Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Wednesday 23rd April 2014 05:43:54 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 
These are answers that peddler2 has provided in Christianity

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/30/07 - Celebrating the feast of the Holy Family.........

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Holy Family (A)

Today's Gospel (Mt 2:13-15.19-23): After the wise men had left, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said, «Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will soon be looking for the child in order to kill him». Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. In this way, what the Lord had said through the prophet was fulfilled: ‘I called my son out of Egypt’.

After Herod's death, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said, «Get up, take the child and his mother and go back to the land of Israel, because those who tried to kill the child are dead». So Joseph got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when Joseph heard that Archilaus had succeeded his father Herod as king of Judea, he was afraid to go there. He was given further instructions in a dream, and went to the region of Galilee. There he settled in a town called Nazareth. In this way what was said by the prophets was fulfilled: «He shall be called a Nazorean».

Commentary: Fr. Joan Antoni Mateo i García (La Fuliola-Lleida, Catalonia)

«Get up, take the child and his mother and go back to the land of Israel»

Today, we contemplate the mystery of the Holy Family. The Son of God begins his path through men in the midst of a plain family. It is the Father's design. The family will always be the irreplaceable human habitat. Jesus has a legal father that “carries” him and a Mother that is always by his side. God always used St. Joseph, a just man, faithful husband and responsible father, to protect the Family of Nazareth: «An angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you’» (Mt 2:13).

Today, more than ever before, the Church is expected to proclaim the good news of the Gospel of the Family and of life. Today, more than ever before, a deep inhuman culture trumpets, while trying to inflict it upon us, their anti-gospel of confusion and death. In John Paul II's postsynodal apostolic exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, he reminds us: «The Church (…) must faithfully proclaim anew the truth about marriage and the family. She sees this as burning need, for she knows that this task is integral to the mission of evangelization entrusted to her by her Bridegroom and Lord, and imposes itself today with unusual force. Many cultural, social and political factors are in fact conspiring to create an increasingly evident crisis of the family. In varying ways they jeopardize the truth and dignity of the human person, and call into question, often misrepresenting it, the notion of the family itself. The value of marital indissolubility is increasingly denied; demands are made for the legal recognition of de facto relationships as if they were comparable to legitimate marriages...!».

«Herod will soon be looking for the child in order to kill him» (Mt 2:13). Once again, Herod is striking, but we are not to be afraid, for God's help is not lacking in our life. Let us go to Nazareth. Let us rediscover the truth about the family and about life. Let us live it up joyfully and let us proclaim it to our brothers thirsty for light and hope. The Pope invites us to: «It is necessary to reaffirm that these institutions [marriage and family] are realities grounded in the will of God. Furthermore, it is necessary to serve the Gospel of life».

And, again, «an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said: ‘Get up, take the child and his mother and go back to the land of Israel’» (Mt 2:19-20). The return from Egypt is imminent!

peddler2 answered on 12/30/07:


.Fred
I certainly agree with your stand on the family but I do not see where the RCC has much of an argument from the Bible for the Biblical idea of a family. This is also true of the more liberal Protestant churches as well.
If you relegate the book of Genesis to myth or allegory as liberal Christianity has done you undermine the foundation of the gospel.
When Jesus taught on marriage He quoted Genesis 1 and 2 .
.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
.
But the RCC as well as liberal Christianity teaches that Gen 1 and 2 are contradictory and are not literally true. They have to because otherwise they would have to say the secular scientist who preach millions of years are wrong and like you they lack the backbone to disagree and the intellectual pride to learn the arguments from scientist who believe the Bible.
.
A quote from the Londn Times article on "The Gift of Scripture"
.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces
.
How do you argue with a non Christian that marriage is for one man and one woman for life if you say Genesis is a myth? For that matter how can you tell a non believer to trust the Bible at all when the official position of the church is it may contain "historical traces" . Jesus Christ taught from it and presented it as literal history.
Why woild a non believer believe you if you have to check a list to see what parts of the Bible are true and which ae not?
.
Once you deny the historicity of Genesis the argument for marriage , against sodomy ,abortion, the explanation for why there is death and suffering, and the reason that Jesus had to die disappear like smoke.
Sadly many atheist understand the Bible better than liberal Christians. Liberal Christians have to accept death and suffering, disease, animals who eat each other and sometimes us, poisonous snakes, and so on as part of the plan of a loving God.
The atheist who says that that is a poor example of his idea of love has a point.
If Genesis is not literal history God is a bumbling cruel God that created worms that live in the eyes of little children and make them blind . I wold not worship a God like that either.
My God, the God of the Bible created a perfect world, a paradise when noting eve r died. Man messed it up when Adam disobeyed/ The God of the old world well, this is the best he could do.

.
.“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30
.
{Of course he equivocates the religion of evolution as science}
.


arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
wakan asked on 12/29/07 - I’ve spent most of today looking over

the past few months on this here board.
I got awful weary with the 2 Christian haters, peddler7118 and Toms777 a year ago so I left.
I see that they are the same jackasses now that they were then.
That is if peddler2 is the same ass as peddler7118 is, and from the very similar posts from them it looks like they are one and the same ass.
Both Toms777 and peddler post the same type of bigotry an lies they did a year ago.
Many people here have labeled them accurately and told them what they were doing but it has made no mark on their rotting character.
A half brained person would think about that and change because he gets caught so many times with his lying pants down, but it looks like either one of them even have half of a brain.
I wish I had more time to spend here but I’ve got a job to attend to.
This here board needs more real Christians on it than those that who claim to be Christian but keep on proving they are not.
With winter I’ll have some more time that other seasons so I’ll be looking back in here as often as I can.
Walk with Wakan into the light.

peddler2 answered on 12/29/07:

Wiccan-AKA Judgment Queen
I guess your right , I don't knowe anyone, I don't even know what You finally said something. It was stupid, but it is an improvement.
.
BTW your best friend Joy is now Liz.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
darleneclemintine rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
wakan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/28/07 - Should I do this???????????????????????????????????

I am seriously considering blocking peddler and Tom Smith because of their continuing false accusations, twisting of what I say, and their many lies about me and others here.
If they continue to do that I think I will block them and urge everyone else to do the same.
It appears to be the only way we can stop their many abuses of us all.
Do you think that we should block them?
If not, why not?
If so, why so?

peddler2 answered on 12/28/07:

Fred
Please block me.
There is no reason to carry on any conversation with you. The example of the fossils of the Platypus in SA ia a prime example. The truth is of no interest to you.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/26/07 - I was looking up about presidential Candidates.......

I was trying to find out if Baptist minister Rev. Hukabee was like peddler2 and Tom Smith a bigot and hater of Mormons, JWs, and Catholics.
I'll keep looking but so far here is what I found.
RELIGIOUS

1. Rev. Huckabee is a member of the LIBERAL wing of the Southern Baptist Convention.

2. He took a vow to support the Constitution, which requires Congress to declare war. But he supports the attack on Iraq.

3. Said he'd ignore the Constitution "in a heartbeat" if Congress opposed the war.

4. Backpedaled on denial of evolution. Said he would encourage evolution be taught and make creation illegal in public schools.

5. Said amnesty for illegal aliens is God's way for America to atone for slavery.

666. Suggested tracking people with marks like FedEx.

7. If he's a legitimate Baptist preacher he shouldn't demote himself from the pulpit.

ILLEGAL ALIENS

1. Supported amnesty for illegal aliens.

2. Supported giving them our tax money for free education, health care, and welfare.

3. Supported paying for illegal aliens to have college educations (also with our money).

4. Supported allowing aliens to vote in U.S. elections.

5. Worked with corporations in Arkansas to draw in low-wage illegal aliens.

6. Supports funding education of foreigners in countries we invade.

ETHICS

1. Investigated by Arkansas ethics commission 14 times.

2. Reprimanded by AEC five times.

3. Tried to claim $70,000 of furniture as his own.

4. Set up a charity to pay himself to make speeches.

5. Set up a "wedding gift registry" to receive gifts to furnish his new $525,000 home as he left office.

ECONOMY

1. Raised taxes five times, including income, sales, gas, and nursing home taxes. Net tax increase of over $500 million, despite claims of cutting taxes 90 times.

2. Increased predecessor Bill Clinton's budget by 65%.

3. Increased gov't workers in Arkansas by 20%.

4. Largest public-paid medical program in State history.

NEW WORLD ORDER

1. Gave speech to Council on Foreign Relations (prominent NWO supporters).

2. Wrote article for CFR that they considered an "essential document".

3. His idea of allowing aliens to vote in our elections effectively eradicates America as a nation, putting us at the whims of the rest of the world.
<><><>
For the full report look here:

http://tdgwolfwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-christians-should-not-support-rev.html

peddler2 answered on 12/28/07:

Fred

I just wanted to see if you were conscious.
Apparently not as I said we went to war with Iran and you did not notice.
I think you need to study current events before making a decision. We are at war in Iraq and Afganistan, not Iran.
Fred besides being daffy you are pathological. You did accuse him of ignoring the constitution.
.

2. He took a vow to support the Constitution, which requires Congress to declare war. But he supports the attack on Iraq.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/26/07 - Answerway does NOT say that Domino has.............

been suspended.
MaggieB might have tried to get him gone but it appears that she failed.
Check it our here.
.
http://www.answerway.com/p.php?e=domino

peddler2 answered on 12/27/07:

BTW Fred
Please note as with nearly every argument you ever present this is the Appeal to Ignorance or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
You ignore what the Bible does say and talk about what it does not.
You ignored what answerway said about domino and talked about what they did not.
This is fallacious , it is a dishonest debating technique, it is the best tool you hav.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/25/07 - Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him.................

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Christmas: Mass during the Day

Today's Gospel (Jn 1,1-18): In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God; He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him nothing came to be. Whatever has come to be, found life in him, life which for humans was also light. Light that shines in the dark: light that darkness could not overcome.

A man came, sent by God; his name was John. He came to bear witness, as a witness to introduce the Light so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light but a witness to introduce the Light.

For the Light was coming into the world, the true Light that enlightens everyone. He was already in the world and through him the world was made, the very world that did not know him. He came to his own, yet his own people did not receive him; but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name. These are born, but without seed or carnal desire or will of man: they are born of God.

And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us, and we have seen his Glory, the Glory of the only Son coming from the Father: fullness of truth and loving-kindness. John bore witness to him openly, saying: «This is the one who comes after me, but He is already ahead of me for He was before me». From his fullness we have all received, favor upon favor. For God had given us the Law through Moses, but Truth and Loving-kindness came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God-the-Only-Son made him known: the one who is in and with the Father.

Commentary: Mons. Jaume Pujol i Balcells, Metropolitan Archbishop of Tarragona and Primate of Catalonia

«The Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us»

Today, with children's simplicity, we are considering the great mystery of our Faith. Jesus' birth emphasizes the arrival of the “Fullness of Time”. As a result of the original sin of our first parents, the human lineage diverged from its Creator. But God, grieving over our sad condition, sent his Eternal Son, born from the Virgin Mary, to us, to redeem us from the slavery of sin.

John, the apostle, explains it by using expressions of great theological deepness: «In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God» (Jn 1:1). John names the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as “the Word”. And he adds: «And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us» (Jn 1:14).

This is what we are celebrating today; this is why it is a great feast. We marvel at Jesus, newly born. He is a baby... but also, God All Mighty; He is God, but now, He is also one of us.

He has come to Earth to bring us back to our condition of children of God. However, we must welcome within us the salvation He is offering us. As St. John explains, «but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name» (Jn 1:12). Children of God! Let us prize this ineffable mystery: «The Son of God has become son of man, in order to make us sons of God» (St. John Crysostom).

Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him: we shall find salvation, and the true solution to the problems of our world, only in Him; He only is giving us the ultimate meaning of life, of our pains and setbacks. This is why, today, I am proposing you: let us read the Gospel, and let us mull over it; let us try to truly live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God that has come into us. Only then, we shall realize that, together, we could truly build a better world.

peddler2 answered on 12/27/07:


.Fred
23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.
.

Why would you use this verse? It plainly says that Abraham's belief was counted as righteousness not his works.
Of course I find it absolutely dishonest not to put it context .

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
,
.
When you read the preceding verse it becomes even more abundantly clear Abraham was justified by faith , why did you leave it out?
Of course it is a rhetorical question. You did not leave it out you simply copied what the RCC told you to think.

If you want to be told what to think by the RCC do so. They want you to believe they need to exist for you to be saved.
The thief on the cross dismisses that nonsense for me, suit yourself.
.
Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/25/07 - Baptist Church On Fox News!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV8__4u5MFQ

Can this be true? I am watching it, although I can't believe in what I am seeing.
These people or worshiper's of the Baptist Church are Marching in front of a Funeral where a young man died in the Iraq War, with signs that say.

God hates f_gs
Thank god for 911
Thank God for the dead Soldiers?
Is there new light or something that came upon these Christians?
Please somebody help me! If this is true. Than there is a devil. There is an evil running through Babylon The Great?
And today I would not doubt they are celebrating Christmas?

As for that. I Pray and ask the Lord that I know of. My God. To Bless all the Families of 911, and all those that do not have hate.

