you not be judged.”

TJ
Guest
TJ

Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian cult, it is not Christian, Ray. Joseph Smith heard from an angel fallen from heaven and wrote down what he heard. Galatians 1:8

Bashir does not seem to realize he, like all people (this includes me), is just as worthy of hell as Romney. Romans 3:23, 6:23

The way that leads to life is narrow and few find it: Jesus is the Way and no man comes to the Father but by Him. There is no other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Matthew 7:14, Acts 4:12, John 14:6

Nathaniel w. Stone
Guest
Nathaniel w. Stone

Bashir did not judge, he only quoted Romney’s own standards. He was pointing out that Romney does not follow his own Mormon ethical standards.

Romney is a proven liar. He has lied in front of millions of people in every speech and every debate.

Romney earned his billions at taxpayer expense:
http://articles.businessinsider (dot) com/2011-12-14/politics/30515127_1_mitt-romney-ddi-corp-bain-capital
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=rodifJlis2c

Romney’s campaign tactics are unethical and dishonest.
http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/romney-acted-unethically-in-2008-dont-trust-him-in-2012/

Romney is already in trouble in this campaign:
Romney Under Felony Investigation for Violating Voting Laws-http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/04/18/romney-felony-investigation-violating-voting-laws-122691/
Did Mitt Romney & Rep. Paul Ryan commit a felony in Wisconsin?-http://www.examiner.com/article/did-mitt-romney-rep-paul-ryan-commit-a-felony-wisconsin
Waukesha Co. DA investigates alleged Romney subs-for-votes –http://www.wxow.com/story/17336389/waukesha-county-da-investigates-alleged-subs-for-votes

Romney is an all around dirty player.

Ray
Guest
Ray

As a Catholic, I want to respect all religions that preach peace and love. I’ve even heard people question that Catholics are Christians?Romney is a successfull, moral man with a lovely wife and family. I want him to be our president. I want him to select the next Supreme Court Justices. I don’t want to lose the rights we have fought so hard to keep.

TJ
Guest
TJ

You might want to see Romney’s record on issues important to what sort of Supreme Court Justices he’d be likely to pick:
http://wepickrick.net/profiles/blogs/some-of-the-issues-with-mitt

There are some Christians in the Roman catholic church, but because that church teaches things not found in the Bible, as they grow spiritually, they will grow more and more uncomfortable staying in it.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

Romney’s policies are as radical as Obama’s.

He appointed radical judges.

Romneycare mandated state support for abortions and forced the Catholic Church to violate its conscience on abortifacients.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

OK – I finally listened to the video and I don’t see anything wrong with it. Bashir is trained in British schools which are strong in logic. He has the US equivalent of a Masters in History and English. He is calling Romney on his lies, quoting the book of Mormon doctrines, which states the punishment for lying is death in the lake of fire. Martin Bashir is just telling it as it is according to Mormon beliefs. Bashir is only pointing out that Romney is not a very good Mormon, nor is he a man of integrity. Regretfully, Bashir is absolutely correct. Here is another guy saying Romney is not a good enough Mormon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyolbpbeAMI Fact is, while Mormons were fighting hard for traditional marriage in California (equally liberal as Massachusetts), Mitt Romney was installing gay marriage *by executive order*, violating the Massachusetts constitution in doing so (another Romney… Read more »

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

While Romney’s brazen lies on stage, in speeches, interviews and campaign ads are uncountable and a serious matter; his radical social liberalism in his governorship unacceptable and identical to Obama administration policy are unacceptable; it is his corruption in business and his flagrant and prodigious use of billions of taxpayer dollars and his disregard for the income and pension funds of the employees of the businesses he took over that are the most disturbing and intolerable. Here are two looks at Romney’s version of ‘capitalism’ How Private Equity Funds Make Money At Taxpayer Expense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=rodifJlis2c A Look at Bain: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-14/politics/30515127_1_mitt-romney-ddi-corp-bain-capital Rush and Mark Levin are wrong to castigate Newt and Rick Perry for calling Romney’s business dealings into question. All capitalism is not good. Hence Corzine, Madoff, and many other schemers and scammers…who play the system just under the legal radar…and amass huge fortunes on the backs of taxpayers and… Read more »

MiketheMarine
Guest
MiketheMarine

Is it finally time to begin the next round of Crusades ?

Constance
Guest
Constance

Yeah, here we go. Romney’s religion as the issue. This didn’t take long, did it.

Mandingo
Guest
Mandingo

I didn’t hear you moaning when Fox news was bashing Jeremiah Wright 24/7 in 2008.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

All religions and religious practices/customs are not equal – some must be banned outright for the sake of stability and safety of society.

Mandingo
Guest
Mandingo

Thats how I feel about Mormonism

Linky11
Member
Linky11

Black Liberation theology is not a religion – it’s an ideology.

“Barack Obama’s suddenly radioactive pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has defended himself against charges of anti-Americanism and racism by referring to his foundational philosophy, the “black liberation theology” of scholars such as James Cone, who regard Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people” who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the “white enemy.”

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59230/

MsContrary
Guest
MsContrary

So according to you Black Liberation Theology is an ideology. Why then is it not called Black Liberation IDEOLOGY? Why do they call the place where Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaks A CHURCH? Why does “Barak Obama’s suddenly radioactive PASTOR” Rev. Jeremiah Wright use the theological title REVEREND? All these theological terms, yet you call it a philosophy and an ideology instead of a religion. Unrealistic of you.

Linky11
Member
Linky11

Unrealistic??? Au contraire, Ms.Contrary.

I didn’t write the article, only cited it as a source, one of many that describes “Black Liberation Theology” this way. Anyone can call themselves Reverend – you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. In other words, Wright is a radical that is no more a “reverend” than my dog is. Any so-called “religion” that “will only accept a God who assists their aim of destroying the “white enemy.” is no religion in my books or the books of any Christian; it is an Ideology, one that preaches hate and divisiveness.

Mandingo
Guest
Mandingo

I didn’t hear you moaning when Fox news was bashing Jeremiah Wright 24/7 in 2008.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

Mormonism is a valid issue – but not the biggest issue by a long shot. Romney’s lies are many and serious. (He has not repented.) Romney’s unethical campaign tactics are another big issue and were called into question in the 2008 campaign. (He has not repented.) Romney’s radical liberal governorship policies, programs, judicial appointments and actions, including usurpation of power, is identical to Obama’s administration are more serious. (He has not repented, but defended them.) Romney’s unethical business dealings and plundering of tax dollars are a bigger issue still. (He has not repented.) The RNC and DC establishing selecting and promoting such a candidate is the biggest issue before us. They are promoting Romney because they are like him. He plays the game on their terms. If they will not give us a conservative candidate, political and fiscal accountability, political and government reform… For the sake of this great nation,… Read more »

Mandingo
Guest
Mandingo

Mormons are not Christians

ManfredtheWonderDog
Guest
ManfredtheWonderDog

The biblical truth is that every human is hell-bound and nobody is saved from that destination unless the biblical Christ saves him. The Mormon Christ cannot save because he is a false Christ. All men lie, so – if Romney lied in this instance – Romney is simply acting in character. IS Romney hell-bound? He is if his faith is in the demonic devil his religion calls Jesus.

publius
Member
publius

It is just sos peculiar that for all these years MS-NBC left us exposed to the dangers brought forth by the scourage that is Mormonism – until it became a club they could use to bash a Republican candidate.

So, when is someone going to go on their air and challenge Basher with Obama’s First “Church” of God Da.. America and how Obama’s Presidency has been doing exactly that.

12grace
Guest
12grace

obama

Who is Allah Part 1 -John Hagee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdp4qRbuQFo&feature=relmfu

Who is Allah Part 2 -John Hagee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEhXsG2Vmi0&feature=relmfu

Who is Allah Part 3 -John Hagee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j797BV7CYh0&feature=relmfu

Who is Allah Part 4 -John Hagee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKQzQTw14RI&feature=relmfu

Romney

What Mormons Really Believe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSlbuli7HM

What Do Mormons Believe? An Introduction – Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b06GvLyE8sI
LDSQ #1: Introduction: An Overview of Mormonism 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y80ZNQSrkKk&feature=related

Which one do YOU, prefer?

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

What’s his name(?), Bastard? Oh well, don’t tell his Daddy that. He should consider doing a muliti-part segment on Obama’s lies. Of course they’d have to extend his contract just to give him enough time to enumerate them all. The episode would go on for weeks.

This is the classic “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel”. If it were a work of art, that could be the title. Since it’s simply week fodder for ignorant kids, fuhgetaboutit.

KM
Guest
KM

I wonder what flavor of “dog” does Martin like?

LIBERTYUSA
Guest
LIBERTYUSA

…WHY do we even listen to these MORONS on the drive by media” WHY ?” Can someone PLEASE answer this QUESTION ?

NCHokie02
Guest
NCHokie02

I could only watch about 30 seconds of it. To the part when he talked about Mitt calling Ted first. Martin….you’re an idiot. Have you ever lied? What does your faith say about lying? Do you even have a faith? As one of the chaplins at the church I attend routinely points out “I’m about 9 for 10 on breaking the 10 commandments. I say 9 because I’m not sure I know how to make a graven image.” Martin, don’t try to call people out on their faith when you don’t understand how it works. We are all sinners. Sinners by nature. We can’t help it. Thats why God sent Jesus as the final sacrifice to atone for all mankinds sins. All you have to do is believe and accept Christ into your life and he will forgive you of your sins when you ask for forgiveness. And you have… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Very well said NCHokie!!

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

You need to change churches. STAT.

The Commandments are unbreakable – they are built on the unchanging character of GOD – and anytime we attempt to break them, we only break ourselves.

NCHokie02
Guest
NCHokie02

No way! Are you telling me that you have never lied? Have you ever coveted something?? Nothing?? Have you ever had lust in your heart for someone other than your wife or if your not married perhaps for someone else’s wife?

You are telling me that you have never broken any commandment?? You have NEVER used the Lords name in vain?

If you think you have never broken any of the commandments you need to re-look yourself and probably the commandments you are looking at. Perhaps you are the one who needs to switch churches.

We sin, we all do. We can’t help it. Of course when those are broken we sin, but there is atonement through Christ.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Disobeyed is what is meant when someone says they’ve broken a commandment.

12grace
Guest
12grace

Bashir is a Muslim that claims that now, he is a Christian.
Taqiyya – Lying For Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvlvS2a2AVE

Islam: Muslims are Obliged to Hate and Lie to Non-Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPXncPCv2w0

1.
Bashir Martin, Project Nur Program Associate
http://www.aicongress.org/aboutaic/aic-team/bashir-martin-project-nur-associate/

2.Muslim Brother “Martin” Bashir Strongly Defends Obama, Viciously Attacks Christians
http://sheikyermami.com/2012/02/23/muslim-brother-martin-bashir-strongly-defends-obama-viciously-attacks-christians/

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

WRONG – Bashir grew up in London, the son of Pakistani Christians.
He has a Master’s degree in English and History and speaks three languages.

Anyone with one eye and half sense can tell Romney is lying through his teeth. His lies are breath-takingly brazen – on stage in front of millions of people. They have been documented by many people. They are on video.

Romney does give us plenty of evidence to believe that Mormonism practices Taqiyya…except we know his lies are the Alinsky rule: “Say and do anything to get in power.”

Stop defending Romney. Stop denying his liberalism/socialism. Stop denying his corruption.

There is too much evidence against him.

There is essentially no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Both men are socialist. Both men betray their oath to our Constitution. http://fathersymeon.blogspot.com/2012/04/mitt-romney-socialist.html

StNikao
Guest
StNikao

When the media makes a big stink like this (Remember the War on Women/Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh deal?) do not let them manipulate your emotions and mind and distract you from the real issues. The media is a propaganda machine that is paid to plant false ideas through high-resolution sensationalism. Whenever you see this happening, Stop, Think, Ask yourself – What (ideas, impulses, products, ideas) are the media (Soros) selling, planting in my mind? What are they trying to get us to think or do? Then decide to look up the facts and think for yourself. Now, about Mormonism, look at the facts: The most slide-rule careful and thorough examiners of theology and doctrine are the Presbyterians. Here are their examination of both Mormonism and Mohammedanism: Presbyterian Statement on Mormonism: http://www.truthandgrace.com/Presbyterianonmormon.htm Mormon History – http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonhistory.htm Examination of Islam – http://www.truthandgrace.com/ISLAM.htm One of the clearest voices in theology and doctrinal matters is… Read more »

sDee
Member
sDee

“”Whenever you see this happening, Stop, Think, Ask yourself – What (ideas, impulses, products, ideas) are the media (Soros) selling, planting in my mind? What are they trying to get us to think or do? Then decide to look up the facts and think for yourself.””

Good Advice! What we see in the media is the red cape for us to charge at. Look at what the other hand is doing – it holds the matador’s lance.

l

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

What the media (and those who own them) are trying to do is make anyone who questions Romney’s veracity, liberalism, Mormonism and corrupt business dealings look like fools.

They use Alinsky’s rules to call you names if you don’t go along with their group-think, their candidate or seek the truth: Hater, bigots, phobe, racist.

Then they go to words for body parts, bodily functions and waste.

You can know them by their brutish ways and words and their fruit: corruption, greed, domination, oppression, secret deals, disrespect and disregard for others and dishonesty – yes, LIES.

Quiz question – Who does the Bible say is the ‘father of lies’?

kong1967
Member
kong1967

The left wing media looks absoulutely silly bashing Romney for supposedly saying there’s a media conspiracy to defeat him. They prove it with every word that comes out of their mouths. It would be the same if we put Jesus himself up against Obama.

StNikao
Guest
StNikao

Truth is – Romney has told much more consequential and serious lies and matters than those Bashir mentions. (A discussion of Romney’s lies here: http://gulagbound.com/28403/cataloging-mitt-romneys-lies-does-it-matter-anymore/) Martin Bashir getting it wrong does not absolve Romney from his lies, or his tendency to lie, or his radical liberal record and or the usurpations of power to enact gay marriage and adoption, or the the ill effects of his governorship in Massachusetts, or his unethical private business dealings all of which have cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars or his ruthless unethical campaign tactics. (all of which there are numerous documentations) Romney’s lies are documented and public. They are not just between Romney and God, but between Romney and the millions to whom he has lied. Republican primary voters will have to decide whether he will be their nominee. So far, the majority have voted Not-Romney. Contrary to the wishes of the… Read more »

12grace
Guest
12grace

I wish the Republicans had a better candidate, it’s starting to feel like 2008 all over again.

If obama wins this election, American stands to lose everything!

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

The RNC/GOP establishment has the candidates THEY CHOOSE.

I’m sticking with Newt Gingrich.

A repentant, true conservative, patriotic Newt Gingrich is far better than an unrepentant lying, political game-playing, corrupt, tax dollar grabbing, Romney any day of the week.

Joy Daniels Brower
Guest
Joy Daniels Brower

I’m glad you warned us! No, I couldn’t bear to listen to that pompous – and very ignorant and biased – ass beyond the first few seconds! Bashir has chutzpah to burn for daring to bash ANYONE’s religion; and I’ll bet ol’ Martin is just one effin’ atheist anyway! What does HE know about Heaven and Hell?!? (Although, obviously, he’ll learn all about the latter in due course…).

12grace
Guest
12grace

Trace Bashir’s religious roots and it explains all we need to know….

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

Bashir was reared in London by Christian Pakistani parents…who escaped the persecution and evil of Islam. He has a degree in English and History and is a committed Christian. He speaks three languages.

I am just as disgusted with Romney’s lies as Bashir, but I would have picked the biggest ones to showcase.

I’m more disgusted with Romney’s tactics and corruption in business and politics.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Don’t look at the part on the right of this site and watch the video of Bashir on there:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/msnbc-craig-mitchell-martin-bashir-obama_n_1294972.html

He says he’s giving the pastor a chance to affirm Obama’s being a Christian. The way he frames it, it seems to me Bashir desires an affirmation rather than the opposite. What impression do you get of Bashir on this video?

The impression I get of Obama’s fruit is that he is not a Christian as he claims to be (unless he has had a very recent unpublicized conversion). I don’t need to talk to him when bad fruit is so evident. Praying though, that he will become a Christian, if it be God’s will.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

Some religions need to be bashed. All religions are not created equal. All religions and religious practices do not deserve respect…and should not be legal. There are reasonable limits to religious freedom. Freedom does not include the freedom to practice certain behaviors that characterize some pagan religions and cult groups that violate basic human rights. Here are some religious practices that the US, state and local civil government cannot and will not accomodate: Human sacrifice Death for leaving or blaspheming a religion Human torture and ritual abuse Sexual abuse, exploitation Forced marriage, pregnancy or abortion ‘Honor’ killings Genital mutilation of females Pedophilia Involuntary imprisonment Coercion, forced participation and forced conversion Mental and emotional abuse, instilling fear, dependency, domination, etc. Brain-washing, indoctrination, ‘programming’ Financial exploitation, corruption, theft Blasphemy laws (punishment for dissent, disagreement) Violence and aggression, threats against person, property, job and family Identity theft, coerced identity/name change Slander, false accusations,… Read more »

Dan C
Guest
Dan C

Remember when Mitt Romney stood up for conservatives when they were smeared by the left? Yeah, I don’t remember either. In fact, Romney smeared conservatives himself.

He won’t get any defense from me, ever.

Bashir is an idiot. That is beyond obvious.

Trust1TG
Guest
Trust1TG

Actually, Bashir is educated, smart, speaks three languages.

He is on target, but did not choose the most serious of Romney’s lies to showcase.

There are some much bigger doozies!

Winston
Guest
Winston

This idiot on MSNBC is not even an American.

sDee
Member
sDee

NP – Rubio will ensure him citizenship along with few million other islamists here illegally.

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

I say we bring back the Jeremiah WrightObama connection.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I say we also spotlight the Louis Farrakhan/dear leader connection : http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1325

12grace
Guest
12grace

Yes, good one.

12grace
Guest
12grace

And obama’s communist czars…

Nukeman60
Member
Nukeman60

So, if Romney has been condemned to Hell, what MSNBC timeslot does he get?

stevenbiot
Member
stevenbiot

Now that is good stuff. Haha!

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Excellent! grin Good one my Nukefriend!

kong1967
Member
kong1967

3 pointer.

12grace
Guest
12grace

LOL!

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

LOL!

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Shocked that Bashir could not come up with the Puerto Rico promise vs. others in English being the national language. Or, the lies about his own record. Nope, not good enough for the MSM….they have to paint Romney as lying about Obama because it is all about the O.

It would have had better weight if MSM would spoke the truth…then again they would then be stuck defending the ultimate liar…Obama

Mike Lee
Guest
Mike Lee

Where’s George Zimmerman when you need him?

BSScoop
Member
BSScoop

No RightScoop, I can’t take it. See, I don’t agree with the Mormon faith and I do believe it is cultish and its refusal to accept the divinity of Christ bothers me. But, I do not determine the eternal destinations of other humans nor am I going to speculate on it either. Here is where Martin Bashir fails. He is utterly arrogant. That being said, I will not vote for Mitt Romney for three reasons… 1. He is Mormon and I only vote for Christians. 2. He is liberal and John McCain was my last RINO vote. I will only vote for conservatives from now on. 3. The economic destruction of our currency/economy is inevitable and no president can stop it. Congress can’t stop it. We The People can’t stop it. We have crossed the Rubicon and I want that destruction in the hands of those who caused it. It’s… Read more »

stage9
Guest
stage9

nailed it!

It’s incredible how many people have absolutely no CLUE what this religion is all about. If they would take about 30 minutes to investigate, they’d come away with an entirely different opinion and would also understand why Obamney is the way he is.

DNA VS THE BOOK OF MORMON
http://sourceflix.com/dna-vs-the-book-of-mormon/

The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon
http://sourceflix.com/the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon/

The Bible vs. Joseph Smith
http://sourceflix.com/the-bible-vs-joseph-smith-official-release/

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

You may want to add another link http://latayne.com/mitts-mormonism

12grace
Guest
12grace

Thanks for the link, p.