Is this true? For you Baptist and holy rollers- Stay away from Families that are in mourning. Because if you see me there, and you have your signs. I will have God. My loving God throw Hail upon you!
Shame on you!
Get down on your hands and knees, and thank God you were not in the rubble on 911...

peddler2 answered on 12/26/07:

Fred the proof you are Satanic is right on this page. Your assine defense shows you are less than bright to boot.
.
These are your words little satan:
Those type of Baptists are all over the place.
We had them here in Montana at the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq.

.
Here is rhe proof they are the same ones that Joy lied when she acted as if it was news to her. The only people claiming to be Baptist that are doing this evil thing are Phelps and his band of nutcakes from Kansas. You saying there are Baptists like this all over the place is a lie from your father.
.
Here is the proof that you are lying Fred!
USA Today Says Fred is Satanic Liar
.

Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
server asked on 12/25/07 - Christmas shoe boxes

by J. Riley
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2007, 9:02 (GMT)

More than seven million needy children overseas will soon be holding in their hands a Christmas shoe box - which for many is the only gift they will receive this holiday.


Operation Christmas Child – the world’s largest Christmas project – has helped collect the millions of shoeboxes filled by kids in countries like the UK and US with toys, pens, papers, necessity items and notes of encouragement to distribute to underprivileged children in 100 countries. In addition to kids, families, businesses, churches, schools and scout troops have also contributed to the Christmas shoe box effort.

“Millions of people have already made this a brighter Christmas for a hurting child overseas, but we welcome others to start a new holiday tradition and share the joy of Christmas with boys and girls around the world,” said Franklin Graham, president and CEO of international Christian relief organisation Samaritan’s Purse, in a statement.

Operation Christmas Child is an annual project of Samaritan’s Purse.

The shoeboxes have already been inspected and prepared for overseas shipment in countries around the world, including the UK and the US. After the preparation at the centers, the shoe boxes are loaded onto some of the world’s largest cargo planes, trucks and sea containers for their journey overseas.

Once they reach their first destination, Samaritan’s Purse teams and partners transport the boxes by truck, bus, train, helicopter, boat, foot, dog sled, mule and even camel to hand-deliver the gifts to the needy children.

More than 250,000 volunteers worldwide have helped prepare the boxes for transport.

Since 1993, Operation Christmas Child, a project of Samaritan’s Purse, has delivered more than 60 million gift-filled shoe boxes to needy children in 120 countries based on the giving of people in 11 giving countries.

peddler2 answered on 12/25/07:

This is not an organization I would support if all they do is give material goods to the poor. Without the message of salvation the money is wasted.
Jesus told as to feed the poor and spread the gospel.
.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
.
Like the great evangelist Willian Booth who founded the Salvation Army did we should fill the belly of the poor as well as their soul. Christianity is the best cure for poverty.
.

server rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/25/07 - Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him.................

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Christmas: Mass during the Day

Today's Gospel (Jn 1,1-18): In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God; He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him nothing came to be. Whatever has come to be, found life in him, life which for humans was also light. Light that shines in the dark: light that darkness could not overcome.

A man came, sent by God; his name was John. He came to bear witness, as a witness to introduce the Light so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light but a witness to introduce the Light.

For the Light was coming into the world, the true Light that enlightens everyone. He was already in the world and through him the world was made, the very world that did not know him. He came to his own, yet his own people did not receive him; but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name. These are born, but without seed or carnal desire or will of man: they are born of God.

And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us, and we have seen his Glory, the Glory of the only Son coming from the Father: fullness of truth and loving-kindness. John bore witness to him openly, saying: «This is the one who comes after me, but He is already ahead of me for He was before me». From his fullness we have all received, favor upon favor. For God had given us the Law through Moses, but Truth and Loving-kindness came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God-the-Only-Son made him known: the one who is in and with the Father.

Commentary: Mons. Jaume Pujol i Balcells, Metropolitan Archbishop of Tarragona and Primate of Catalonia

«The Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us»

Today, with children's simplicity, we are considering the great mystery of our Faith. Jesus' birth emphasizes the arrival of the “Fullness of Time”. As a result of the original sin of our first parents, the human lineage diverged from its Creator. But God, grieving over our sad condition, sent his Eternal Son, born from the Virgin Mary, to us, to redeem us from the slavery of sin.

John, the apostle, explains it by using expressions of great theological deepness: «In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God» (Jn 1:1). John names the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as “the Word”. And he adds: «And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us» (Jn 1:14).

This is what we are celebrating today; this is why it is a great feast. We marvel at Jesus, newly born. He is a baby... but also, God All Mighty; He is God, but now, He is also one of us.

He has come to Earth to bring us back to our condition of children of God. However, we must welcome within us the salvation He is offering us. As St. John explains, «but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name» (Jn 1:12). Children of God! Let us prize this ineffable mystery: «The Son of God has become son of man, in order to make us sons of God» (St. John Crysostom).

Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him: we shall find salvation, and the true solution to the problems of our world, only in Him; He only is giving us the ultimate meaning of life, of our pains and setbacks. This is why, today, I am proposing you: let us read the Gospel, and let us mull over it; let us try to truly live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God that has come into us. Only then, we shall realize that, together, we could truly build a better world.

peddler2 answered on 12/25/07:

I am confused. You told me you had to earn your salvation.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/25/07 - Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him.................

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Christmas: Mass during the Day

Today's Gospel (Jn 1,1-18): In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God; He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him nothing came to be. Whatever has come to be, found life in him, life which for humans was also light. Light that shines in the dark: light that darkness could not overcome.

A man came, sent by God; his name was John. He came to bear witness, as a witness to introduce the Light so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light but a witness to introduce the Light.

For the Light was coming into the world, the true Light that enlightens everyone. He was already in the world and through him the world was made, the very world that did not know him. He came to his own, yet his own people did not receive him; but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name. These are born, but without seed or carnal desire or will of man: they are born of God.

And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us, and we have seen his Glory, the Glory of the only Son coming from the Father: fullness of truth and loving-kindness. John bore witness to him openly, saying: «This is the one who comes after me, but He is already ahead of me for He was before me». From his fullness we have all received, favor upon favor. For God had given us the Law through Moses, but Truth and Loving-kindness came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God-the-Only-Son made him known: the one who is in and with the Father.

Commentary: Mons. Jaume Pujol i Balcells, Metropolitan Archbishop of Tarragona and Primate of Catalonia

«The Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us»

Today, with children's simplicity, we are considering the great mystery of our Faith. Jesus' birth emphasizes the arrival of the “Fullness of Time”. As a result of the original sin of our first parents, the human lineage diverged from its Creator. But God, grieving over our sad condition, sent his Eternal Son, born from the Virgin Mary, to us, to redeem us from the slavery of sin.

John, the apostle, explains it by using expressions of great theological deepness: «In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God» (Jn 1:1). John names the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as “the Word”. And he adds: «And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us» (Jn 1:14).

This is what we are celebrating today; this is why it is a great feast. We marvel at Jesus, newly born. He is a baby... but also, God All Mighty; He is God, but now, He is also one of us.

He has come to Earth to bring us back to our condition of children of God. However, we must welcome within us the salvation He is offering us. As St. John explains, «but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name» (Jn 1:12). Children of God! Let us prize this ineffable mystery: «The Son of God has become son of man, in order to make us sons of God» (St. John Crysostom).

Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him: we shall find salvation, and the true solution to the problems of our world, only in Him; He only is giving us the ultimate meaning of life, of our pains and setbacks. This is why, today, I am proposing you: let us read the Gospel, and let us mull over it; let us try to truly live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God that has come into us. Only then, we shall realize that, together, we could truly build a better world.

peddler2 answered on 12/25/07:

I am confused. You told me you had to earn your salvation.

timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/25/07 - Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him.................

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Christmas: Mass during the Day

Today's Gospel (Jn 1,1-18): In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God; He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him nothing came to be. Whatever has come to be, found life in him, life which for humans was also light. Light that shines in the dark: light that darkness could not overcome.

A man came, sent by God; his name was John. He came to bear witness, as a witness to introduce the Light so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light but a witness to introduce the Light.

For the Light was coming into the world, the true Light that enlightens everyone. He was already in the world and through him the world was made, the very world that did not know him. He came to his own, yet his own people did not receive him; but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name. These are born, but without seed or carnal desire or will of man: they are born of God.

And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us, and we have seen his Glory, the Glory of the only Son coming from the Father: fullness of truth and loving-kindness. John bore witness to him openly, saying: «This is the one who comes after me, but He is already ahead of me for He was before me». From his fullness we have all received, favor upon favor. For God had given us the Law through Moses, but Truth and Loving-kindness came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God-the-Only-Son made him known: the one who is in and with the Father.

Commentary: Mons. Jaume Pujol i Balcells, Metropolitan Archbishop of Tarragona and Primate of Catalonia

«The Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us»

Today, with children's simplicity, we are considering the great mystery of our Faith. Jesus' birth emphasizes the arrival of the “Fullness of Time”. As a result of the original sin of our first parents, the human lineage diverged from its Creator. But God, grieving over our sad condition, sent his Eternal Son, born from the Virgin Mary, to us, to redeem us from the slavery of sin.

John, the apostle, explains it by using expressions of great theological deepness: «In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God» (Jn 1:1). John names the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as “the Word”. And he adds: «And the Word was made flesh; He had his tent pitched among us» (Jn 1:14).

This is what we are celebrating today; this is why it is a great feast. We marvel at Jesus, newly born. He is a baby... but also, God All Mighty; He is God, but now, He is also one of us.

He has come to Earth to bring us back to our condition of children of God. However, we must welcome within us the salvation He is offering us. As St. John explains, «but all who have received him He empowers to become children of God for they believe in his Name» (Jn 1:12). Children of God! Let us prize this ineffable mystery: «The Son of God has become son of man, in order to make us sons of God» (St. John Crysostom).

Let us welcome Jesus, let us seek him: we shall find salvation, and the true solution to the problems of our world, only in Him; He only is giving us the ultimate meaning of life, of our pains and setbacks. This is why, today, I am proposing you: let us read the Gospel, and let us mull over it; let us try to truly live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God that has come into us. Only then, we shall realize that, together, we could truly build a better world.

peddler2 answered on 12/25/07:

I am confused. You told me you had to earn your salvation.

arcura rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/23/07 - Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Sunday IV (A) of Advent

Today's Gospel (Mt 1:18-24): This is how Jesus Christ was born. Mary his mother had been given to Joseph in marriage but before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph, her husband, made plans to divorce her in all secrecy. He was an upright man, and in no way did he want to discredit her.

While he was pondering over this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, «Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. She has conceived by the Holy Spirit, and now she will bear a son. You shall call him “Jesus” for he will save his people from their sins».

All this happened in order to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: «The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and he will be called Emmanuel which means: ‘God-with-us’». When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do and he took his wife to his home.

Commentary: Fr. Pere Grau i Andreu (Les Planes-Barcelona, Catalonia)

«When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had told him»

Today, the liturgy of the Word invites us to consider and admire St. Joseph's figure, a truly good man. About Mary, God's Mother, it has been said that she was blessed among women (cf. Lk 1:42). About Joseph it has been written he was a just man (cf. Mt 1:19).

As persons made after God's image and semblance, we all owe our individual identity to God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth, with actual and radical freedom. And as a response to that freedom we can glorify God, as He deserves, or we can also make, out of ourselves, something quite unpleasant to God's eyes.

We have no doubt that Joseph, through his job and personal commitment to his familial and social surroundings, sort of won our Creator's “Heart”, by considering him a man to be trusted in the collaboration of human Redemption through his Son, made a man as we are.

Let us therefore learn from St. Joseph his allegiance —already proven from the very beginning— and his good behavior during the rest of his life —closely— correlated to Jesus and Mary.

We make him patron and mediator of all fathers, whether biological or not, that in our world must help their sons to provide a similar response to his. We make him patron of the Church, as an entity intimately linked to his Son, and we keep on hearing Mary's words when she finds that the Child Jesus was “lost” in the Temple: «Your father and I...» (Lk 2:48).

Therefore, with Mary, our Mother, we find Joseph as the father. St. Teresa of Avila wrote: «I took for my advocate and comforter the glorious Saint Joseph, and commended myself fervently to him (...). I do not remember at any time having asked him for anything which he did not grant».

Exceptional father for those of us who have heard the call of our Lord to fill up, through the priestly ministry, the place Jesus Christ has handed over to us to carry on with his Church. —O glorious St. Joseph! do protect our families, our communities, all those hearing the call to vocational priesthood... and let us hope there will be many of us.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE.

peddler2 answered on 12/23/07:

Joseph is with the Lord but he is not a god and praying to him is apostasy.
No where in the Bible does it teach or allow praying to people.
It is Babylonian Paganism from hell.
You make up crap that is not in the Bible like Purgatory and praying to Mary and other dead people.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/21/07 - HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

1. Open a new folder on your computer.
2. Name it "Hillary Clinton"
3. Send it to the trash.
4. Empty the trash.
5. Your PC will ask you, "Do you really want to get rid of "Hillary
Clinton?"
6. Firmly Click "Yes."
7. Feel better!
Tomorrow we'll do Giuliani.....

peddler2 answered on 12/23/07:

Fred {the man who hates Christians}
this goes with the territory.
Satan said: Hath God said?
You say God lied.
Satan is subtle, you are not.
Telling me I need to stop killing nurses and blowing up abortion clinics amy be your idea of love, I disagree.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 12/22/07 - Note: Information

For anyone interested, I have set myself up on the Atheism Board in an attempt to have someone there for those interested in having a place to ask questions and have fellowship with atheists. Hopefully, it will become an active and interesting Board.