12grace
Guest
12grace

Thank You for the links.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

First, Mormons absolutely do accept the divinity of Christ, just not the Trinity. They are not mutually exclusive. Second, a refusal to vote against Obama is a for for Obama. You may be okay, but there are millions of us hurting because of Obama’s policies. All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. Just how many “good German Christians” stuck their head in the ground when Hitler came to power?

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Yes, and sadly Mormons also believe that Satan is the spiritual brother of Jesus so is Satan divine as well?

Sadly, the Trinity is at the core of Christian belief….no Trinity no Christianity.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

As explained to AbiC below, Mormon’s view “God” as a plural word, similar to “family”. Only within God resides the divine authority and power over mankind and the universe. Whether Satan, also known as Lucifer in the presence of God, was divine or not, he is no longer and has been stripped of any authority he may of once had. Not only are there no scripture denying this view, it also explains more than a few verses about Lucifer’s fall. Unfortunately, the “Trinity” is the heretical teaching that has hijacked Christianity. It is, quite frankly, an abomination of thought and understanding. You cannot have “three” singulars equal “one” singular, you can only have multiple singulars make a plural. Any example that you can think of to try to explain the Trinity doesn’t work unless you use a plural form. Arius AND Athanasius were both wrong in trying to understand the… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Though all analogies have a breaking point, just because one may not have an exact example does not qualify it.

I love it that Mormons argue that Trinity does not exist because it is not in the Bible and now it is said that their view on Lucifer is correct because there is no Scripture that denies it. Wow, talk about having it both ways.

Show me one shred of evidence that would state that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus.

One of the best examples we have on this side of heaven is the egg.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Show me one shred of evidence that Lucifer isn’t “the brother of Jesus”. It can’t be proven one way or the other. You bet Mormons get it both ways, that’s what modern revelation is designed for, it’s sole purpose to help us understand what ISN’T in the Bible. The fact that Trinity can’t be proven based on the premise of an inerrant Bible is YOUR problem, not mine. I’ve heard the egg example, but it breaks down as a single use in plural form when describing it’s components (having yolk, white, and shell). All three are combined into a plural form “egg”. Water is another example of plural form. You can have a single glass of, or an ocean of, but it’s still plural. Same with atoms, and ALL other examples. God is not a paradox. Origin, St. Lucian, the Apostles, and many others understood His nature long before Athanasius… Read more »

TJ
Guest
TJ

Hebrews chapter 1, John chapter 1: Jesus is God, the Son, the Creator of all things including angels, and is to be worshipped by angels.

In John 8:58 God, the Son claimed to be without beginning, calling Himself the same Name God used in the Old Testament to Moses when Moses asked the Lord who should he say sent him when he went to the Pharoah. The name I AM, which refers to His eternal existence. Exodus 3:14

Lucifer is a created angel, one that was thrown out of heaven when he rebelled against God. Isaiah 14:12-15

Regarding “modern revelation”: Proverbs 30:5-6, John 20:30-31 (not even all the miracles of Jesus were considered necessary to record), Revelation 22:18, Galatians 1:8

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I’m not sure of the points you are trying to make, and I went through every verse you posted, as NONE of them say anything about Lucifer being an “angel”, or “created”. If nothing but the Word was with God in the beginning, by default you are implying that the Holy Spirit was created. Was the Holy Spirit created? He’s not mentioned there.

Try Amos 3:7, Ephesians 2:19-20, and Deuteronomy 4:2.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Lucifer (Satan) is an angel (star) cast out of heaven. Isaiah 14:12-15
Along with him, a third of the angels (stars) were also cast who also rebelled against God. Revelation 12:4

Lucifer is not an angel of LIGHT, but disguises himself as one. II Cor. 11:14

Scriptures never implies the Holy Spirit was created and nor did I. See my post below, where I pointed out in Genesis chapter 1 that the Spirit of God was there in the beginning. He is mentioned in verse 2 of chapter 1.

See Colossians 1- verse 16 tells of the angels being created. See also Psalm 148:2-5.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

In Isaiah, Lucifer is the “son of the morning”, not a star. In Rev. it is a “dragon” whose TAIL drew a third of the “stars”. And like you pointed out, Paul says Satan is not an angel, but disguises himself as one (that one hurt your position more than helped), hmmm…

You still have not shown a scripture that shows Lucifer as an angel/star. As such, there are no scriptures that imply Lucifer was a created being. If the Spirit of God was there in the beginning, then there is no indication that the “son of the morning” was not there, too.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Using the logic of dismissing all of the Scriptures which show that Lucifer was a cherubim, that would mean, Since God said, Let there be light, and it was so, the first day was created. The morning is the begining of the day, so Lucifer being the son of the morning would be a created being.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Yeah, if we dismiss all logic, lol. Note it was his TITLE, not his creation date.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I understand that, but still using the same logic, we can not prove he was NOT created.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You are correct, and I haven’t been trying to prove that he wasn’t created. Let me remind you of what I said that started this (emphasis mine):
“Show me one shred of evidence that Lucifer isn’t “the brother of Jesus”. IT CAN’T BE PROVEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. You bet Mormons get it both ways, that’s what modern revelation is designed for, it’s sole purpose to help us understand what ISN’T in the Bible. The fact that Trinity can’t be proven based on the premise of an inerrant Bible is YOUR problem, not mine.”

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“Show me one shred of evidence that Lucifer isn’t “the brother of Jesus”. IT CAN’T BE PROVEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.” Since Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God, that would assume that THERE IS NO OTHER. Since Jesus is the Word, and the Word IS GOD, that would lead one to assume Lucifer is NOT God, therefore has no part in creation except that he WAS CREATED.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

By your “logic” here, the Holy Spirit was created as well.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

Excellent !

TJ
Guest
TJ

I see your logic and it looks very logical, but it’s never logical to dismiss Scripture. :0)

Remember how Jesus fought the very devil Robert is blinded by.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I know TJ. I was thinking the same after I wrote it. I’ve been on here all day literally, and I am getting tired. But thank you SO much for the encouragement my friend! I am grateful!

TJ
Guest
TJ

Note Isaiah 14:13 KJV “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north” Lucifer wanted to be higher than what he was, a star (angel). He was cast out of heaven and a third of the angels along with him. No, it did not hurt more than help- God’s Word never hurts more than helps. He is not an angel of LIGHT, for he is not of the light. He is a power of darkness, but he can disguise himself. He is evil, the enemy of God, but a vanquished foe. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. II Cor. 11:13-14… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I appreciate your effort, TJ, but you STILL haven’t connected the dots showing that Lucifer is an angel. The Bible does not say he was a star. The Bible does not say he was created. And, whether you think it blasphemous or not, I’m only quoting what the Bible actually says, not your additions to the Bible.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Keep up the good work here TJ. Gman has a problem of trying to prove something from silence. It will never work, since he cannot say, “Thus sayeth the LORD…”

TJ
Guest
TJ

I cannot enlighten someone whose eyes are closed and is utterly deceived. Only God can bring to life a dead heart. (Eph. 2:1-9)

Further, there has been Scripture posted on here that disproves the false doctrine he believes about Satan. Why would Satan disguise himself as an angel of LIGHT (kept emphasizing that) if he were something more than an angel (he is not of the light of course)?

Why would Satan, in his rebellion against God, seek to elevate himself as higher than the stars of God if he were already held a rank higher than angel? He obviously is a very powerful, though defeated angel, but definitely not God. Such blasphemy to even suggest such a thing!

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

It is so true. RG is at it again. I guess he thinks that I will quit responding. Though one may argue that I might be throwing pearls before swine, I will stop when it is clear that what he is saying will not cause a Christian to sin, fall away. He is starting to ramble more. It is sad to see that he believes that since Mormons believe in “modern-revelation” that they can have it both ways (Trinity not in Scripture therefore error; Lucifer can be Jesus’ brother because Scripture does not say otherwise). Such a statement will logically conclude towards the rejection of absolute Truth. When that happens, Mormonism’s fragile foundation starts to crumble. RG just does not see it yet. Honestly, my heart breaks at the power of the blindness Satan has on many people. Only the WORD can break such a stranglehold. We can only share… Read more »

TJ
Guest
TJ

John 8:32, 36

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

AMEN & AMEN

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Great points TJ

TJ
Guest
TJ

The trinity: from: Genesis 1 (note the Spirit of God is there & God said during creation “Let Us…”): 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 26And God said, Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. See Hebrews 1 (note God the Father and God the Son were involved in creation- they were part of the… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Again, I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make, but Mormons believe every single verse you mentioned here. While you quoted some of my favorites, I personally love John 17:22 and Genesis 5:1,3, too.

The big problem for Trinitarians is that they don’t mention a Trinity anywhere.

TJ
Guest
TJ

The word “Trinity” is not mentioned, but that does not mean that God in three Persons is not all over the Bible, which is what that term was based on.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Sorry, but “God in three Persons” is not mentioned AT ALL in the Bible. NOWHERE, and I mean NO WHERE does the Bible define God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit as a “person”. That was an attempt by the wrong people to answer the wrong question at the wrong time in Christian history.

TJ
Guest
TJ

The Father, the Son and the Spirit are all distinctly mentioned. The Lord our God is one, says the Bible. You may not like the terminology used to describe this, but it does not negate the truth.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Terminology meaning the terminology people use to describe what I said above.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Of course I don’t like the terminology, IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. Yes, they are all distinctly mentioned, but it doesn’t say anywhere that they are “persons”. You are taking verses out of the Bible and ADDING your own terminology and definitions. What does it say in Rev 22:18? How about Galatians 1:6?

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

They all three are given the same personal attributes.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

First, “personal attributes” does NOT equal “persons”. Second, they are not even given the same attributes. Jesus is not the comforter, nor is he the Father.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Jesus is called the Good Shepherd, God is called the Good Shepherd. Jesus is called the I Am. God is called the I Am. Jesus is called the Creator, God is called the Creator. Jesus is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega. God is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega. Jesus is worshipped, God is worshipped. Jesus is addressed in prayer, God is addressed in Prayer. Jesus is confessed as Lord. God is addressed as Lord. Jesus is worshipped by angels, God is worshipped by angels. Jesus is all powerful, God is all powerful. Jesus is eternal, God is eternal. Jesus is present everywhere, God is present everywhere. While the Holy Spirit is not given these same attributes, He is given the same personalities, in that He is teacher and Jesus is teacher. He gives gifts, Jesus and God give gifts. He is a… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Those aren’t “personal attributes” they are titles. And what “person” do you know who is eternal, all powerful, present everywhere? With that kind of logic I can call corporation or government a person. Please try again.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Goop points ABC. Need to realize that RG is in a pickle wanting things to be both ways in his argument. Notice that he wants to say that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers and just because the Bible does not say it so does not mean it is false. Yet, he barrages Christians because the word, “Trinity” is not in the Bible but he vehemently argues against it.

What gives? RG wants it both ways and is being called out on it.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Thanks Puritan. It’s sad, but we can all pray for him.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“Jesus is not the comforter, nor is he the Father..”

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Just like you haven’t shown Lucifer to be an angel, you have given no proof that any of the three are “persons”. I don’t know what you are pretending to do here, but even you believe that they are separate. That’s the whole concept of the Trinity. That the Father is not the Son is not the HS, thing. Are you trying to confuse the issue?

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

You are confused but not by me. How about quit reading the book of mormon and the other LDS materials and start asking the Holy Spirit for guidance in reading the Word of God- the Bible? No wonder you are confused when in one place, you are told that God is exalted man, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s, the Son also…” Doctrine & Covenants 130:22 Then you are told that God is NOT exalted man, “bievest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things.” Alma 18:28. Book of Mormon You are told that there is not a Godhead, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God…a plurality of Gods exists.” Mormon Docrtrine. 576,577 When the Bible says, “God is a Spirit.”, John 4:24 and “God is not a man.”, Numbers 23:19… Read more »

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

Wow. Speechless.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Obviously it is YOU that is confused. You cannot even get Mormon doctrine correct. It’s really a shame since I have taken so much time to try to understand Christianity and you can do is post talking points that don’t even make sense.

For example, in Alma 18:28, the “Great Spirit” WAS a SPIRIT because Jesus hadn’t been born yet to become MAN. HE DIDN’T HAVE A BODY YET. GEEZ!

LOL, anyone who posts crap like that isn’t worthy of any more communication. Good day!

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I’m sorry you feel that way Robert. Of course I might not have mormon doctrine down perfectly because I don’t believe in mormon doctrine. The points I made are valid. You do not read the Scriptures without having to read other LDS source books with it. Of course you are going to be confused. Read the Bible ONLY. IT Is the Inspired Word, the book of mormon, the doctines, the rest of them are NOT.

So, it may be crap, but I don’t see this day that I spent on this thread wasted and unworthy if in any way I hopefully glorified Christ. I stated the case by using Scripture, as did TJ and Rshill. You are not able to see because you are still in darkness. I repeat my comment from a while ago- I will pray for you.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I’m sorry, but the accusations and intolerance you promote do not glorify Christ in any way, especially when you cannot even get it right… Good night.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

And your denial of who Jesus is does not glorify Christ in anyway. As with ABC, I too will continue to pray…

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Jesus is Wonderful Councellor, yet He tells His disciples in John 15:26 “When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.”

One of the works of the Holy Spirit is to comfort the believer. Jesus also comforts, saying Let not your hearts be troubled.

John 14:16, “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you ANOTHER Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever. Jesus was the comforter while He was on earth, and He promised ANOTHER when He ascended to heaven.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Robert, you are dealing with finite creatures who (I did not create the terminology they used) sought to express what they saw in Scripture. If you prefer the term Beings, then feel free to say God in three Beings. It doesn’t change the Three in One- all equally God and it is not another Gospel, but demonstrated again and again in the Holy Bible. Nor does any Christian who knows their Bible claim the word “Trinity” is in there or even three “Persons” the actual word in there in describing the Three in One God. No believer is claiming those feeble expressions we use to try to describe God as we see what we do in the Bible are inspired words from God Himself. Your comparison is erronious and without merit. Further arguing with you at this point would be futile. Only God can change your heart, open your eyes,… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Perhaps you missed this one earlier:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.
1 John 5:7

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

One of my very favorite verses, cool. One what? Remember Rev 22:18. DO NOT ADD ANY NEW WORDS TO THE VERSE. So, one what? Could it just be possible that they are unified in purpose, will, and desire. NOT “substance” (a completely foreign term to the Bible) like you want to add.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I don’t know Robert, I don’t know. I would assume ONE GOD. Certainly not one donkey. One rock. One lump of coal. Sorry for the sarcasm, but with all the verses, you still do not see and it’s frustrating going around in circles.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

You have done such a great job here. I am impressed! Awesome. Biblically awesome.

smile

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Thank you my brother. (())s

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I would accept ONE GOD, except your definition of “God” is homoousios (meaning one substance, essence, being). THAT is the new word that you ADD to the Bible.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Regarding using verses but someone still not seeing:

I Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

It has to be God taking the blinders off for him to see. Otherwise he will not.
Matthew 13:15 “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

We can pray for him.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I know it TJ. Thank you. I am and will be praying for him. God Bless you my friend.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

Wow, by asking “one what”? You are begging for someone to add to the scripture. It’s tough defending the indefensible isn’t it? The verse doesn’t need anything added. These three are one, is a complete sentence. There is nothing to add to that, unless you feel the need to add to scripture.

If you need a mathematical model to understand the Trinity, and 1+1+1 boggles your finite mind, which seeks to put God in a box your mind can comprehend, try this: 1x1x1. What does that equal? Why, that equals ONE doesn’t it? Feel better now? Mathematically sound.

ABC is kicking your blasphemous butt all over this thread…because she cares about you and your soul.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Oh, so you are relegating your all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent God to a mathematical equation. Cute.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

No, you did that. I am simply humoring you. According to you, God cannot even perform outside the laws of physics.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You can continue humoring me, while I continue ROLFLMBO at you…

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

Good for you. Laugh while you may. At least without a butt, you won’t be able to spread your blasphemous crap around…until you explode. I will not be laughing at you, with you, or for you. Keep searching for the truth. You have yet to find it.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Thanks, but trust me, I’m laughing AT you…

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

I don’t trust you, but OK smile

TJ
Guest
TJ

I don’t think he’s searching. He seems quite content in the darkness.

TJ
Guest
TJ

Amen!

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

According to you that should not bother you at all, right. You seem fine that Lucifer is not mentioned ANYWHERE in Scripture being Jesus’ brother but hey who cares. So, why do you care about the word, “Trinity” so much? You may not have it both ways.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You miss the point that I don’t have to show ANYTHING in scripture. That’s the beauty of Modern-day Revelation. Mormon’s DO get to have it both ways. We don’t have to prove to you that it exists in the Bible (because that’s not where it comes from), and you can’t prove us wrong.

However, YOU are the one’s claiming that the Bible is inerrant. If you can’t prove the “Trinity” based on an inerrant Bible then it’s a big fat FAIL. If you weren’t so rigid and maybe claimed that a Council of Bishops had the authority to add things to the Bible, you would have some validity. But, you don’t, so YOU can’t have it both ways while Mormons can.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

The problem for you is that no one believes that having it both ways is logical or sincere. No true Mormon defender would appreciate what you have stated as being true (whether it is or not is for another day). The other problem is that I do not need to prove anything to you. If you think that the Bible is so full of half-truths and nonfactual data, prove it!!!! The atheists have been at it for years; and so far God is winning. By the way, the most ardent atheists who do pursue this generally have been converted to Christianity. The Bible speaks clearly for itself and the doctrine of the Trinity whether you want to admit to that or not. Sadly, you do not have the desire or the tools to understand such meaty truths that Scripture has to offer. The truth of the divine, trinitarian God is… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Wow my friend. Well said and so true! I find it sad that people believe the Bible is full of errors, or “corrupted’ yet believe in people who were questionable characters at best, and proven liars at worst. What I can not understand is how people can follow after a religion which claims the Christian “religion” has been hijacked or corrupted, yet, their own religion has change doctrines every few years. I noticed Robert did not like my comparing LDS to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but he can not deny that the founding of both of those, and the founding of Islam all have the same claims: the Bible has been corrupted, theirs is the “new” and final revelation, and they recieved their “vision” by an angel.They all three believe in a Jesus- just not the Jesus that is the Biblical Jesus. They all three were begun by someone who once either… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

It is great to see the dots being connected. Likewise, I have learn much from my “dialogues” with Mormons on TRS and its comment feeds.

We just need to continue to confront and lovingly show the truth to all of them. As I mentioned to TJ, it does break my heart to see the blindness and what they espouse. They even contradict one another on these comment threads.

Hang in there ABC, and enjoy the Lord’s Day. May He continue to be glorified by His saints.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

When I became born again, the Lord gave me an amazing hunger to study apologetics and a burden for those in other religions, particularly christian cults and Islam. I’ve been studying for a long time, and have friends who are trapped in Jehovah’s witnesses. It breaks my heart too to know they are blinded by the prince of darkness. Satan has always thrown just enough truth in to make his lies more palatable and we can see the results of this! Never did I realize though when I first started studying that the Lord would use me online and on different internest sites.

You have a Beautiful Lord’s Day as well Puritan! God Bless you my brother!

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

“If you think that the Bible is so full of half-truths and nonfactual data, prove it!!!!”