Cordially,

Mary Sue

peddler2 answered on 12/23/07:

Great News.
Now if only someone will start a New Age board.

Mary_Susan rated this answer Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/21/07 - Will the world end Dec.12, 2012??????????????????????

The latest crackpot idea about the end of the world says that the Mayans calendar predicts that.
In reality it does not.
Their calendars are in cycles and the end of this cycle ends then with another starting the day after.
Is that true of do you believe that the world will end in 2012?
Is that the date of the secret return of Jesus when thousands will be snatched into the clouds?
Or do you also believe that the so-called rapture is bunk; bogus theology?

peddler2 answered on 12/23/07:

Fred you are so ignorant of science you make Perv look smart.
All I have is your word that God is a liar and His book is fiction.
Tell me where you get this idea that bones are not the MAIN reason the church Kowtowed to the atheist?
Tell me who the men were who sold this idea were and how they came up with their argument.
You cannot because you don't know a damn thing about and are simply making it up as you go along.
.
No I do not accept your word as fact. I know the truth.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/22/07 - the Magnificat Canticle.................................

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Weekdays of Advent: December 22nd

Today's Gospel (Lk 1:46-56): Mary said: «My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults in God my savior! He has looked upon his servant in her lowliness, and people forever will call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, Holy is his Name! From age to age his mercy extends to those who live in his presence. He has acted with power and done wonders, and scattered the proud with their plans. He has put down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up those who are downtrodden. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He held out his hand to Israel, his servant, for he remembered his mercy, even as he promised our fathers, Abraham and his descendants forever».

Mary remained with Elizabeth about three months and then returned home.

Commentary: Fr. Francesc Perarnau i Cañellas (Girona, Catalonia)

«My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults in God my savior!»

Today's Gospel presents for our consideration the Magnificat Canticle, with which the Virgin Mary, full of joy, greets Elizabeth, her relative, mother of John the Baptist, in her home. Mary's words remind us of other Biblical canticles and songs She knew quite well and had so often, recited and contemplated. Now. however, those very words, on her lips, have a much deeper meaning: behind them, God's Mother spirit shows through while also evincing the purity of her heart. Every day, at the Liturgy of the Hours, the Church makes these words hers when, with the Vespers, the Church addresses to Heaven the same song with which Mary rejoiced, blessed and thanked God for all His graciousness and sheer kindness.

Mary has benefited of the most extraordinary Grace any woman has ever received or will ever receive: amongst all other women in History, she has been chosen by God, to become the Mother of the Redeemer Messiah, whom Mankind had been awaiting for so many centuries. It is the highest honor ever granted any human person, and She accepts it with total restraint and humility, by realizing it all is Grace and a gift, and her own lowliness before the immensity of God's power and greatness, which has done wonders on Her (cf. Lk 1:49). This is a great lesson of humility for all of us, Adam's sons, and heirs of a human nature deeply stained by Original Sin which, day after day, would try to drag us down.

We are getting close to the end of Advent, a time of conversion and purification. To day, it is the Virgin Mary who is showing us the best way. Mulling over our Mother's prayer —by wishing to make it ours— will help us to become more humble. Mother Mary will help us if we truly ask her.

peddler2 answered on 12/22/07:

Fred
It makes perfect sense.
Your problem is you are ignorant of the Bible and you don't believe it.
Christians are not of this world, only Pilgrims passing thru.
.
When we die we leave this world . We do not become gods and affect the outcome of the lives of those that remain here. Mary dos not hear your prayers.
.

Where does the Bible teach the saints can pray for us? The Bible teaches all God's followers are Saints.
When the saints come marching in it is not talking about just those elected by the RCC who preform magic tricks after they die.
People are already praying to Mother Theresa who knew she was not saved and is burning in hell even though her first magic trick has been exposed as a fraud.
.
The Hebrews are God's Chosen , not the Romans. Why don't they pray to dead people?
.
You curse me every day and call me the most vile things you can think of. You can take your prayers to the Roman god and stick them up your ass .
.

Here is a deep thought Fred. I am not dead yet. I pray to God not to Mary to intercede.
.
Jam 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Th idea of praying to dead people is an ancient occultic practice. t never existed with the people of God, the Jews , or the early Christians. It was forced down Christianities throat by the pagan Romans.
For cenrturies the Popes condemned the Greek Saints to hell and often rival popes.
How anybody can imagine Jesus Christ had a thing to do with Romanism is beyond comprehension.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Hwood asked on 12/22/07 - The ACLU enemy of the State?

by Jay @ 11:30 am on August 22, 2005.
Perhaps there is no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn't seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed.


On July 12, 1990, Morton Halperin, who at that time was director of the Washington Office of the ACLU, testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "The ACLU is deeply troubled by the notion that there is a national security exception to the Fourth Amendment or any part of the Bill of Rights. We regard those rights as fundamental and absolute."

"Absolute" is the key word to understanding the ACLU. Its absolutist philosophies, just as any extremist view, endangers the very civil liberties it claims to protect.

In his book "Twilight of Liberty", William Donahue compares Halperins views of liberty with that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said, "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country, by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

There is no doubting the ACLU's concern that there are untrustworthy public officials who will invoke national security as a cloak to cover their own wrongdoings; the pages of history are full of them. But does that mean that the only proper response is to make absolute the Bill of Rights, even in those clear-cut instances when the nation's viability is seriously called into question: It is fair to say that most who have studied the question would prefer to side with Jefferson on this matter." Twilight of Liberty pg 172

There is probably no other time that a proper balance between civil liberties and national security becomes more important than in wartime. During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties. Of course war opens the opportunity for abuse by governments, and the ACLU are right to watch for them. However, the ACLU in its absolutist perception of freedom, only worries about one side of the equation, civil liberties. It pays no attention to the national security side of things, not only ignoring it, but in many cases working against it.

It is nothing new for the ACLU. They grew out of an organized effort to protest World War I. The only exception to their anti-war stance was World War II, and part of that is due to the investigation during this time into the fact that they were a Communist Front group.

After 9-11, the ACLU and its leftist cohorts spearheaded a movement to depict the US in general - and the airline industry in particular - as a snake pit of bigoted vipers eager to abuse and humiliate Muslims and Middle Easterners. The statistics, however, tell quite another story. During the nine months immediately following 9-11, the ADC received a mere 60 reports of incidents where airline security personnel prevented "Arab-looking" male passengers from flying as scheduled. While this may have been an annoying inconvenience for those affected, six or seven complaints per month is hardly an epidemic - particularly in light of the fact that the most devastating attack in American history had just been carried out by nineteen men of virtually identical physical, ethnic, and religious characteristics".

"From 9-11 to the present day, the ACLU has vigorously opposed every governmental attempt to more effectively protect the American people's security. It sued, for example, to prevent the implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was passed in November 2001 and included a citizenship requirement for airport screeners. It organized protests against a "discriminatory" Justice Department and INS registration system requiring male "temporary visitors" to the US from 25 Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. It condemned the FBI's "discriminatory" plan to count and document every mosque in the US. It protested when FBI and Homeland Security agents recently tried to track down illegal Iraqi immigrants they deemed dangerous. In Illinois, the ACLU actually set up a hotline designed to give free legal advice to undocumented Iraqis facing deportation. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser casually dismissed Americans' concerns about illegal immigration, chalking such sentiments up to a "wave of anti-immigrant hysteria."

"The ACLU further claims that the Patriot Act has created an Orwellian big government of unprecedented proportions. "Under the new Ashcroft guidelines," reads one of its disingenuous press releases, "the FBI can freely infiltrate mosques, churches and synagogues and other houses of worship, listen in on online chat rooms and read message boards even if it has no evidence that a crime might be committed." Curiously, the ACLU does not mention that the FBI already had the authority to take these measures long before the Bush administration took power. Nor does the ACLU point out that the FBI can wiretap only after showing a court that the suspect is affiliated with a foreign terrorist group or government - the very same requirement instituted 25 years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".

"What the ACLU is actually rebelling against is the Justice Department's recent removal of Clinton-era intelligence-gathering restrictions that had crippled the government's ability to fight terrorism. These restrictions prohibited intelligence investigators from conferring and sharing information with criminal investigators, even if they were both trailing the very same suspect who was plotting a terrorist act. On August 29, 2001, for instance, an FBI investigator in New York desperately pleaded for permission to initiate an intensive manhunt for al-Qaeda operative Khalid Almihdar, who was known to be planning something big. The Justice Department and the FBI deputy general counsel's office both denied the request, explaining that because the evidence linking Almihdar to terrorism had been obtained through intelligence channels, it could not legally be used to justify or aid an FBI agent's criminal investigation; in short, it would constitute a violation of Almihdar's "civil rights." "Someday, someone will die," the agent wrote to his FBI superiors, "and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems." Thirteen days later, Almihdar took over the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the PentagonExerpt Front Page Magazine

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU's absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, "Wartime Sedition Act." Before, the ACLU held that it "would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be "cooperating" with or acting on behalf of the enemy." This policy was based on the recognition that "our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States." In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, "the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement."
Source
All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!

As these policy changes indicate, balancing national security interests and civil liberties is not a goal of the ACLU. Its only goal is the absolute pursuit of unlimited civil liberties, with no regard to any consequence or negative impact upon our security. Not only does it ignore the issue of national security, but there are many examples I have shown where they actually work against it, even to the point of defending the enemy. The absolute tragedy is that it is not only the nations's security the ACLU's absolutist philosophy puts in danger, but the very cause of liberty itself. We've also saw recently the attitude of the ACLU to securing our borders, again civil liberties trump national security, their refusal of contributions because of anti-terrorism stipulations, sueing New York for trying to protect its subways, and even wanting to help the enemy keep its secrets from interragators. Is all of this not enough for Congress to do some kind of investigation? Write your Congressman and tell them you want an investigation on the ACLU immediatly before its too late.

It pursues its radical agenda with your taxdollars.

peddler2 answered on 12/22/07:

Yes.
To this day few realize that the ACLU talked John Scopes into lying by saying he taught evolution or the fact they lost .
The whole purpose of the trial was to attack Christianity. That is the soul purpose of their existence.

Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 12/20/07 - What is the problem with Anglicans?

IF there was ever an example of someone being in two minds it is the leader of the Anglican Church, I have to ask, how do these people become leaders of the Christian Church?

Three wise men just legend: archbishop


December 20, 2007 - 4:25PM


The leader of the world's Anglicans has described the Christmas story of the three wise men as nothing but a "legend" and says not all followers must believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has picked apart elements of the Christmas story, including how a star rose high in the sky and stood still to guide the wise men to Jesus's birth place.

Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.

Dr Williams said there was little evidence that the three wise men had existed at all. Certainly there was nothing to prove they were kings.

The only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague, he said.

"Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend," he said.

He went on to say that while he believed in it himself, new Christians need not leap over the "hurdle" of belief in the virgin birth before they could join the church.

He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".

And on the timing of Jesus's birth, he said the son of God was likely not born in December at all.

"Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival," he said.

But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.

AAP

peddler2 answered on 12/22/07:

The Anglicans are very split. Half are apostate and half are very good Christians.
Please don't condemn them all .
.
However the three wise men is just a legend.
There were closer to 1000 and came from as far away as China. Read the Gospel of Matthew.
.
Mat 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Mat 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Mat 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
.
3 guys on camels did not scare the Roman Govenor Herod. Much less the whole of Jerusalem. The incident of Herod killing the children allmost started a world war.
.
Sadly these stories which just don't jive with the Bible persist due to the ignorance the average Christian has of the Bible.
.
It is also very unlikely Christ was born in December. Augustus would not have taxed everyone in the winter and shepherds don't stay out in their fields past mid-October in Judea.
What my church has decided is to just say Christimas is the day we set aside for celebrating Christ birthday even though it is not the correct one. I disagree and would prefer to start a new tradition and can the Solctice Festival but I prefer to slay other dragons.
.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/22/07 - the Magnificat Canticle.................................

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Weekdays of Advent: December 22nd

Today's Gospel (Lk 1:46-56): Mary said: «My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults in God my savior! He has looked upon his servant in her lowliness, and people forever will call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, Holy is his Name! From age to age his mercy extends to those who live in his presence. He has acted with power and done wonders, and scattered the proud with their plans. He has put down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up those who are downtrodden. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He held out his hand to Israel, his servant, for he remembered his mercy, even as he promised our fathers, Abraham and his descendants forever».

Mary remained with Elizabeth about three months and then returned home.

Commentary: Fr. Francesc Perarnau i Cañellas (Girona, Catalonia)

«My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults in God my savior!»

Today's Gospel presents for our consideration the Magnificat Canticle, with which the Virgin Mary, full of joy, greets Elizabeth, her relative, mother of John the Baptist, in her home. Mary's words remind us of other Biblical canticles and songs She knew quite well and had so often, recited and contemplated. Now. however, those very words, on her lips, have a much deeper meaning: behind them, God's Mother spirit shows through while also evincing the purity of her heart. Every day, at the Liturgy of the Hours, the Church makes these words hers when, with the Vespers, the Church addresses to Heaven the same song with which Mary rejoiced, blessed and thanked God for all His graciousness and sheer kindness.

Mary has benefited of the most extraordinary Grace any woman has ever received or will ever receive: amongst all other women in History, she has been chosen by God, to become the Mother of the Redeemer Messiah, whom Mankind had been awaiting for so many centuries. It is the highest honor ever granted any human person, and She accepts it with total restraint and humility, by realizing it all is Grace and a gift, and her own lowliness before the immensity of God's power and greatness, which has done wonders on Her (cf. Lk 1:49). This is a great lesson of humility for all of us, Adam's sons, and heirs of a human nature deeply stained by Original Sin which, day after day, would try to drag us down.

We are getting close to the end of Advent, a time of conversion and purification. To day, it is the Virgin Mary who is showing us the best way. Mulling over our Mother's prayer —by wishing to make it ours— will help us to become more humble. Mother Mary will help us if we truly ask her.

peddler2 answered on 12/22/07:

News Flash
Mary is still dead. She died almost 2000 years ago and rotted away just like we all will.
May as well pray to Barney.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/21/07 - Will the world end Dec.12, 2012??????????????????????

The latest crackpot idea about the end of the world says that the Mayans calendar predicts that.
In reality it does not.
Their calendars are in cycles and the end of this cycle ends then with another starting the day after.
Is that true of do you believe that the world will end in 2012?
Is that the date of the secret return of Jesus when thousands will be snatched into the clouds?
Or do you also believe that the so-called rapture is bunk; bogus theology?

peddler2 answered on 12/22/07:

Mary
Nearly all scientist, secular and creationist believe the Universe will end in a heat death.
So you just said all scientist are silly.
Brilliant!

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/21/07 - Will the world end Dec.12, 2012??????????????????????

The latest crackpot idea about the end of the world says that the Mayans calendar predicts that.
In reality it does not.
Their calendars are in cycles and the end of this cycle ends then with another starting the day after.
Is that true of do you believe that the world will end in 2012?
Is that the date of the secret return of Jesus when thousands will be snatched into the clouds?
Or do you also believe that the so-called rapture is bunk; bogus theology?

peddler2 answered on 12/21/07:

Why do you say this is a crackpot idea when you call the JW's Christians and the have predicted the end of the world over and over?
.
Of course Bible believers don't have to consider this nonsense. Too bad we are so rare.
.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
.
Of course if you accept millions of years then you have to reject the return of Christ as well.
. What a tangled web gets weaved when we are weak and become deceived..

ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
grayeagle_50 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
timelessone rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/17/07 - Tom peddler swore at me!

Tom. Can you please tell peddler not to use anymore swear words? I am a Very Highly Sensitive Person, and that hurts me. She called me a Basta_d
I have a Father.
Can you please tell her no more cuss or swear words on here? Please?

peddler2 answered on 12/18/07:

If there is a click here Bobbye it is the New Agers like yourself that have turned Christianity into a humanist philosophy, a social gospel.
.
The common thread is a hatred for anyone that challenges their claimed Christianity based on the Bible instead of humanist philosophy.
.
Another common trait is their abject dishonesty, as you are displaying here. Joy is lying and the lie is so stupid even you know it. But you don't care about truth, she is in your click. You are worse than she for piling on.
.
Tom and I do not always agree , particullarly about politics and his anti-Americanism. He is also more of a gentlemen and more forgiving than me. We rarely disagree on the Bible.
Paraclete and I disagree about 50% of the time about everything. There are a few straglers that show up from time to time but the rest of this bunch worship another god . The god they created, not The God that created them.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 12/17/07 - TITHING! DO YOU BELIEVE IN TITHING?

(1) Is tithing also taught/mentioned in the New
Testament?

(2) Do you tithe?

(3) What about "offerings" also mentioned in
Malachi 3:10?

(4) Was tithing before or after The Law?

(5) What was the "proportion" that God commanded in
Malachi 3:10 (please read the definition of the
particular word that identifies the proportion to
the Jews).

Just thought I'd stir the pot while everyone is spending in the malls and bickering on the Board.

Merry Christmas,
Bobbye

peddler2 answered on 12/18/07:

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's
.
If Christians tithed there would be no purpose in the welfare State

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 12/17/07 - How many Christians here believe in "faith" healing?

Peddler doesn't per his/her own words:
The Babtist history goes back to the time of the apostles and they never participated in the charlaton faith healing or the emotionalism and self gratification of the tongues movement.
______________________________________________________


Comments?

MaggieB

peddler2 answered on 12/17/07:

God is the only healer. All man can do is ask.
If you base your beliefs on the Bible hten modern "faith" healing is a lie.
There are countless instances of people surviving seemingly impossible situations.
There is not one recorded modern day healing of an organic illness or injury by a faith healer, not one. There are too many known frauds to count.
The father of the modern "faith healing" movement William Branham was a false prophet. I posted his heresies already.
.
Faith healers hurt Christianity by telling the ones who were not healed it was their fault.
.
Jesus did not go around healing people to prevent human suffering and neither did the apostles. They did it to bring sinners yo Christ, to save souls.
It ia absurd to say these people were healed by their faith. Do dead people have faith? They were healed. Remember the blind man who did not know who healed him until he met Jesus in the temple?
.
New Age Christianity had walked away from the authority of scripture Jesus held so high. Like Fred just proved. He believes because he experianced it. Dosent matter that Christ Himself warned about signs and wonders. Miracles don't necessarily come from God. The only way to know thw difference is to know the Bible , and believe it.
.
Jesus is JEHOVAH-RAPHA , the Lord who heals not Benny Hinn. These 2 versus tell it all.
.
Jam 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
.
Does not say to fill the Astrodome and make millions does it?
.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/16/07 - Westboro Baptist

Hate breeds on hate feeds on hate breeds on hate.

Watch The Video at Stop The ACLU

Everything you do comes back to you, whatever it may be. What you do as an angel, or what you do as a devil will come back and pay you for your deeds. This is the karma of preaching hate. I’m kinda glad the ACLU defends these idiots to spout their idiocy.

Via Break.com

Those religious nut bags at the Westboro Baptist Church were not welcome at this funeral for a soldier who died in Iraq. They are pretty much running for their lives and trying to drive away as fast as possible. This crowd would have torn them limb from limb.

What else can I say about this group than I abhor them. They are lunatics. They spread their message of hate not only at gay funerals and soldier’s funerals, but any high profile funeral that brings them media attention. They threatened to protest at the little Amish girls’ funerals who were shot in cold blood, and made an appearance last week at the funerals of teenagers killed in a tragic school-bus accident in Huntsville. They deserve anything that happens to them in consequence to their message of hate.

A major point worth noting by hoosierteacher
When Christian extremists (which is a rare phenomenom) do stupid things, real Christians get outraged. When Muslim extremists do stupid things, "real" Muslims stay mum.

This is why so many of us question whether Muslim extremism is mainstream to the Muslim faith or not. Why don't we hear from the Muslim "faithful" or see action from Muslim moderates when terrorists claim the Muslim faith?

The day I see Muslim moderates chasing away a bunch of beheading, innocent killing, kidnapping, SOBs is the day I might reconsider my opinion. As long as they celebrate in the streets the downing of the WTC I'll know what the truth is.

BTW, good for those funeral goers. Too bad they probably weren't wearing running shoes.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep"

Is everyone in the Baptist Church like Peddler?

peddler2 answered on 12/17/07:

Liz
I go to the the funerals at Fort Campbell and stand between those bastards and and the families of the fallen heroes . The year before last I stood out in the snow with a couple of hundred great kids singing God Bless America for those families and made sure those animals from Kansas never got close.
.
Baptist outside the SBA are free to choose their own path. These people are not supported by a single Baptist church on earth.
.
Sadly Phelps used to be a member of the SB but no longer.
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060609/NEWSREC0101/606090306
.
What you are doing is no different that Phelps blaming family of the fallen heroes for his sick imaginations. You are no different than the sodomites that paraded up and down the street to politicize their sick agenda at the expense of the families.
You are no better than Phelps for politicizing his sorry acts. You don't give a damn about those parents or you would not use their grief to spread your moronic agenda.
.
What have you done for these families who lost their sons and daughters? Not a damn thing I would guess.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/16/07 - History On Baptist Church?

I was reading that the Southern Baptist were the first ones to start the KKK? What does the Bible say about this?

peddler2 answered on 12/17/07:

I hear the Church of God requires you to kill and eat your own baby and be Baptized in its blood to become a member and repeat it every year.
If you fail to have a baby during any given year you have to eat 3 infidel babies to appease your gods.
What do babies taste like, an enqueerring mind {Fred} wants to know.
Of course it could be a rumor.
.
BTW I am not a SB and the KKK was not started by any church.

Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/16/07 - Baptist Church?

Does every member in the Baptist Church taught to Judge every religion?
Is the Bible true, when it says. "By their fruits you will know them. If it is a rotten tree. Jesus will cut it down.
What kind of fruits do the Baptist Church provide?
Beside Rotten speeches of. "You are going to Hell Fire, and I'll Pray for your Soul?"
Can the Baptist Church really be filled with such Anger and Hate as they peddle in others Religions?

peddler2 answered on 12/17/07:

Joy
Have you ever read the Bible?
Jesus Christ judged every religion. All Christians are commanded spread the Gospel. Jesus talked of hell more than heaven.
All you are doing is spewing your humanist philosophy.
This is the Christianity board, why are you here unless to learn?
.
Letting people burn in hell is hatred of an order beyond human imagination. You do not believe in God or you would know that.
If you know a human being is headed for destruction you warn him/her.
You have created your own reality where hell does not exist , it does and you will go there when you die unless you convert.
No one can make you do that it is your choice.
I will not however let you spread the sataic social gospel unchallenged.
.
BTW how long did you stay a 'born again Christian" after being a JW before you downgraded to the low rent Church of God Cult?

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 12/16/07 - When will ACURA and PEDDLAR GET TOGETHER?

come on boys you need to play nicely now afterall your leadership thinks it's a good idea.

Catholic-Baptist Dialogue Moves Forward


Pope Addresses Members of Joint Commission



By Jesús Colina

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- For dialogue between Baptists and Catholics to move forward, points of disagreement must be confronted in a spirit of openness, respect and fidelity to the truth of Christ, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope said this today upon receiving in audience a delegation of the joint international commission sponsored by the Baptist World Alliance and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, meeting in Rome through Saturday.

The talks constitute the second round in the second series of conversations between the Baptist World Alliance and the Vatican. The theme of the meeting is "The Word of God in the Life of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and Koinonia."

The first series of talks took place between 1984 and 1988. The current series, which began in December 2006 in Birmingham, Alabama, will continue through 2010.

Benedict XVI said: "It is my hope that your conversations will bear abundant fruit for the progress of dialogue and the increase of understanding and cooperation between Catholics and Baptists."

According to the Pope, this point "offers a promising context for the examination of such historically controversial issues as the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, the understanding of baptism and the sacraments, the place of Mary in the communion of the Church, and the nature of oversight and primacy in the Church's ministerial structure."

In order to move forward in reconciliation and fraternity between Baptists and Catholics, the Pontiff said "issues such as these need to be faced together, in a spirit of openness, mutual respect and fidelity to the liberating truth and saving power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

"Today, as ever, the world needs our common witness to Christ and to the hope brought by the Gospel," assured the Bishop of Rome.

Quoting the Second Vatican Council, Benedict XVI said "the lack of unity between Christians 'openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and harms the most holy cause of proclaiming the good news to every creature.'"

The Baptist World Alliance is a fellowship of 214 Baptist conventions and unions comprising a membership of 36 million baptized believers and a community of 105 million.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ok Fred and Paul time to quit your open hostility

peddler2 answered on 12/16/07:

Ok. I will quit the KKK, stop molesting imaginary children , quit murdering nuns ans slow down a bit on blowing up abortion clinics.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/15/07 - Spreading the word "pedliarian style" . . . . . . . . . .

 
 
Ref. topic : Is the RCC the Whore of Babylon?
 
 
The Bible tells that it is the Mission of every Christian to spread the "word".
 
I don't know which Bible pedliar2 reads, but it can not be anyone of those I have ever seen. Pedliar2's Bible must be filled to the brim with lying and cheating, with hatred, despite, and abuse, with bigotry and rudeness, with intolerance and hypocrisy.
 
Because only that can explain her topics like "Is the RCC the Whore of Babylon", and all her many other attack topics against Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and anyone else who does not agree with pedliar2's personal views.
 
Of course a Christian can (should?) correct others if they stray. But is pedliar2 the correct person to decide who is straying? And straying from what? Is pedliar2's format of Christianity not just a cult?
 