I never said that of the Bible, I love the Bible and is one of the main reasons I am Mormon. Why would I try to prove the Bible wrong? What I said is that of your incorrect and false interpretations of the Bible. YOU are the ones claiming the Bible is inerrant, yet YOU are the ones that keep ADDING terms and concepts that are not in it. It is YOUR burden of responsibility to prove your claims.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Right, so far you have proven that you have no idea what the Bible says nor are you willing to do the hard work of understanding what the text means. Deut. 6:4 and John 3:16 have been prime examples of ignorance and laziness on your part. Since you have no desire to do the work, you try to pin it on others. If you truly care for the Word of God, you would never have become a Mormon. I have stated this before. You would have a concern for Deut. 18 and the fact that Joseph Smith and the rest of your “prophets” bear false witness against the Lord God. Your statements would be hilarious if it was not so sad. Your innuendos of error will stop since all you can do is try to blame myself and others for what is plainly found in the Scriptures. I cannot help… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You have said nothing to prove me wrong, that you have to ADD terms and concepts to the scriptures that do not exist in order to believe what you do. Attacking Joseph Smith is a red herring as he hasn’t said anything against the Lord God. Joseph’s only witness was that God does indeed exist, that He lives and loves us, and He desires that all men return to Him (even tho many will choose not to). There is no bearing false witness in that.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Let me ask you this, did all of Joseph Smith’s prophecies come true???? If not, you are to rid yourself of him. You do not even follow all that Smith preached and wrote about anyway. Nonetheless, I never added any words to Scripture. You on the other hand think that you must add more revelation than what is warranted in Scripture. You claim I add things, and I have not. I have explained to you want the texts say and how it is best understood. If you cannot comprehend this, it is not my problem. Again it is up to you to provide all this “evidence” that over 2,000 yrs of Christian teaching is in error against a 180+ yr pseudo-Christian religion. It is obvious that you do not get the idea of the Trinity or Deut. 6:4. If you continued through our threads you would notice that there is… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Simply show me where “homoousios” is in the Bible and I will concede. Show me where the concept of “substance” is described at all and I will defer. Show me where the Bible says that God the Father is a “person” and I will bury my head in defeat. If they are not there, then it must have been added later.

Did you, or did you not add Trinity to the Bible?

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

How in the world are we going to be even able to talk Trinity when you are so hung up on your inability to understand that Context drives meaning? You are trying to employ English rules on Hebrew grammar and it is failing miserably.

Sadly, I cannot teach you exegesis through a comment thread. If I could, trust me I would have already done so. When you acknowledge that Deut. 6:4 teaches exactly what it says, we can move forward in the Trinity discussion.

By the way, where does it say in the Bible that Adam is the god that you worship? Just curious.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I’ll take your silence and redirection on the issue as capitulation. Since you have not shown, nor can you show, that “homoousios”, “ousios”, or “persona” exists DIRECTLY in the Bible you have failed. Duet 6:4 doesn’t say anything about those concepts (“one substance, essence, or persons”, etc.)

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Your latest comment was to thin to read so I have a vague idea. There was no silence you can “read” into it what you want. But I spelled it out to you already. You want a discussion of Trinity but are still hung up on context. You have not agreed that Elohim is used singularly in Deut. 6:4 as God not “gods”. I have stated that when you come to that realization that it is. We can move on. If you want to ignore that and call it silence, fine. It is a false assertion on your part. It is you who seems not interested in answering the questions. You continued to blather about Elohim being a plural like that has to do anything with the cost of the tea in China. I have stated it is context that governs meaning, and you refuse to respond to that. Since… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I posted at your wider comment, see your repost.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Your latest comment was to thin to read so I have a vague idea. There was no silence you can “read” into it what you want. But I spelled it out to you already. You want a discussion of Trinity but are still hung up on context. You have not agreed that Elohim is used singularly in Deut. 6:4 as God not “gods”. I have stated that when you come to that realization that it is. We can move on. If you want to ignore that and call it silence, fine. It is a false assertion on your part. It is you who seems not interested in answering the questions. You continued to blather about Elohim being a plural like that has to do anything with the cost of the tea in China. I have stated it is context that governs meaning, and you refuse to respond to that. Since… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I’ll take your silence and redirection on the issue as capitulation. Since you have not shown, nor can you show, that “homoousios”, “ousios”, or “persona” exists directly in the Bible you have failed. Duet 6:4 doesn’t say anything about those concepts (“one substance, essence, or persons”, etc.) EVEN WITHIN THE CONTEXT. A singular form of “elohim” does not a “ousios” or “persona” make. I’m not going to follow your rabbits down every other hole when you refuse to deal with the topic at hand. Simply answer by showing where “ousios” or “persona” exist and we can proceed. Prove that they have NOT been ADDED later to an “inerrant” Bible. Until you do so you have no reason to respond other than to show you either are too illiterate to understand my question, or too oblivious to realize how ignorant you look posting with no “ousios”. (pun intended) *Reposting and editing… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Seriously, you are so stuck on something that it does not matter how often I have to repeat myself, you are stuck. As someone stated, just because the actually word is not there does not mean that the idea is not present. To say otherwise is pure fallacy which is what you continue to promote. I would love to demonstrate the Trinity to you but your refusal to answer the simple question surrounding the contextual definition of Elohim is showing your weaknesses of argument. Your demands are juvenile at best, and fallacious at worst. You refuse to answer the most basic question of the contextual use of Elohim and so what can one do. I an not running down rabbit trails. I am just bringing up other major problems and inconsistencies of the Mormon religion. I guess from your own logic your silence is as capitulation that Joseph Smith should… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Let’s look at this another way… You guys simply claim that all of your beliefs are Biblical, that they come from an inerrant Bible. If that is true you should be able to back up that claim and prove it. But, you cannot even prove the most basic beliefs. You cannot prove homoousion; “one substance, one essence, or one being” doesn’t exist. The “ousios” concept as a whole is foreign to the Bible. Same with describing God the Father and the Holy Spirit as a “persona”. Again, it’s not directly in there, it doesn’t say that. You cannot prove that Lucifer was an angel, it simply doesn’t exist in the Bible either. He’s described as the “son of the morning” and a “dragon” that led the stars from heaven, nothing more. You cannot prove that God (Elohim) is not a plural word, or a plurality, when that is the way… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

You cannot prove that God (Elohim) is not a plural word, or a plurality, when that is the way the Jews used it. Nice try, but you are once again trying to put owness on the wrong issues. Your religion says that the Bible is incorrect, not me. Your faith demands full allegiance to teachings that contradict each other. You add to the Scriptures what is not there. You do not care for context. I do not have to prove that a word is a plural word or not. It is base on context, context, and context. Deut. 6:4 is just too much for you to bear. You have no idea how the Jews used that term. If you cared, you would realize that they always used it singularly when speaking of YHWH. Your problem seems to be with the Hebrew, take it up with a true prophet, Moses. I… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Believing “the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” AoF v8 is a FAR cry from “that the Bible is so full of half-truths and nonfactual data” that you claim we believe. Now THAT is false witness (which you do quite regularly here). Your holding fast to Duet 6:4 shows desperation as we’ve already discussed YHWH. The tetragrammaton refers to the NAME of the God of Israel. Of course it’s singular, that’s what names are; singular. Whether it is is completely accurate or not, we understand His name as Jehovah in our time. (maybe this will help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton ) I don’t get your fascination with this verse. It does not prove the Trinity in any way. It’s like saying, “Obama the President, Obama is one”. “There is no president besides Obama” (Isa 45:5). Yes, Obama is one president, and Obama is singular,… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Nice try on moving the goal posts there. Prove that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus from Scriptures. What? you cannot, well then by your own logic it does not exist.

By the way, you seem to overlook ABC’s statement that Jesus is the only Son of God, which is Scriptural. If Jesus is the only one, then Lucifer is out to lunch. Your refusal to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture is quite sad. You love eisegesis, but exegesis escapes you.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus is “God’s only Son”. Who’s performing eisegesis here? It says that Jesus is the Only “Begotten” Son. There is a difference.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. (Joh 3:16)

Let’s take this one step at a time shall we. What does “Begotten” mean and what does “only” mean. Let’s go one step further, what does “only begotten” mean? You see there is more to this than just spouting out words trying to disprove my point. In essence you would see if you did your homework, that the text does mean what I told you.

Try again!

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

MY point is that there are other ways of being a son/daughter than being “begotten”. For example, among others, ADOPTION. Jesus was the “only begotten”, it does not say that he is the “only son”. Where are you getting your reasoning from??

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Sorry, but you seem to miss the most simplistic understanding of the oneness that Jesus shares with the Father. Again, what does “only begotten” mean? Look it up? I did not say only, but the one and only. You need both to understand. Again do some digging. It is not difficult.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

be·got·ten (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring). Okay, now what’s your point? Are you are fully admitting then that you are not a son of God as Christians claim? I don’t know about you, but I have been adopted into His house as one of His sons.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Let me help you here. The word (from the Greek) means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Of course Christ is “one-of-a-kind” and never claimed otherwise. So, again, what is your point? You just proved there are other ways to be a son, which was my claim. Thank you for proving that to yourself for me.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Sorry, you are in error here. There is a very unique relationship between Jesus and the Father. Jesus always existed “not created”. He is unique in that aspect as being the one and only Son of God.

I have never denied (trying to put words in my mouth?) that those who come to a salvific faith through the Holy Spirit are adopted children of God. However our relationship with the Father is through the Son. We are not equal to Jesus, nor will we ever be. And now that you admit that Jesus is “one-of-a-kind” you have rejected the notion that Jesus and Satan are/where brothers. Thanks for allowing me to help you continue to correct Mormon mythology.

We are going one comment at a time smile

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Wow, there’s so much Mormons agree with here it’s hard to know where to start. Apparently you don’t understand LDS theology as well as you thought. However, you might have a problem understanding John 20:17 which says, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

You are building straw man after straw man. No Mormon is claiming that anyone is equal with Jesus. He was/is unique. But that doesn’t mean that there are not other ways to be “sons of God”. You have not shown that Lucifer was not a son of God in the beginning, just that he was not the only BEGOTTEN son. To which I have not claimed otherwise.

Are you going to build another straw man?

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Wow, so now we have it that Jesus and Satan are no longer spirit brothers? You are confusing yourself here. You say it is a strawman but it is not. Jesus was not created. Satan was. You try arguing that we are brothers of Jesus as being related, prior to our birth here on earth. You do believe that Satan and Jesus are related to one another by having Jesus be the older brother conceived by a union of a “Father and Mother”. This is not what the Bible says. You error.

By the way, I will ask again. Did all of Joseph Smith’s prophecies come true? Did any thing that Smith prophesies did not come to fruition? If so, why follow a false prophet?

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Continuing post to a previous wider column.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

*Continued from your last comment below* Good, now that we have the definition of “begotten” and that there are other ways to be “sons of God” out of the way, let’s define WHEN Jesus was begotten. John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)” This is the first time Jesus is revealed as the “only begotten”; WHEN THE WORD BECAME FLESH as John specifies. This is why Mormons agree that Jesus is unique. None of us can ever be equal to him. He alone had the power of His Father to suffer for our sins and resurrect himself. There is no evidence that Jesus was begotten in the beginning from God, and you would have to agree with Turtullian that, “There was a time when there was no Son and no… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Really, saying Lucifer is created is begging the question. Are you saying you are willing to defend that Lucifer always existed? This should be good, where is the popcorn and skittles.