A "christian" who calls the RCC (a Christian Church) the Whore of Babylon? Is that a Christian, a cult member, or perhaps a Homo Idioticus Religios Fanaticus Extremis?
 
Just a couple of other examples of this rather unchristian behavior are :
 
Topic : Did Catholics evolve?
 
Topic : Are Catholics the New Chosen?
 
Topic : Logic and the New Age Christian
 
Topic : A Message for Pope Fred the Pliable
 
Topic : Stony-Are you a Mormon?
 
Topic : The Mormon Solution to Global Warming
 
Topic : Domino-What is a Deist doing
 
Topic : Support the Long War Against God
 
Topic : Good News for Brown Nosing New Agers
 
Topic : St Freddie the Incoherent
 
Topic : Fred's Jesus {Fred's Demon}
 
Topic : Fred Worships Mormon Jesus
 
Topic : St Freddie the Infallible!
 
I am no Christian. But I understand that attacking your own brothers and sisters in Christianity that way does not assist in spreading the word itself. In effect it only makes true spreading of the Christian "word" by others more difficult.
 
Spreading the word "pedliarian style" is nothing more than spreading hatred, despite, bigotry, intolerance, hypocrisy, and rudeness. It has NOTHING to do with true Christianity.
 
Would it not be better to shun pedliar2 completely on this board? After all : the board is called the "Christianity Board" ...
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/15/07:

Perv
Not only are you no Christian you are no student of religion , history , Christianity , or science.
Your opinion is an expression of your feelingd towards Christian which are blood thirsty and murderous by your own admisssion.
Go read something.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. People who are too lazy to study ususally speak through them as well.
.
A brother or sister in Christ must be a Christian. You have no clue what that means.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/15/07 - Spreading the word "pedliarian style" . . . . . . . . . .

 
 
Ref. topic : Is the RCC the Whore of Babylon?
 
 
The Bible tells that it is the Mission of every Christian to spread the "word".
 
I don't know which Bible pedliar2 reads, but it can not be anyone of those I have ever seen. Pedliar2's Bible must be filled to the brim with lying and cheating, with hatred, despite, and abuse, with bigotry and rudeness, with intolerance and hypocrisy.
 
Because only that can explain her topics like "Is the RCC the Whore of Babylon", and all her many other attack topics against Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and anyone else who does not agree with pedliar2's personal views.
 
Of course a Christian can (should?) correct others if they stray. But is pedliar2 the correct person to decide who is straying? And straying from what? Is pedliar2's format of Christianity not just a cult?
 
A "christian" who calls the RCC (a Christian Church) the Whore of Babylon? Is that a Christian, a cult member, or perhaps a Homo Idioticus Religios Fanaticus Extremis?
 
Just a couple of other examples of this rather unchristian behavior are :
 
Topic : Did Catholics evolve?
 
Topic : Are Catholics the New Chosen?
 
Topic : Logic and the New Age Christian
 
Topic : A Message for Pope Fred the Pliable
 
Topic : Stony-Are you a Mormon?
 
Topic : The Mormon Solution to Global Warming
 
Topic : Domino-What is a Deist doing
 
Topic : Support the Long War Against God
 
Topic : Good News for Brown Nosing New Agers
 
Topic : St Freddie the Incoherent
 
Topic : Fred's Jesus {Fred's Demon}
 
Topic : Fred Worships Mormon Jesus
 
Topic : St Freddie the Infallible!
 
I am no Christian. But I understand that attacking your own brothers and sisters in Christianity that way does not assist in spreading the word itself. In effect it only makes true spreading of the Christian "word" by others more difficult.
 
Spreading the word "pedliarian style" is nothing more than spreading hatred, despite, bigotry, intolerance, hypocrisy, and rudeness. It has NOTHING to do with true Christianity.
 
Would it not be better to shun pedliar2 completely on this board? After all : the board is called the "Christianity Board" ...
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/15/07:

Perv
Not only are you no Christian you are no student of religion , history , Christianity , or science.
Your opinion is an expression of your feelingd towards Christian which are blood thirsty and murderous by your own admisssion.
Go read something.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. People who are too lazy to study ususally speak through them as well.
.
A brother or sister in Christ must be a Christian. You have no clue what that means.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
server asked on 12/15/07 -
Christian Bashing: The Last Acceptable Bigotry

New Group to Fight Back Against Anti-Christian Threats

Contact: Kevin P. McVicker, Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, 703-739-5920, 800-536-5920, 703-727-9537 cell, kmcvicker@sbpublicaffairs.com



FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla., Dec. 5 -- As Christians around the country are met with violence and marginalization, Dr. Gary Cass, has founded the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) a new organization that aims to counter threats to millions of Christians' First Amendment rights. While the overwhelming majority of Americans are professed Christians, it has become routine for the media and elites to openly mock and trivialize Christians because they choose to express their faith.



In his new book Christian Bashing and the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Dr. Cass examines the threats, slurs and violence being perpetrated against Christians--and the apathetic reaction of American society. "When controversial statements are made against certain groups, there is a demand for an immediate apology. When anti-Christian sentiments flow from the media, there is never a response--until now," said Dr. Cass.



"When a group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of radical homosexual agitators, recently disrupted a Catholic mass in San Francisco, the reaction from the entire religious community was a big yawn. It is time for Christians to stand up and call bigotry by its rightful name and to fight back when defamed."



"It is clear that persecution has not ceased to exist in the modern era. Defamation, which leads to marginalization and persecution, is not an irrational fear for Christians," writes Dr. Cass.



According to Christian Bashing, some of the recent egregious examples of religious bigotry include:



* In Illinois, an employee of a national insurance company was fired for writing an op-ed in support of traditional marriage, even though he did it on his own time and on his own computer.

* Christopher Hitchens, on the day Jerry Falwell died, appeared on CNN and referred to Falwell as, "a little toad ... a horrible little person... an evil old man... a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud."

* Bill Maher, who regularly belittles Christians, began his HBO program on May 18 with a vicious, blasphemous attack on the Christian faith, making lurid remarks associating Holy Communion with homosexuality.

* An employee of an Idaho computer company was fired after displaying Bible verses in his cubicle--in response to a pro-homosexual flyer distributed by the company.

* Howard Stern on his nationally syndicated radio show said, "If I was president, I would have you (pro-lifers) gassed. I would march you into the ovens."

* Kathy Griffin, a self-identified militant atheist, was honored for her cable reality show. Upon receiving her reward she said, "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this, ...suck it Jesus! This award is my god now!"

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is a non-profit organization devoted to protecting the rights of Christians to confidently live their faith. Dr. Gary Cass has degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. He previously served as Executive Director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries founded by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy.



To schedule an interview with Dr. Gary Cass, please contact Kevin McVicker with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at (703) 739-5920 or (800) 536-5920.


peddler2 answered on 12/15/07:

We Christians who believe the Bible all need to stand together and damn the politically correct New Agers.
When they try to remove the Ten Commandments the roads , buses, trains and airports should be filled with Bible believers willing to be imprisoned or killed to defend the Bible.
We are more than the atheists and those that are with us are more than those with them.
.
2Ki 6:16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
.
In the mean time send these people a donation and tell your friend that is where their Christmas present went. If they are Christian they will be honored. If not they will respect your conviction.

ladybugca rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
server rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Hwood asked on 12/14/07 - What do you think about the A.C.L.U.?

Betrayal at the Top: The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union
by Gribbit @ 1:00 pm. Filed under ACLU, History, News
by William H. McIlhany

The ACLU is widely portrayed by the mass media as an uncompromising defender of our most cherished freedoms. The impression given is of a group so dedicated to protecting the Bill of Rights that they would be willing in 1979 to lose as many as 70,000 of their members through their controversial defense of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois.

Unquestionably the vast majority of ACLU members have been drawn to the organization by an idealistic response to this image. But on closer examination, a great disparity exists between the group’s professed ideals and the work and statements of its leadership. A review of such contradictions can lead to an understanding of why this is the case.

The ACLU and The Right to Life

Since the Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion in 1973, the ACLU has remained the staunchest advocate not only of the mass murder of millions of unborn children, but also of compelling those to whom abortion is morally repugnant to pay for it through public funding.

The Union endorses euthanasia or “mercy killing” through so-called “living wills” in which the right to terminate one’s own life is delegated to the doctor with the protection of the state.

In spite of the Union’s insistence on what it calls a woman’s “right to control her own body,” we find the group consistently absent from defending doctors and patients who are persecuted for choosing nutritional therapies for terminal diseases. The Union’s record in defending the civil liberties of mental patients against involuntary commitment to institutions also leaves much to be desired.

But most amazingly, in spite of the group’s willingness to give the government power to determine when life both begins and ends, the ACLU flatly maintains that there is no crime one can commit so horrible, either for retribution or deference, than capital punishment.

ACLU Defends the Soviet Family

It would be fair to say that the ACLU has contributed to the attempted undermining of the American family. They have been active in fighting for distribution of often dangerous methods of contraception and abortion to minors without parental approval. While avoiding defense of doctors who recommend nutrition to their patients, the ACLU has pushed for legalization of dangerous “recreational” drugs, not in the free market, but under government monopoly control. In the face of growing evidence of its relationship to child molestation, the ACLU is famous defending all kinds of pornography from the restrictions of local government, while sanctioning an even more intrusive and impossibly unenforceable “national standard” on obscenity and related matters. And, of course, there is the ACLU’s unsuccessful support for that Pandora’s box of federal power extensions that was called the “Equal Rights Amendment.”

In so many of these issues, which include areas in which the Union has in recent years received much publicity, the ACLU claims to be defending the rights of minors as individuals against the wishes of their parents. But when 12-year-old Ukrainian Walter Polovchak in 1980 ran away from his parents in Chicago because he did not want to be forced to return to a life of slavery in the Soviet Union, the ACLU was so moved by his parents “concern,” that they took the case for the boy’s involuntary repatriation. Apparently for the ACLU, an American child should be free to do anything regardless of the consequences, but a child from behind the Iron Curtain should be refused the chance for a life of freedom.

Whose Rights?

It may seem incredible that a group like the ACLU would fear the exhibition of Nativity scenes on public property or the singing of “hark the Herald Angels Sing” in public school assembly programs as threats to the First Amendment while turning deaf ears to the pleas of a 12-year-old boy for freedom. But strange conclusions result from the group’s tendency to view the concept of rights as pertaining not to all individuals and what they have the right to do, but rather to groups who use government to take away from others the things they think they deserve.

Unlike the authors of the U.S. Constitution, the ACLU views our rights as demanding the fruits of another’s labor rather than the opportunity to earn them ourselves. The late Ayn Rand correctly pointed out that this really means the right to enslave others to provide what we want. The Union’s leaning toward a collectivist view of rights is further illustrated by the fact that that other guide books separately detail the rights of women, gay people, teachers, students, military personnel, veterans, hospital patients, mentally retarded persons, young people, aliens, students, candidates and voters, suspects, prisoners, lawyers and clients, government employees, etc. It’s almost as if our rights are defined by our job or sex, or lack of either.

ACLU Assaults our Intelligence Agencies

Had the ACLU not been around we might not have had the tragedies in Oklahoma City or the bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

Perhaps the best known posturing against Big Brother on the part of the Union consists of its often bewilderingly contradictory positions on personal privacy vs. government surveillance and investigation.

The ACLU provided primary leadership for the Left’s drive to abolish the:

House Committee on Un-American Activities(later House Internal Security Committee),
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
Subversive Activities Control Board
Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations
Internal Security Division of the Justice Department
domestic operations of Military Intelligence
and the 1977 Levi Guidelines which crippled the investigative capacity of the FBI.
The Saga of Jay Paul

In 1982 the ACLU of Southern California sued Los Angeles Police Department for alleged “abuses” committed by the Public Disorder Intelligence Division, a department which had investigated subversion and terrorism for many years.

Though initially a fishing expedition to determine what data the department possessed as well as its sources, by 1983 the focus of the attack had become PDID Detective Jay Paul, an acknowledged expert on Communist subversion and terrorism. LAPD had been under outside pressure to destroy its intelligence files and Detective Paul had stored them in his home. These files consisted of many boxes full of public record information, mostly newspaper and magazine articles going back to the 1930’s. They were of historical value, possibly useful in ongoing or future investigations and were rescued by Paul from destruction. The ACLU and its liberal political allies in Los Angeles were horrified to discover the collection contained information on their own left-wing activities.

In January 1983 Jay Paul was removed from his intelligence capacity and subjected to an exhausting daily interrogation and investigation that would continue almost 18 months. It is not without significance that this action and the subsequent abolition of the PDID stopped the only advance investigation security preparation that could have helped stop terrorism at the 1984 Summer Olympics before it started.

Using this suit as a public “cause celebre”, in the summer of 1983, the Union pushed mightily for a local Freedom of Information ordinance which Police Chief Darryl Gates told the LA City Council would prevent him from protecting the people of Los Angeles against terrorism at the 1984 Olympics. Fortunately enough concerned citizens packed the council chambers in opposition to this measure that only a very emasculated version of the proposal became law.

The ACLU File

One reason why some prominent leaders of the ACLU have been so opposed to public and private investigations of subversion must relate to what such an investigation would reveal about the Union itself.

The ACLU was formed out of earlier organizations in 1920 and its Executive Director and moving spirit until 1950 was Roger Baldwin. Before he died at age 97 in 1981, his ideology may have changed, but during the early years of his ACLU tenure there is no doubt where he stood.

In the “Harvard Class Book of 1935, spotlighting Baldwin’s class of 1905 on its thirtieth anniversary, he was quoted as saying, “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.” He gave this advice in 1917 to an associate who was forming another group:

“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”

It should not be surprising to note that Baldwin was active during the 1930’s in quite a few of the Communist Party’s United Front organizations - he was an officer of the Garland Fund, for instance - along with other ACLU leaders including Rev. Harry Ward, Rev. John Haynes Holmes, Clarence Darrow, Scott Nearing, Robert Morss Lovett, Arthur Garfield Hayes, Archibald MacLeish, and Oswald Fraenkel. ACLU leadership also included identified Communist Louis Budenz, Robert Dunn and Corliss Lamont. ACLU activists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn would later become leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A.

Since that time, the ACLU’s official left-leaning activism has only steadily increased. Some local affiliates of the Union have always led this crusade, such as the Southern California ACLU which had maintained on its Board identified Communist Party operative Frank Wilkinson. While the national ACLU has not been characterized as a Communist front by any state or federal investigation since 1938, any doubt about its becoming a ’staunch defender’ of individual rights was put to rest in April 1976, when the ACLU National Board formally reinstated Communist Elizabeth Gurley Flynn “posthumously” in its ranks. Despite this partisanship, the ACLU and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation continue to receive substantial yearly support from the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Field, and other foundations.

peddler2 answered on 12/15/07:

I think they are missionaries of Satan .

Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/13/07 - I'm posting this here though some may sneer..........

A Different Christmas Poem



The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,

I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.

My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,

My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.



Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,

Transforming the yard to a winter delight.

The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,

Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.


My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,

Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.

In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,

So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.



The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,

But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.

Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the

sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.



My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,

And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,

A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.



A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,

Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.

Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,

Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.



"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,

"Come in this moment, it 's freezing out here!

Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,

You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"



For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,

Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light

Then he sighed and he said " Its really all right,



I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."

"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,

That separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask or beg or implore me,



I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.

My Gramps died at ' Pearl on a day in December,"

Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."



My dad stood his watch in the jungles of ' Nam ',

And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,

But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.



Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,

The red, white, and blue... an American flag.

I can live through the cold and the being alone,

Away from my family, my house and my home.



I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,

I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.

I can carry the weight of killing another,

Or lay down my life with my sister and brother.



Who stand at the front against any and all,

To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,

Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."



"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,

"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?

It seems all too little for all that you've done,

For being away from your wife and your son."



Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,

"Just tell us you love us, and never forget.

To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,

To stand your own watch, no matter how long.



For when we come home, either standing or dead,

To know you remember we fought and we bled.

Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,

That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."



PLEASE, Would you do me the kind favor of sending this to as many
people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due
to our U.S.service men and women for our being able to celebrate these
festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we
owe. Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who
sacrificed themselves for us.



LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN
30t h Naval Construc tion Regiment
OIC, Logistics Cell One
Al Taqqadum, Iraq

peddler2 answered on 12/14/07:

We need to pray for our soldiers and do whatever we can to let them no we appreciate them.
Sending Christmas packages is a great idea.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/13/07 - Peddler, I read your lengthy cry baby comment

to Paraclete's answer in your Tongues Trivia question.
In it you admit that you are a jerk.
You go that right.
But your know-it-all attitude is very wrong.
You claim to know the bible well but your many twisted lying posts here prove otherwise many times.
There ARE others here who know the bible well and that includes one whom you hate, domino.
Even though he does not believe much of what the bible says he knows it FAR better than you do.
You claim to read the bible literally but you have proven time and again that you do NOT.
The bible does tell of a place where your sinful nature is purged but you do not believe it.
Jesus clearly says many things that you do not believe including what is called the Eucharist.
You do not believe in the God instituted sacrament as mentioned in the bible.
You do not believe that the bible says that Mary is the mother of God the son, but it does say that.
You don't believe in apostolic succession, but the bible does tell us about that.
Instead of believing what the bible says you twist Scripture to say what you want to believe.
You are so closed minded that you won't even consider that you ARE many times wrong.
You cry baby attitude should tell you that people do not believe you because you ARE often wrong.
You do not know-it-all and with your current attitude you NEVER will.


peddler2 answered on 12/13/07:

You are Mormon atheist Catholic who thinks everyone goes to heaven {except Christians} . Your compromising weak minded non-commital ass calling me a crybaby is like being looked down upon from a man who lives in the gutter.
You are such a sniveling coward you will deny the divinity of Christ to be politically correct.
.
Soundly spanked? Respond to what ?
Noise from a broken record?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/13/07 - Peddler, I read your lengthy cry baby comment

to Paraclete's answer in your Tongues Trivia question.
In it you admit that you are a jerk.
You go that right.
But your know-it-all attitude is very wrong.
You claim to know the bible well but your many twisted lying posts here prove otherwise many times.
There ARE others here who know the bible well and that includes one whom you hate, domino.
Even though he does not believe much of what the bible says he knows it FAR better than you do.
You claim to read the bible literally but you have proven time and again that you do NOT.
The bible does tell of a place where your sinful nature is purged but you do not believe it.
Jesus clearly says many things that you do not believe including what is called the Eucharist.
You do not believe in the God instituted sacrament as mentioned in the bible.
You do not believe that the bible says that Mary is the mother of God the son, but it does say that.
You don't believe in apostolic succession, but the bible does tell us about that.
Instead of believing what the bible says you twist Scripture to say what you want to believe.
You are so closed minded that you won't even consider that you ARE many times wrong.
You cry baby attitude should tell you that people do not believe you because you ARE often wrong.
You do not know-it-all and with your current attitude you NEVER will.


peddler2 answered on 12/13/07:

Well I never read the Mormon Atheist Catholic version , got a copy?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/12/07 - I just got this from my farmers daughter and son-in-law


Subject: McDonald's Beef

I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't understand the issues here. But to those of us who who's living depends on the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... this is frustrating. As far as my family, we don't eat at McDonald's much (Subway is our choice of fast food), but this will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.
The original message is from the Texas Cattle Feeders Association. American cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in the USA to support their restaurants. Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of the USA are the ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good enough to provide beef.
We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does not make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact felt.
Please pass it on. Just to add a note, all Americans that sell cows at a livestock auction barn had to sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cows any part of another cow.
South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.
McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much of their beef from South America . The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as American beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled.
They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.
The American public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's.
American ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the world and this is what Americans deserve to eat, not beef from countries where quality is loosely controlled. Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of McDonald's until they see the light.
I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.
I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you? Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.

David W. Forrest, Ph.D., PAS, Dipl. ACAP
Department of Animal Science
Texas A&M University
2471 TA! MU
College Station, TX 77843-2471
Email d-forrest@tamu.ed
Phone (979) 845-3560

peddler2 answered on 12/12/07:

Fred

This is a stupid e-mail rumor that is already 5 years old.
How long does it take to c/p a few lines of text in and find that out.
If you don't know how ask your mentor.
.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blmcds-beef.htm

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 12/12/07 - Human Evolution Accelerating

"WASHINGTON — Science fiction writers have suggested a future Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In real life, the reverse seems to be happening. People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from one another, researchers say.

"I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed," explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. "The opposite seems to be true."

"Our species is not static," Harpending added in a telephone interview.

That doesn't mean we should expect major changes in a few generations, though, evolution occurs over thousands of years.
Harpending and colleagues looked at the DNA of humans and that of chimpanzees, our closest relatives, they report in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found.

That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.

"Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation," the study says. "The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease."

And they found that different changes are occurring in Africans, Asians and Europeans.

Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa and then spread to other areas, and the lighter skin color of Europeans and Asians is generally attributed to selection to allow more absorption of vitamin D in colder climate where there is less sun.

The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because "we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt," Harpending adds. "And with a larger population, more mutations occurred."

In another example, the researchers noted that in China and most of Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase remains active, so almost everyone can drink fresh milk, explaining why dairy farming is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean and Africa, Harpending says.

The researchers studied 3.9 million gene snippets from 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba tribe and Utah Mormons who traced their ancestry to northern Europe.

Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he thinks the researchers reasoning regarding rapid adaptive change is plausible.

The study mainly points to an overall expansion in the human population over the past 40,000 years to explain the genetic data.

"Yet the archaeological record also shows that humans increasingly divided themselves into distinct cultures and migrating groups _ factors that seem to play only a small role in their analysis. Dividing the human population into finer units and their movement into new regions _ the Arctic, Oceania, tropical forests, just to name some _ may have also forced quicker adaptive evolution in our species," Potts said.

Potts, who was not part of the research team, added that he liked the report "because it points to how genetic data can be used to test a variety of ideas about recent human adaptation."

Two years ago Harpending and colleague Gregory M. Cochran published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews _ those of northern European heritage _ resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors.

Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes, they suggested. That evolution also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.

The new study was funded by the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging, the Unz Foundation, the University of Utah and the University of Wisconsin."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very interesting research.

Comments?

___

peddler2 answered on 12/12/07:

We are evolving into what?
.
All I see is variations. If fish to philosopher evolution were true we would be evolving new appendages, wings perhaps?
Maybe we will grow gills and move to the ocean or sprout roots and turn into plants?
Maybe we will grow eyes in the back of our heads or a couple dozen more arms and legs.
Think how much fun basketball would be?
Of course the cost of clothing would skyrocket.
Perhaps we will be able to spin our heads around and vomit on people like Linda Blair did?
The possibilities are endless.
.
Needed to adapt? That's deep.
What is this process that is totally random and void of purpose that knows we need to "evolve" and how to do it?
.People adapt by using their brains. Some people groups do betrer in some enviroments than others bur that is not evolution.
.
Seriously Mary I fail to see how anybody with the sense to get out of the rain can buy this BS.
If those Jews are smarter that is because their ancestors were smarter. There is no evidence that intelligence evolved. The people who built the pyramids were brilliant and we have a society now that reads this nonsense and goes wow, isn't evolution cool?
.
How can anyone be so lame as to imagine that intelligence, a non-material entity, somehow magically and without any explanation arose from matter?
If that was true the first people would have been to dumb to breath let alone feed themselves .
.
People were created in the image of God and He gave them intelligent minds. Sadly some people refuse to use that intelligence and fall for fairy stories like this.
.
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 12/11/07 - JWs support Nazi Ideals

1934 Watchtower Society Yearbook

Page 134: "The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which The United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business a a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: the Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills".

Page 135: The Present government of Germany has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nations. Duch exactly is our position."

Page 136: "Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest heart."

Page 137 "A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact that the very high ideals held and promulagated by the present National Government are set forth and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our publications and shows that Jehovah God will see to it that these high ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness"

Page 138: "Let us remind the government and people of Germany, that it was the League of Nations compact that laid upon the shoulders of the German people the great unjust and unbearable burdens. That the League of Nations compact was not brought forth by the friends of Germany"

peddler2 answered on 12/12/07:

Liz-Alius Joy the Bigot who changes religions like her socks
.
Tom is not a Baptist , I am.
5000 Babtist were murdered in Geneva alone.
Thousands were drowned by Protestants.
The ancestors of the Baptist , the Waldensians, and the Hugenots were nearly wiped off the face of the earth, they were slaughtered by the millions by the Romans.
Have you ever heard of the
St. Barthalomew's Day Massacre? The Hugenots practiced believers baptism. The Baptists have been around since the time of Christ they were given the name AnaBaptist by the Protestants that killed them. Those that re-Baptize.They were persecuted until about 150 years ago. Your knowledge of history matches your knowledge of the Bible-what you were told to believe.
.
Jehovah Witnesses are pacifists {cowards} who refuse to fight for their country.
We have one converted JW at our church who was a Korean War Veteran.
He never would listen to anyone about becoming a Christian until my pastor asked why a brave Marine would belong to a cult that refuses to fly the American Flag.
.
I really don't think you are going to convince anyone that JW's are loyal to anybody.
I say if you are unwilling to fight for your country you should be deported.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
server asked on 12/12/07 - Racism

Case(1) I'm sure many of you watched the recent Oprah Winfrey Show in which her guest was Tommy Hilfiger. On the show, she asked him if the statements about race he was accused of saying were true. Statements like: 'If I'd known African-Americans, Hispanics, Jewish and Asians would buy my clothes, I WOULD NOT have made them so nice. I wish these people would NOT buy my clothes, as they are made for upper class white people.'

His answer to Oprah was a simple 'YES'. And she immediately asked him to leave her show.





Case(2) It took place on a British Airways flight between Johannesburg and London.

A White woman, about 50 years old, was seated next to a blackman. Obviously disturbed by this, she called the air Hostess. 'Madam, what is the matter,' the hostess asked.