Looking forward to your Scripture references on this one.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

You seem to be big on those guys Origen and st. Lucian- by the way, Jehovah’s witnesses also point to them to prove their points. Why is it then, that both JWs and Mormon still took over a thousand years to be invented if based on what those guys said?

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I have never heard of JW’s using Origen to defend their theology. They would be hard pressed to explain how in Origen’s writings it was pretty much universally accepted that Jesus and the Father were two separate Gods at the time (around 250AD). In a roundtable discussion among fellow Bishops (most notably Bishop Heraclides) and other leaders of the Church they discussed the following: Origen asked: “The Son is distinct from the Father?” Heraclides said: “Of course, for how could He be son if He were also father?” Origen asked: “And while being distinct from the Father, the Son is Himself also God?” Heraclides said: “He is Himself also God.” Origen asked: “And these two Gods become a unity?” Heraclides said: “Yes.” Origen asked: “We profess TWO GODS?” Heraclides said: “Yes, (but) the power is one.” Origen said: “But since our brothers are shocked at the statement that there are… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“They would be hard pressed to explain how in Origen’s writings it was pretty much universally accepted that Jesus and the Father were two separate Gods at the time ”

Because like the LDS church, JWs do not believe Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, God the Son either.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You didn’t even read what I wrote. It’s a shame that you’ve gone back into your “regurgitating the same accusations and criticisms over and over that you can neither prove nor justify”. We both know where that leads.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Did you reread your comment? It is hilarious and shows the deep seeded problems of Mormonism. I am sorry but I stated that Mormons do not believe in “Trinity” because the word is not there. I never stated that the premise, idea, or in fact the underlying truth of Trinity is not in Scripture (talk about putting words in someone’s mouth and twisting them): it is. Trinity is a term to describe what the Bible actually teaches about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. In other words, Trinity is proven by the inerrant Bible. You are the one that has to prove the negative which is an impossibility. Your argument from silence is fruitless. We could say that Joseph Smith’s greatest desire was to be just like his hero Napoleon. Go ahead and try to disprove it according to what you outline in your last… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

No, not even the Trinity concept exists in the Bible. Not just the name “Trinity” as Tertullian was the first to use the word about 100 years after the apostles lived, but the concept. “Homoousios” (or Latin “consubstantialem”) is the underlying doctrine of the Trinity. Meaning “same substance, essence, or being”, it is foreign idea to the Bible and doesn’t exist anywhere. I repeat, the CONCEPT of “substance” or “same substance” does NOT exist in the Bible. PERIOD. Three separate “beings” exists yes, but not three “persons” as the Trinity defines. If you want to define them as “beings” we can start to have an agreement. Mormons specifically define them as separate “beings”. However, the Trinity itself uses “persona”, which does not translate to beings. Nowhere in the Bible does it equate the Father or the Holy Spirit as “persons”. It’s not there. Again, a foreign concept, or addition, to… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Because I care for your eternal soul, I will again try to explain the deep things of Scripture in a way that I hope you will understand. Your willingness to throw the “Hypostatic Union” under the bus is very sad indeed. Just because you cannot comprehend it, does not prove it wrong. God’s ways are much higher than ours. At times, the best we can do is simply accept these teaching that are found in the Bible. The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows: 1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable. 2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons. 3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

“I would rather put my faith in the inerrant Word of God. The needed revelation for us to have eternal life is only found in the Scriptures, the Bible.” I would rather put my faith in Jesus Christ and that He has all power in this world and in the next to perform His will however he sees fit. In other words, if HE decides to answer someone’s prayer and reveal Himself to them, who am I to question His methods. Each one of the scriptures you posted support Mormon theology and doctrines. I don’t understand your point. Yes there are three, and we refer to them as the Godhead. So, thanks for making the Mormon case, makes my job easier. NONE of those verses support anything about “substance” (ousios), or “one substance” (homoousios). Nor do any of them identify them as “persons”. Those are your own incorrect words (interpretations)… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

You sure are upset at people seeing the Word teach and calling it what it is. You state that you have no problem with Jesus revealing Himself the way He sees fit. Fine, Jesus revealed Himself to me as a part of the Trinitarian God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you cannot apply common sense and thought to the Word of God, that is not my fault. Your Biblical history is foul as can be. Again, being Mormon, I understand the need for making up history to fit into your reality. Athanasius (neat to see Arius dropped, maybe you are beginning to realize that he has more in common with you than at first), is simply following the Apostolic teaching. You really do need to read his writings. Your assumptions and flirtations with who he actually is has been amusing but continues to fall short. By the way,… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Actually, “egg” used in the way you describe it is called a “plurative”. I wasn’t about to go on an English dissertation in my post, but since you obviously need a lesson… In linguistics there are singulative number and collective number terms. When a language using a collective-singulative system does mark plural number overtly, that form is called the plurative. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singulative_number )

In plain language, when you number the components (shell, white, and yolk) of an egg into a collection it turns it into a plural form.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

An egg is made up of a shell, the yoke, and egg white. Without these you will not have a single egg. Nonetheless, it does prove the point that a single being has three elements in it. With the idea of a “plurality” involved proves my point. That the egg is one substance with a plurality of elements within.

thanks for proving my point for me. The Trinity is like the egg, singular in term with the understanding of three persons with one substance. The Trinity and the Egg who would of thunk it :-)))

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

So you admit that the term ‘God’ is plural then, we are finally in agreement then.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

This is amazing to me. Let me rephrase, it does not matter what the term is, whether it is singular or plural. It matters as to the context that it is used in as to whether the term will be understood as being singular or plural. Again, it matters as to the context. This seems to escape you for some strange reason. I do not know why your blinded by this item.

Every time in the OT, when the Jews refer to YHWH, the translation for Elohim is ALWAYS singular because of the verb used with it is singular. Deut. 6:4 is the prime example. Therefore, it would seem that if you understand this then we would be in agreement. However, I sincerely do not think so.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Now you are just being silly. YOU don’t seem to get it. Elohim is ALWAYS a plural word. ALWAYS. It is the PLURAL WORD for the SINGULAR Eloah.

Just like ‘eggs’ is plural for ‘egg’, or ‘men’ is the plural of ‘man’, or ‘children’ is plural for ‘child’, or ‘parties’ is the plural for ‘party’, Elohim is the PLURAL WORD for Eloah. Eloah is singular and it’s plural form is Elohim!!! You cannot have a “singular translation of a plural word”, there’s no such thing!

Are you getting this yet??

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

I’m sorry, who died and left you in charge of how the Hebrew language works?

Again, it is not the word that matters. It is the context in which the word is used that we understand the meaning of the term. This is the same rule applied to English, Greek, Chinese, French, Spanish, etc. Context is what drives the meaning of the term, not the term itself. As soon as you recognize this, we can further our conversation. I do not know what else I can do to help you better understand it.

Ask an Orthodox Jew, you will get the same response. When in reference to YHWH, Elohim is always understood as singular. Check your KJV and even the supposedly corrected one that Joseph Smith did that surprisingly the Mormons do not use.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I’m finding this quite amusing that if I ask an Orthodox Jew they will use the same scripture against you to prove the Trinity is false. If you are going to agree with them by taking such a hardline stance on the scripture, by default you would also have to agree with their interpretation that there cannot be three in the one (a plurative).

You are getting squeezed out on both ends here. I’ve already explained my exegesis on the scripture while you keep ranting about the context. Now you have to defend it on two fronts…

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I was stating about the term, Elohim, not the text itself. I already know what the Orthodox Jew (Orthodox Jew will not admit that Jesus is the Son of God either) would say to me regarding the Trinity, I am Jewish. That was not the point and stop trying to paint it as such. Your problem is with “Elohim” remember?? Or, do you not like the fact that both myself and the Jew would see the translation of Elohim singularly and that causes you grief. I find it funny how you continue to miss the “big picture” here. You have no real desire to admit to how Deut. 6:4 is talking about God and not gods with the use of Elohim. Just come out and say it. Tell us that, yes, Elohim is used in reference of a single God in Deut. 6:4… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

*Again, answering this one in a wider column*

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

*Continuing from below*

My point with “Elohim” in Duet 6:4 is that you cannot interpret the NT differently than you do the OT. If you wish to retain context and grammatical number within the verse, then you must also do so in the NT. You are not and you are wanting to mix and match context and grammatical number.

If you are wanting to agree with Orthodox Jews, then there is no way of proving the Trinity using the SAME CONTEXT in the NT. If you are wanting to prove they are three, then you would have to agree with MY definition that “Elohim” is a plurative. You cannot have it both ways as there is not a third option without changing context (especially grammatical number) between the two testaments.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Sorry, but it would have been nice of you to spell all this out before hand. Nonetheless, you are again not understanding things here. You now want to make rules up to what can and cannot be used in the NT vs. the OT. Sorry, but that does not make any sense. No, I do not have to agree with your definition of Elohim. For the definition is based on CONTEXT of the passage that it is used in. One cannot first define the term and then build the context around it. When you are willing to concede this I will show you the needed connections. You still want to call Father and Son and Holy Spirit three different gods which is polytheism. What you are describing is the poor ability of Mormonism’s of understanding the Bible exegetically. You cannot approach the Bible like you do with your other “sources”.… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

You keep saying inerrant Bible in quotations, and you’ve said numerous times “Your Bible” etc. I am assuming you do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant? Which means, it has errors in it?

dougtheavenger
Guest
dougtheavenger

You do not understand the doctrines of your own religion.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Now if I had a religion like you may think I do….then maybe you would be right. However, since you seem to know more about this than I do…please enlighten me.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“I’d much rather continue to believe that they are simply two separate beings who are one in purpose and power”
Then you would be believing in pantheism. That is completely antithetical to Biblical Christianity.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

“Pantheism” is not one in purpose or power. Each “god” had a separate and distinct purpose with a different power. In the Bible, and in Mormon theology, while they are separate beings their purposes are the same, and their power is one.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

If you believe in the divinity of Christ, Who is He in relation to God? Is He a separate God or the same? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? If so, Who is He in relation to God? If you deny that Jesus is God the Son, and the Holy Spirit is God the Spirit, then your gospel is a different gospel. As for not voting for dear leader but not voting for the current choice shoved on us by the establishment of the gop is not the same as voting for dear leader. Some people have convictions and are sick of being told to give those up for something or someone they believe is just as bad. There is too much about mittens that is no better than dear leader, and eerily similar. It was the “anybody but obama” mindset which helped create the problem, along with the… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

“God”, as understood by Mormons, is singular use of a plural word. The English language has many plural words, like “family”, “moose”, “gold”, “luggage”, etc. There is ONE “God” similar to the usage of ONE “family”. Even though there are many members of a family, they are led by a separate, but unified parents with the husband generally being the “head-of-household”. Even so, there is no diminished authority of the wife. Anyone outside of the ONE “family” does not have authority and is not family. Mormons believe Jesus Christ is a God (singular), a leading member of God (plural) as one of the Godhead, the Son of God, creator of heaven and earth condescended to man, and a divine personage and being. This is fully compatible with the Bible and was taught specifically by Origin, St. Lucian, and others in the 3rd century AD. Next, I am in no way… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Jesus never stated nor his disciples that He was a god.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

And he never stated that he wasn’t. What does that have to do with anything? That’s not fully what I said. Quit twisting my words.