'You obviously do not see it then?' she responded. 'You placed me next to a black man. I do not agree to sit next to someone from such a repugnant group. Give me an alternative seat.'

'Be calm please,' the hostess replied. 'Almost all the places on this flight are taken.
I will go & see if another place is available.' The Hostess went away and then came back a few minutes later. 'Madam, Just as I thought, there are no other available seats in the economy class. I spoke to the captain and he informed me that there is a seat in the business class. And we still have one place in the first class.'

Before the woman could say anything, the hostess continued: 'It is not usual for our company to permit someone from the economy class to sit in the first class. However, given the circumstances, the captain feels that it would be scandalous to make a passenger sit next to someone so disgusting.'

She turned to the black guy, and said, 'Therefore, Sir, if you would like to, please collect your hand luggage, a seat awaits you in the firstclass.'

At that moment, the other passengers who were shocked by what they had just witnessed stood up and applauded.

peddler2 answered on 12/12/07:

I see no references and I do not watch Oprah.
From your method I would conclude you hate white people.
Everyone knows that racial hatred exists and that it is in no way one sided.
.
When my father was alive I watched a black woman steal his shopping cart. He was legally blind.
When I asked her why she would take the cart of a blind man she first denied it and then started shouting obsenities like go f yourself you white mf etc.
.
On the other hand I had many black people go far put of their way to be kind to him.
.
I came close on occasion to physically tossing hispanic women from the bus who refused to give up the seat they had taken that was reserved for the elderly and disabled near the front of the bus.
.
On the other hand some hispanic maids who worked down the street brought him food and visited all the time.
.
There is good and bad in all people regardless of skin tone.
There is always going to be racism but trying to make it appear only white people practice it makes you a promoter of racism and a racist yourself.

server rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/12/07 - So it happens here just as well ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 
 
Startling evidence has been found which shows mammoth and other great beasts from the last ice age were blasted with material that came from space.
 
Eight tusks dating to some 35,000 years ago all show signs of having being peppered with meteorite fragments.
The ancient remains come from Alaska, but researchers also have a Siberian bison skull with the same pockmarks.
 
The scientists released details of the discovery at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, US.
They painted a picture of a calamitous event over North America that may have severely knocked back the populations of some species.
"We think that there was probably an impact which exploded in the air that sent these particles flying into the animals," said Richard Firestone from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
 
"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."
The mammoth and bison remains all display small (about 2-3mm in size) perforations.
Raised, burnt surface rings trace the point of entry of high-velocity projectiles; and the punctures are on only one side, consistent with a blast coming from a single direction.
 
The sunken pieces are also magnetic, and tests show them to have a high iron-nickel content, but to be depleted in titanium.
The ratios of different types of atoms in the fragments meant it was most unlikely they had originated on Earth, the team told the AGU meeting.
 
Link to supporting extended BBC article
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/12/07:

Perv
.
All these conclusions are based on multiple unprovable assumptions.
Why don't you give me scientific evidence that the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay has been constant over time or that the assumptions of the amount of c-14 entering the atmosphere has been constant over time.
It is childish to state assumptions and beliefs as proven facts.
If radiocarbon is a correct dating method it disproves that dinosaurs , diamonds and coal are more than 100k years old and that disproves evolution.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 12/11/07 - "The World Without Us"

...a new book by Alan Weisman looks fascinating. From a book club blurb:

"What would happen if all of the human beings on Earth suddenly vanished? Weisman invstigated how our disappearance would cause the planet to reshape, regrow and readjust in myriad ways.

1. In New York City the subways would flood not having been pumped free of water...

2. After seven days, cooling water in nclear reactor cores would run out tirggering global meltdowns.

3. Three years...no heat in temperate cities, cockroached die out. (paraphrased)

In addition, he describes what would happen 20 to 100 years out.

One reviewer called it one of the great thought experiments of the time. NewYorkTimes Book Review...."morbidly fascinating".

WOULD THE EARTH MISS US IF WE DISAPPEARED?
PROBABLY NOT!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments?

peddler2 answered on 12/11/07:

That is simply the logical conclusion of the illogical atheist world view.
Human beings are without purpose and of no more valus than bacteria, actually less.
The world would be better off without humans.
An evolutionist in Beaumont Texas said a while back that a world wide outbreak of Ebola would be a good thing if it killed off 90% of us. He recieved a standing ovation from 400 "intellectuals" .
This hopeless line of reasoning stems from the insanity of the ancient anti-God religion of evolution.
Man has no more right to life or the resources of this planet than a roach.
Hitler saw the world through the glasses of evolution and said this:
.
…In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he spoke of "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
.
You have the evolutionist who believe all humans are better off dead and those that want to help Natural Selection along like the recent evolution murders in Finland.
Either way it is Satanic to the core.

The Christian world view is that we are human beings created in the image of God and have been given stewardship over the earth. Human life is the reason for the earth's existence ,why it was created in the first place.

There are atheist who think the world would be better off without humans yet many atheists wish to be ruled by one.
It went badly for the Russians under Stalin and the Chinese under Mao. It seems the last person an atheist would want to be ruled by is a person who thinks of them as more worthless than bacteria but that is the insanity.

CeeBee2 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/10/07 - The 'annointed' one???

Messianic expectation, in the Old Testament, called for an 'annointed' king/high priest...without which annointing, none could claim the title 'king' or 'high priest' or, ulitmatly, 'Messiah'. Who annointed Christ, when, and where????????

Was it the fact that he was never ritually annointed that induced Pilate to affix the ironic inscription "Rex Judeaorum" to the Cross?????? The inscription does not refer to Jesus the Christ, but Jesus of Nazareth. Significance?????

peddler2 answered on 12/11/07:

Domino
Pilate was angry with the Sanhedrin for forcing his hand to crucify Jesus .
The words he nailed to the cross had nothing to do with prohecy.
Are you now admitting that Jesus existed ?
You need to announce what your position is as it changes at rsndom.





domino rated this answer Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/11/07 - Mormons have less heart Disease

I just heard on the News this Morning. Mormons have a forty percent less heart disease than most of us. Due to fasting! And skipping meals. As I also do.
My question is. Ronnie. Your doing something right! And can you as an Expert Mormon Christian please share with us? So we can learn something!
Thank you.

peddler2 answered on 12/11/07:

Joy
.
Prince is a Mormon. Mormons don't believe in the Christ, they are pagans that deny the second person of the Trinity.
Christ is not a surname it is a title. The Christ is the God-man.
.
Prince is quite ignorant of the Bible and is in no way an expert.
.
From the beginning of Mormonism they have taught that Christianity is false and Mormonism is true. Mormonism is an anti-Christian cult.
.
If the people let us alone, we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion with the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood…from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a 2nd Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Al-Qur’an or the sword.’ So shall it be with us — ‘Joseph Smith or the sword!’ (See History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 167).”

Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Jesushelper76 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
darleneclemintine rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 12/11/07 - Security Guards In Church?

It has been a couple of years since I have been in a Church. Now I am hearing that the Church has Security Guards in the Church.
Is this for real?
My question is. If this is the house of God? Than I am sure he will protect you. And what in the world, is a gun doing in Gods house?
The last shooting was not an Atheist it was a Saved Christian young man!
Please be kind to wards all people.

peddler2 answered on 12/11/07:

Certainly if this was a Christian that did this it is highly unusual.
Every mass murderer in history including the Columbine Killers and the Natural Selector Assassain has been an evolutionist.
.
If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing … .
– Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

.

Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 12/11/07 - PIDDLER, WHY NOT BUY A REAL CONCORDANCE INSTEAD OF THE 35 PAGES AT THE END OF YOUR BIBLE?

BEFORE YOU START SPOUTING OFF AS TO THE KIND OF LOVE JESUS HAD FOR MARY, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME, WAS IT EROS, AGAPE OR PHILEO? C'MON RUTHIE, THIS IS AN EASY ONE.
OH, BTW, I USE A YOUNGS ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE BECAUSE IT CONTAINS OVER 300,000 ENTRIES. I BOUGHT MINE ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO FOR $20, THEY ARE PROBABLY $50 TODAY.

peddler2 answered on 12/11/07:

Oh my goodness
Stony you really are a trip.
Like I do not know this ?
.
Actually Stony I studied Greek and Hebrew. I admit I have forgotten most of it but if you want to show me up you will need to do better than this. Only a person completely ignorant of the Bible does not know the answer is agape.

Eros is where we get the word erotic from.
Based on your statment:

"Mary Magdelan, a common prostitute, the woman Jesus loved."

It is unclear but the most likely meaning would be eros. From the Bible it is clearly agape but considering your refusal to admit or address errors I had no reason to assume you were not in error here and was forced to ask.
.
Phileo is where we get the word Philidelphia, the City of Brotherly Love.
This is grade school stuff Stony I knew this when I was 8 years old. I went to an Episcopalian private school. Whether you believe it or not I am one of the best Bible students here.
.
If you want to play Bible trivia tell me which famous suicide in the Bible went to heaven?
.
I will be shocked if you reply.
Remeber Stony I am the one who showed you chapter and verse that Pentacostalism's habit of letting women speak in tongues in church was anti-Biblical therefore the "prophets" who push this are false and the "experiance" is not from God.
The Bible tells us to test the spirits against the Bible. Pentacostalism fails the test.
.
As far as your suggestion for a concordance this is the 21st century and I have several on my office computer and my laptop.
However I rarely need them because I have the New Defender's Study Bible which is annotated by Dr. Henry Morris one of the greatest theologians and scientists of the 20th century.

arcura rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 12/10/07 - Bugger off Mate?

Yes sports fans it's official the US is on the nose in Australia. This means that it is not just yours truly who has seen the light

Aussies to US:bugger off mate!
Telephone poll measures Australians' attitudes about their closest ally

67 percent said "not pleased" about prevalence of U.S.-style fast food in Australia

52 percent were very unhappy with the influence of "the American language"





SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australians believe the American hamburger is infringing on their local cuisine and they are "not at all pleased" about it, according to a survey released Monday.

The telephone poll of 1,213 people by the government-funded U.S. Studies Center at the University of Sydney measured Australians' attitudes about their closest ally, the United States.

Asked to judge the influence of American culture on Australia, 67 percent of respondents said they were "not at all pleased" about the prevalence of U.S.-style fast food in Australia.

A further 52 percent said they were very unhappy with the influence of "the American language" on the local slang.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

peddler2 answered on 12/10/07:


PC
I see the anti-American campaign in is full swing.
Here is a deep thought. Do not eat the hamburgers. I don't very often.
Although I have decided I do not need to consume alcohol any longer I am aware of the fact that California grows the best jug wine on earth. The French send tankers of their garbage "country wines" over here and return with California jug wines.
.
America also wins its share of awards for its finer wines. Do not recall Australia being a big winner in that market.
.
What is really sad PC is you are so focused on this world. When you really start to compare what really amounts to a hill of beans you see a different figure. America is racing downhill fast into apostacy but Australia is already there.
There is no difference in us in the eyes of God . It matters not where we live or what we eat , the shade of our skin or the langusge we speak.
We are to help each other and love each other.
.

13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one
.
America with all her faults is still the greatest Christian county on the face of the earth. The first place on earth that religious freedom ever existed. The reason that it exists elsewhere. More missionaries are supported by America that the rest of the world combined.
The greatness of a nation is in how many souls it harvests for God..
You need to pray that God countinues to bless America.
.
There is no American language. There are many different regional dialects if you will.
There is no Australian language.
We are both English speaking countries that have butchered the King's English. Probably out of spite.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/09/07 - On abortion and reality of the American Dream . . . . . . .

 
 
Fred posted : Here's how they stand on the abortion issue ...
 
Here is my comment on that topic for open discussion on the board.
 
My position on abortion is part of a much wider view on society at large, and that is as follows :
 
What is important is that children are taught the value is of life by their parents, their teachers, and all those around them. But the US of A allows - and in majority supports - the death penalty, so the value of life itself is not paramount there. Therefore to make abortion such a hot issue during election time (however well that is meant) is rather hypocrite and actually no more than a red herring.
 
What a politician thinks about the abortion issue can be taken into account when considering voting of new representatives or a new president. But it should not be taken to more than one of the preferred features of the "ideal" person.
I personally prefer to have a prime minister or a president with an opposing view on abortion to mine, than a "strong religious and pro-lifer" prime minister or president who however lies and cheats his own people for years on end, starts on false terms an illegal war (Iraq) for economic rather than moral reasons, and who almost (or actually?) loses that same illegal war at the expense of hundred of thousands of human lives, and who almost manages another war to break out (Iran) that could kill millions of people, based on more falsified data of which of course he knew the reality for already several years.
 
---
 
Personally I am against abortion, and I have taught my children in that way.
Although they "got" that message, they grew up in a world dominated by US violence : from the reality of Vietnam and various other military expeditions to the cyber world of movies, television, and (now) the internet.
 
Our youth is bombarded with (US) violence. Violence even dominates many cartoons, children's tv programs, and children's movies.
 
How can anyone seriously expect under these conditions our youth to grow up well-balanced with much respect for life - their own and that of others?
 