Of course he’s not going to go around saying “I’m a god, worship me”, whoohoo. And Mormons don’t believe that.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Here is what you stated, Mormons believe Jesus Christ is a God (singular) This is what Jehovah Witnesses believe as well as a guy named Arian back in the days of early church history. There is no Scripture that ascertains that Jesus is a god as you stated. He is not part of a polytheistic godhead. Jesus is God. Jesus is the God. This very idea has been condemned and been maintained as heterodoxy. Hence, Mormons along with JW’s fall into the false teaching of Arianism. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches and you and I both know this that Jesus’ brother is Lucifer. If Jesus had such a brother, is he not also divine? Or is he not because he chose poorly. Either way, the denial of Three persons of One substance undermines the desire of Mormons to be called Christians. Deuteronomy 6 begs to differ with your understanding of the Trinity

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

His name was ARIUS. If your going to argue it, get it right. A-R-I-U-S. Since you are only interested in taking what I say, and what Mormon’s believe, out of context it sounds of desperation. First, concerning Deut. 6, you are aware that Elohim is the Hebrew PLURAL word form God and was used over 1500 times. The SINGULAR word form of God is Eloah. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html Around 250AD, during a council with fellow bishops they discussed the nature of God. Origen asked: “We profess two Gods?” Heraclides said: “Yes, (but) the power is one.” Origen said: “But since our brothers are shocked at the statement that there are two Gods, we must treat this matter carefully, and point out in what respect they are two, and in what respect these two are one God.” (Dialogue with Heraclides) The Mormon definition of God has more Biblical precedent, more historical precedent, and… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Wow, I misspelled Arius though his line of thought is Arianism. Sorry, I guess that I am just totally discredited. Nonetheless, he is a heretic whether spelled correctly or in error. Mormonism revisionist history does nothing to change this. It looks as if you have no desire to read Deut. 6 but just throw out these factoids which is an act of desperation. You are in complete error. What did Moses mean by the usage of Elohim? If he really meant it to be plural as in “many” then why does the Septuagint translates it singular? I know those Jewish people were clueless in understanding God’s Word. (hint: sarcasm) Reread Deut. 6:4. Yahweh (singular) our Elohim (plural) Yahweh (singular) is One. I am sorry but it is obvious that there is no desire on your part to do exegesis. It is much more complicated than just saying the word, Elohim… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

My point about Arius is that if you don’t know who he is, you will not fully understand what he taught and why. Sure, Arianism is a swear word (heretic) today so it’s easy to throw it around as casually as you do when you want to attack someone. However, even though he failed to convince the council of Nicea (they had already made up their minds), his logic, ideas, and doctrine were more sound than Athanasius. A Universal Apostasy was now complete and what was left of the early Church was following “another gospel”. Concerning Duet 6, you did not give a verse. Explaining Elohim as a plural form of God is a valid response for the whole chapter. That was fail on your end, not mine. Now that you have given me a verse, Mormon theology still doesn’t have a problem with it. Jesus is the God of… Read more »

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Right, you continue to fail at the basic exegesis, not surprising but I did explain this to you though you chose to ignore it. So when Moses says the Lord our God, the Lord is one, you are going to try to say that what Moses was doing was not saying YHWH was not Elohim but that YHWH skips over the whole phrase “our God” and just is one. You are doing gymnastics with the Hebrew, Greek, and English that would make Romanian coaches proud. Wow!! When you learn syntax, language, and word order, let me know and we can revisit this again. Your understanding is blasphemous at best. Who says I do not know Arius, just because I misspelled the guy’s name? You obviously do not know your church history as you would like to convince us. For if you understand it, you would have realized that Athanasius may… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“Mormons believe Jesus Christ is a God (singular), a leading member of God (plural) as one of the Godhead, the Son of God, creator of heaven and earth condescended to man, and a divine personage and being.” For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 If the son is given, how can He be called The mighty God or The everlasting Father if He is a god separate from God? Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

How can a moose be separate from moose? How can a piece of gold be different from gold? These are both singular and plural words. Mormons believe Jesus is a God because he is part of God. He is not a God separate from God, nor can he be. This is fully consistent with the scripture you posted.

Also, show me where in the Bible it says Lucifer was an angel. In fact, the Bible says, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and HIS angels were cast out with him.” (Rev 12:9)

He was a being of high enough authority to have HIS OWN ANGELS. Prove Lucifer was a created being with the Bible. okaaayy??

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

You are assuming to know the mind of God, or understand everything about Him when you say that “He is not a God separate from God, nor can he be.” He is God- we do not understand everything about Him. And just in case you use the same reasoning as Jehovah’s Witnesses, as God is not the author of confusion, just remember that His ways are not our ways and the idea of a triune GodHead is not confusing. I take it as one of those things I might not completely understand, but still believe that they are three in One. Adam was not a covering cherubim. Adam was never covered with precious stone garments. Satan did not have his own angels- he was in CHARGE of a host of angels. There is a difference. Satan was created. Jesus Christ was not. All things were created through Him, for Him.… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Sorry, AbiC, but you didn’t, and you can’t, use the Bible to prove the Trinity. Your pretty sad case of trying to compare us to JW’s is thoroughly revealing. They believe Jesus was only an angel. Give me a break.

And, you are making things up that aren’t there in the Bible about Satan. There is no comparison to Lucifer. The whole saying is an allegory full of symbolism. It’s the King’s own rise and downfall, and while it is similar to Lucifer’s, there is no LITERAL comparison that can be made. It does not prove that, and you cannot prove that, Satan was a created being, or that he was an angel. But, by all means, please keep trying.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

God does not have any evil in Him. Evil is an absence of goodness, therefore God does not have any Evil in Him nor is He capable of Evil. Lucifer is evil. He is liar and deceiver who disguises himself as an angel of light. He has come to seek and destroy, and what better way to do that than to make people confused and use the Bible to deceive and draw worship away from Christ?

Yes, Jehovah’s witnesses believe Jesus was Michael the archangel. Mormons believe God was once a man and that Satan is Jesus’ brother.

I am sorry, but you have been deceived. I will pray for you.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I told you that you could not prove it with the Bible. Saying your personal opinions over and over does not make them true.

You are right that God doesn’t have any Evil in him, and Lucifer is not part of God. So, we are in agreement there.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I am and was speaking from the Bible. But I am done here. It’s not up to me to convince anyone- only the Holy Spirit can do that.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You were done here, AbiC, about 2 hours and 5 posts ago as you haven’t posted anything of substance since. You are right, only the Holy Spirit can teach, and I’m sorry that you aren’t listening. Just regurgitating the same accusations and criticisms over and over that you can neither prove, nor justify.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

No Robert. I’m not regurgitating anything other than the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Jesus is God the Son. All other than God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are created, and were created by God, the Word who is Christ Jesus. It’s not me you’re arguing with. It’s Jesus. I am not a bigot because I chose to follow Jesus, as the Word of the Bible states He is, rather than believe a different gospel started by a… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Well, at least you tried. Again, your scripture doesn’t prove that Lucifer was created. God existed in the beginning, right? If Lucifer was part of God in the beginning, then he wasn’t created. Your scripture doesn’t claim that the ONLY thing that was with God was the Word. Does it say that ONLY the Word was with God? What about the Holy Spirit, was he with God in the Beginning? Yes. And it doesn’t preclude others from being there either.

You are not a bigot because you follow Jesus. You are a bigot because you keep parroting accusations and criticisms that cannot be proven nor justified. You cannot DISPROVE what Mormons believe. PERIOD. You cannot PROVE your own belief. PERIOD. I cannot prove what I believe. PERIOD. Yet it is your intolerance, not mine, that defines the beliefs that causes a hostility against the Mormon faith.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

God was in the begining. Nothing other than God has existed before He created. Satan has never been a part of God. If you believe that he was, I feel very sorry for you.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Again, saying it over and over doesn’t make your accusation true, no matter how hard you want it to be. Again, you cannot backup nor prove your claim. By making the same criticisms over and over without a shred of proof, well… and you feel sorry for me, huh?

TJ
Guest
TJ

John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

No where in God’s Word does it say the father of lies ever was God. It is a sorrowful thing that so many are deceived by the father of lies. I would be too, if not for the Saviour of my soul!

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Amen! I am so grateful to the Lord for showing me Himself, and taking my sins away at the cross. I am so grateful to Jesus for claiming victory over death so that I might live with Him forever. Amen and Amen!!

TJ
Guest
TJ

Praise the Lord!

TJ
Guest
TJ

Amen!

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

That’s how I feel too AbC. He’s in God’s hands now. We can only pray that Robert will see the light someday.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Amen C_Hippie.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I told you that you could not prove it with the Bible. Saying your personal opinions over and over does not make them true.

You are right that God doesn’t have any Evil in him, and Lucifer is not part of God. So, we are in agreement there.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

It looks to me like she did a good job of showing precisely that, unless the scriptures don’t do anything for you. You on the other hand use “scriptures” like “How can a moose be separate from moose? How can a piece of gold be different from gold?” Are you not guilty of ascribing to God, the Holy Spirit and Christ, as well as the heavenly Host, the laws of physics? Any God that had to adhere to the laws of physics would not be worthy of worship would he? He is most definitely a paradox. He can be at the creation moment, the crucifixion moment, and answering my prayers simultaneously. He is ominpotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He causes to exist, both his own foreknowledge and our free will, but his foreknowledge is not causative. Explain that with a moose Mormanism is a manmade religion. A work of fiction IMO,… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You are as guilty as AbiC in describing your own opinion rather that doctrine. The Bible doesn’t even hint of a shadow of an inference about the laws of physics, so you are getting your paradoxical definitions outside the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say he can be “at the creation moment, crucifixion moment, and answer your prayers simultaneously”? Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent do not mean he is outside of time, physics, and truth. If God can do all things can God lie? That’s a paradox for you. The “moose” and “gold” example I used is a basis for the Hebrew word “Elohim”, which is the PLURAL word for God. It is used over 1500 times in the Old Testament. “Eloah”, which is the SINGULAR word form is only used about 70 times. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html It is the same understanding that Mormons have about God. I was using those… Read more »

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

“Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent do not mean he is outside of time, physics, and truth.” (gman)

Sure it does, (with the exception of truth). In addition, do the laws of physics allow for everything to be created from nothing?
No.

Who created the laws of physics, which apply to the physical world?
God.

Back later, time to do some work. by the way, your manners are nearly as good as other Mormans we have had discussions with in here. You must be an abberation. ABC is a courteous, thoughtful lady, deserving of respect…and disagreement is not bigotry.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Again, show me in the Bible where it says God created the laws of physics. Physical laws are part of truth as physical laws are “true”. If God did not create truth, He did not create the laws that are bound by truth.

Mormon theology teaches that God uses truth and physical laws to create and govern the universe. Just as I ask if God can lie, is not the breaking of a law of a truth the same as lying? Can He, therefore, break physical law? or does He use His power within those laws?

And, while I have had respectful conversations with AbiC in the past, “You have been deceived. I will pray for you.” goes beyond the borders of disagreement. Sorry.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

No it doesn’t. You are simply ascribing your hypersensitivity to being caused by her. You can’t even answer simple questions and you accuse others of doing what you yourself are doing. I’d rather you didn’t pray for me please. Rather, pray for yourself, or to yourself, or Joseph Smith. I don’t recognize your theology as anything other than a man with an insatiable desire to control other people, who wrote a book of fiction with theologically sounding prose. He was over 1800 years late to the party. Islam was only 600 and some years late. Although your religion is much, much more friendly than they, I still think it’s a bunch of BS invented by a less than sterling character, in other words, a liar. So, I don’t recognize, nor do I have any respect for your religion’s founder, your god(s) or your theories about mine, nor do I respect… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Yup, what you wrote there is pretty much what people can refer to as bigotry and intolerance at it’s finest. When you can’t come up with a valid proof or rational for what you believe, just go on a huge ad hominem rant and attack the other guy. Yup, what works for liberals works for Christian fanatics, too.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“When you can’t come up with a valid proof or rational for what you believe, just go on a huge ad hominem rant and attack the other guy.” You may not see the proof in the Word of God that I showed you, yet you come back not with scripture but the words of a church organization. I made that comparisson earlier about Jehovah’s witnesses because they do the same thing. I have a dear friend who is immersed in that organization and we have had the same kinds of “arguments”, yet she feels that quoting from the Watchtower society is as valid as quoting from the Bible. The watchtower is not the Word of God, neither is the LDS church. No matter that both of those religions were started by men who claimed things that never were, both (and also islam) was started by men who claimed visions of… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

Thanks for that, and it wasn’t meant to originally call YOU a bigot, only that the attitudes of people criticizing what they cannot prove LEADS to bigotry and intolerance. I apologize for digressing so far to name calling. I am a voracious student of Post-Apostolic, Pre-Nicean Christianity and have read the direct words of those who followed closely after the Apostles (like Ireneaus, Ignatius, Origen, Tertullian, etc). While it would take longer than I have here to explain, the things I have learned directly from their words match Mormon theology much more closely than what the Reformers taught. That being said, consider Paul’s words carefully. “I marvel that ye are SO SOON removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” Paul was not speaking to our day, he was speaking to his own, that they were following “another gospel”. Consider, what if, just what… Read more »

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I believe Paul was talking about the Jews who claimed to be Christian yet were still preaching the law. And we have to remember the Gnostics were around at that time too. But still Robert, I believe Paul’s words as all the words of the Bible are just as relavant for all times. Jesus warned there would be false prophets, teachers and false Christs.
I do accept your apology though and thank you for accepting mine.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

“I believe Paul was talking about…” You only believe? You don’t know? The Jewish religion wasn’t “another gospel”, and no, the Gnostics weren’t around yet (not for 100 years yet). While his words are relevant for all time, you had better be danged sure that without prophets and apostles to guide the Church that the scholars didn’t lead it away into “another gospel”. That’s the entire premise for the Mormon faith, and it’s what I believe, especially after reading the early Father’s writings. It is the “why” behind why I am Mormon.

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

I was being polite when I said, “I believe” Judaism IS another religion. Yes, Christianity was born out of it by Christ coming from the Jews, but they preach another gospel because those who do not believe in Jesus the Son of God, wanted to stone Him for blaspheme. They did not recognize their Messiah who had come to save the world. Many still do not recognize Him, but I thank God that many are coming to recognize Him. The Jews at the time were preaching the law still to those who were believers in Christ, which was confusing them. The Gospel taught by Christ was that no one is righteous, and that no one, no matter how much they follow the law will be saved. As for apostles and prophets, John the Revelator was the last prophet of Christ to reveal the times when Christ will come again. The… Read more »

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

I can’t read this anymore. To skinny.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

I just have a problem with blasphemy. Nothing personal.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

So do I. Wow, we have something in common. And yet you feel liberated enough to use it on another’s religion. Have you looked at your own lately??

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

God have mercy on Robert. He’s like we all are; sinners in need of a savior. May he someday taste the blessed peace and hope that can only come from Jesus. Amen!

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You incorrectly assume I haven’t already. Jesus absolutely is my savior and my Lord to whom I fall on my knees and honor with my life and soul. Thanks for the prayer, tho. (see 1 Corinthians 12:3)

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

My pleasure friend! May God be with you!

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

“We have crossed the Rubicon and I want that destruction in the hands of those who caused it. ”

“”Anybody but Obama” aint good enough…”

Well said BSScoop, well said! That’s been my thinking.

dougtheavenger
Guest
dougtheavenger

You believe Bashir’s whopper about Mormonism denying the divinity of Christ? That is rather foolish. Mormon Doctrine holds that Jesus Christ is God the Son; a member of the Trinity. Mormons believe in a Trinity of 3 divine persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who are one in purpose. Catholics and most Protestants believe in a Trinity of 3 divine persons; God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who are one in substance. The disagreement between Mormons and most other Christian denominations is over the doctrine of Homeuisis not the Trinity. The Shield of the Trinity which is a Catholic learning tool could be used in any Mormon Sunday School.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

You mean that Jesus is a son of god. This is a tragic difference between Mormonism and Christianity. It would seem to be that god had at least two sons, Jesus and Lucifer.

Lucifer wanted Heavenly Father to change his plan. Lucifer said he would save everyone by taking away their freedom to choose, . . . Lucifer also wanted all the honor (Moses 4:1). Jesus volunteered to be our Savior. He wanted to follow Heavenly Fathers plan and give the glory to Heavenly Father (Moses 4:2). Heavenly Father chose Jesus to be our Savior. Lucifer was angry and rebelled against Heavenly Father (Moses 4:34).

As much as one may want to call Mormonism a denomination it is not. There are too many differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism for it to be even consider Christian in the first place.

12grace
Guest
12grace

Do you have any links, I would like to know more about this religion.

TJ
Guest
TJ

You might try this book to learn more about Mormonism:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Mirage-Former-Member/dp/0310291534

12grace
Guest
12grace

Thank You tj.

RobertGman
Guest
RobertGman

You might try learning about it from the source. Try http://www.mormon.org

12grace
Guest
12grace

Thank You for the link, RG.

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

I feel your pain!

stage9
Guest
stage9
Luker410
Guest
Luker410

Mormon or Muslim… Mormon any day.

Conservative_Hippie
Member
Conservative_Hippie

Thank God (literally) there is another choice!

Luker410
Guest
Luker410

Why are we wasting time on Basheir. Do more than 20 people in this country or the world even know who he is…or care? He works for mslsd for crying out loud. he may as well work for Algore nameless, viewerless network.

Joel Miller
Guest
Joel Miller

How in tarnation can anyone listen and even begin to truly listen and believe this. Very sick of the Left saying “leave the muslims alone you bigot!” or “Rev Wright is fine saying GD America since he is black you racist”. They work every day to eradicate all aspects of Christianity from the world but they use it anytime they want to fit their agenda. The duplicity is outstanding!! And most of America just accepts it silently thinking nothing of it! As one person said when interviewed about that mural painted by a girl shoing a normal persons life progression to marriage, ‘political correctness’ will be the downfall of this nation!” God save us!!

Joel Miller
Guest
Joel Miller

How in tarnation can anyone listen and even begin to truly listen and believe this. Very sick of the Left saying “leave the muslims alone you bigot!” or “Rev Wright is fine saying GD America since he is black you racist”. They work every day to eradicate all aspects of Christianity from the world but they use it anytime they want to fit their agenda. The duplicity is outstanding!! And most of America just accepts it silently thinking nothing of it! As one person said when interviewed about that mural painted by a girl shoing a normal persons life progression to marriage, ‘political correctness’ will be the downfall of this nation!” God save us!!

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

It is sad that the Bible is only used when they think it is to their advantage. Otherwise, they throw Scripture under the bus.

TJ
Guest
TJ

On this particular piece, Martin Bashir did not use the Bible. But it’s true many who are not Christians use the Scripture when it suits them & twist it, like their father does.

Back to Top of Comments