---
 
Yes. We both agree on the value of life, Fred. You as a Christian, and I as a freethinking Atheist.
But the US society in general is an extreme hypocrite one, as at one side it teaches and demands the value of life (from an angle of mainly religious prejudice), but at the other side shows a total lack of value for that same life.
 
That is what people should put their attention to, and keep in mind when they step into the voting booth. Abortion is actually (how bad it is on itself) a minor issue. Those who want an abortion will get it anyway, if not in a by law controlled (special) hospital than in some backyard with all it's negative implications. What is overall important is the mindset and upbringing of our youth, who are after all the future of our current society.
You should not expect them once they become adults to be capable of selecting and target on one single issue that is lifted out of a pool of general violence in which they grew up.
 
To make things clearer I dimmed the limelight of this article on many other important and related things like :


  • the lack of sufficient social support in the US of A, where part of the children have to grow up in abject poverty and lack of proper education.
  • the decreasing general levels of the US education system.
  • the "right" of every US adult to carry weapons.
  • the drugs problem that endangers the entire social fabric of the US of A.
  • the "right" of every US parent to brainwash children into their own personal religious/philosophical views.
  • the extreme poor example US politicians and society in general set with their focus on short term gain at the expense of the weaker and - if need be - the entire rest of humanity (if not all life on earth) with misplaced greedy policies on self-interest (energy use, pollution, over-consumption.
  • that proud but extreme foolish US display of claimed US superiority and "Après nous, le déluge".

 
THAT is unfortunately the reality of the "American Dream", of which abortion is just a small part!
 
 
Comments?
 
 



peddler2 answered on 12/09/07:

Personally Perve you are am amoral person to whom the truth is something important to stupid people.
For a very long time you convinced Pope Fred the Gullible you were pro life and then came out and admitted you support abortion, as I have always said you did. Now you tell the same lie again that you are pro life.
The atheist need to teach their disciples to lie well, you really suck at it.
.
For an atheist to be say he is pro life is silly. That is like saying you are a staunch defender of the inalienable rights of rearranged pond scum.
Brilliant!

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/07/07 - Quandry for sola scripturists or bible literalists?

When is a sword NOT a sword???

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the SWORD."

Luke 22:36ff "But now one who has money or a money bag should take it....and one who does not have a SWORD should sell his cloak and buy one....Then they said; Lord, look, there are two swords here. But he replied; it is enough."

Matthew 26:51ff "one of the who was with him drew his SWORD and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him; put your sword back in its sheath, FOR ALL WHO TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERISH BY IT."

Was the biblical Jesus confused at to whether taking the SWORD was a good thing or a bad thing???? Why would he tell his followers to buy swords that he later forbade them to use???? Was he a man of peace, or a proponent of violence????? ORRRRR was it simply the bible writers who were CONFUSED, and thus 'un-inspired' by their god. Seems Matthew didn't even know it was Peter who did the ear cutting. What kind of an "eye-witness" is THAT??????

peddler2 answered on 12/09/07:

Walking Eagle
You have a fixation on males that is bizarre.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/08/07 - Oldest Human TB Case - 蛀,905" Years Old! *************

 
 
********* Age as per pedliar2's "all history" counting system!
 
National Geographic News : Oldest Human TB Case Found in 500,000-Year-Old Fossil
 
 
Tuberculosis may have infected human ancestors much earlier than previously thought, according to scientists who have discovered traces of the disease in a hominin fossil about 500,000 years old.
 
Researchers say the findings could provide a better understanding of the roles of climate, health, and evolution in ancient human migration.
 
The fossilized Homo erectus, an extinct branch of early human ancestors, was discovered in a block of travertine rock mined from a quarry near Kocabas in western Turkey.
 
Based on the shape of the skull and large ridges of the brow, scientists think the remains belong to a male between 15 and 40 years of age. But they also found something else.
 
"There were widespread little lesions on the inside of the skull," said John Kappelman, an anthropologist at the University of Texas, Austin.
 
"Those lesions are distinctive of a specific kind of tuberculosis that infects the meninges, or membranes that surround the brain," he added.
 
During such an infection, inflamed nodules within the membranes create pressure on the bone surface, leaving the lesions.
 
Kappelman's findings appear in today's issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
 
Vitamins and Skin Color
 
More : follow link!
 
 
Link to supporting National Geographic article
 
Comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/08/07:

Perv
.
Seeing as one cannot "date" even in theory anything past 100ka with radiocarbon how do the "know" the bones are 500ka ?
.
What a crock! Even the scientist who have convinced themselves their assumptions are correct and they can “date” rocks never give exact dates. You really are at the bottom of the barrel of the atheist apologist. Learn to lie better , have some pride man
.
No Perv they do not know how old the bones are they simply took some rocks ,crushed them, measured the isotopes , and turned on their vivid imaginations to force the evidence to conform to their pre-set beliefs.
.
Since one cannot "date" bones over 100ka old with carbon and it is the only method available to “date” organic material they found some nearby rocks , crushed them, measured the isotopes and started making assumptions.
.
First of all they ASSUMED that the remains had not been reburied at some time in the past as if that would matter anyway.
.
Then they convinced themselves by some insane logic that the age of the rocks near the remains had anything whatsoever to do with the age the person died.
.
Then they ASSUMED that the rock had no daughter isotope to begin with.
.
Then they ASSUMED that there had NEVER been any contamination , water intrusion etc. during the time the rock existed.
.
Then they ASSUMED the rate of nuclear decay had been constant for the supposed 500ka existence of the rock.
.
There you have it Perv. at least 5 untestable, unknowable , and unprovable ASSUMPTIONS and you lap it up like a dog on vomit. You call yourself a free thinker but you believe what you have been told to think.
.
Now you will mock and call names and wave your hands like a deranged baboon but not a word to try and rebut what I said. What I said is true. There is no was to determine the age of those remains aside from historical records, got any?
I do! It is called the Holy Bible and is true from start to finish and says those bones no more that 6ka old.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/06/07 - Another US teenage killing rampage . . . . . . . . . . .

 
 
Gun rampage US teenager 'wanted fame'
 
A teenager who shot dead eight people in a US shopping centre before killing himself wrote in a suicide note that he wanted to be famous, reports say.
 
Robert Hawkins, 19, from Bellevue, Nebraska, opened fire at the Westroads Mall in Omaha on Wednesday.
 
---
 
The incident is the latest in a series of mass shootings in the US, which have reignited the debate in the US about gun ownership.
 
The Supreme Court will consider Americans' right to bear arms early next year for the first time in nearly 70 years. ?
 
AT LAST !!!
 
Link to extended BBC News article
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/07/07:

So far every single mass murderer including the Natural Selector Murderer in Finland has been an evolutionist .

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/06/07 - Do you have a faith that does do or a dead one?

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Thursday 1st of Advent

Today's Gospel (Mt 7:21.24-27): Jesus said to his disciples, «Not everyone who says to me: Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my heavenly Father.

»So, then, anyone who hears these words of mine and acts accordingly is like a wise man, who built his house on rock. The rain poured, the rivers flooded, and the wind blew and struck that house, but it did not collapse because it was built on rock. But anyone who hears these words of mine and does not act accordingly, is like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain poured, the rivers flooded, and the wind blew and struck that house; it collapsed, and what a terrible fall that was!».

Commentary: Fr. Antoni M. Oriol i Tataret (Vic-Barcelona, Catalonia)

«Not everyone who says to me: Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my heavenly Father»

Today y, the Gospel invites us to meditate very seriously on the infinite distance that there is between the mere “listen-invoke” and the “do” when it comes to the message and the person of Jesus. And we say “mere” because we cannot forget that there are ways of listening and invoking that do not lead to the “doing”. Indeed, all those who, having listened to the Gospel, believe, will not remain confused; and all those who, believing, invoke the name of the Lord, will be saved: Paul preaches in his letter to the Romans (see: 10:9-13). He is referring to those who believe with authentic faith, that which «works through charity».

It is a fact, however, that many believe and do not “do”. Saint James' letter exposes it in an impressive way: «Be doers of the Word and not just hearers, lest you deceive yourselves» (1:22); «Faith without deeds: it is totally dead» (2:17); «So, just as the body is dead without its spirit, so faith without deeds is also dead» (2:26). Saint Matthew rejects such a way of going about one's faith, in an unforgettable way, when he says: «Not everyone who says to me: Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my heavenly Father» (7:21).

It is therefore necessary to listen and to do; in this way we build on rock and not on sand. How do I put what I listen to into action? Let's ask ourselves a few questions: —Do God and my fellow man really get my consideration? —Am I a convinced believer?; As to money —Do I share my goods out of solidarity with others?; As to culture —Do I contribute to the invigoration of human values in my country?; As to the growth of good —Do I run away from the sin of omission?; As to apostolate —Do I look for the eternal salvation of those around me? In a word: —Am I a sensible person who, with works, builds the house of my life on Christ's rock?

peddler2 answered on 12/07/07:

You keep repeating your hate chant, you are trying to sell something.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 12/06/07 - Be prepared!

Just to prepare you for the forshadowed attack on things of oz;

Waste not, want not

A bloke's wife went missing while holidaying on the Australian coast. He spent a terrible night wondering what could have happened to her. Next morning there was a knock at the door and he was confronted by a couple of pretty miserable policemen, the old Sergeant and a younger Constable.

The Sergeant said: "Mate, we have some news for you, unfortunately some really bad news, but, some good news and maybe some really good news."

"Well," says the bloke, "You'd better let me have it both barrels, what's the bad news?"

The Sergeant said, "I'm really sorry pal, but your wife is dead. Young Bill here found her lying at about five fathoms in a little cleft in the reef. He got a line around her and we pulled her up, but she was dead."

The bloke was naturally pretty distressed to hear this and had a bit of a turn. After a few minutes he pulled himself together and asked what the good news was.

The Sergeant said, "Well when we got your wife up there were quite a few really good sized Lobsters and a swag of edible Crabs in and around her swimsuit, so we've brought you your share." With that he handed the bloke a bag with a couple of nice Lobsters and four or five crabs in it.

"Gee thanks," said the man. "They're bloody beauts ... I guess it's an ill wind and all that. Now, what's the really good news?"

"Well", the Sergeant said, "Me and young Bill here get off duty at around 11 o'clock and we're gonna shoot over there and pull her up again! You fancy comin' with us?"

peddler2 answered on 12/06/07:

that is really sick.
lol!

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/05/07 - Christian US Morals and Ethics questioned . . . . . . . .

 
Has the Christian US President Bush been lying and cheating the entire American flock for over four years?
Can the American public still trust the morals and ethics of their Christian President?

 
Since 2003 either the US President has been kept in the dark by his own security services, or he has been lying deliberately ever since about the true nuclear situation in Iran.
During these four years accordingly to various reliable sources the Pentagon and presidential advisers several times suggested the US President seriously to start military actions against Iran.
 
Read the BBC news report on the latest in the Iran "nuclear threat" saga.
 
Link to original BBC article
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/05/07:

Iran has no need of nuclear power.
They have enough oil.
We know they were planning a bomb.
We know they need to destroy Israel so the Muslim Jesus can return.
All of the intelligence services of the West are worried about Iran.
Why don't you move there and live openly as an atheist?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 12/05/07 - FROM MY PASTOR...

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:44:34 -0500
.PRAISE GOD.

ONE. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.

TWO. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to. As you get older, their
conversational skills will be as important as any other.

THREE. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you
want.

FOUR. When you say, 'I love you,' mean it.

FIVE. When you say, 'I'm sorry,' look the person in the eye.

SIX. Be engaged at least six months before you get married.

SEVEN. Believe in love at first sight.

EIGHT. Never laugh at anyone's dreams. People who don't have dreams don't
have much.

NINE. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it's the only
way to live life completely.

TEN.. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling.

ELEVEN. Don't judge people by their relatives.

TWELVE. Talk slowly but think quickly.

THIRTEEN! .. When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer,
smile and ask, 'Why do you want to know?'

FOURTEEN. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great
risk.

FIFTEEN. Say 'bless you' when you hear someone sneeze.

SIXTEEN. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.

SEVENTEEN. Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others;
and Responsibility for all your actions.

EIGHTEEN. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.

NINETEEN. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to
correct it.

TWENTY. Smile when picking up the phone.The caller will hear it in your
voice.

TWENTY- ONE. Spend some time alone

LOVE YOU. PASTOR LOU.

peddler2 answered on 12/05/07:

This is all well and good. Certainly nothing too wrong with his philosophy .
Preachers are supposed to teach the word of God not philosophy.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
STONY rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 12/04/07 - I MAKE NO APOLOGY FOR MY RECENT OUTBURST!!
I UNDERSTAND IT GOT RAVE REVIEWS THOUGH...

TOM, I REPEAT YOU DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT ME. SO, A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON IS IN ORDER. YES, I HAVE BEEN TO ISRAEL AND FELT THE GLORIOUS TOUCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. I HAVE SEEN CANCERS MIRACULOUSLY DISAPPEAR TO THE ASTONISHMENT OF THE SURGEON. I HAVE HEARD MISALIGNED BONES SNAP BACK INTO PLACE AS WE PRAYED FOR AN INJURED MAN. I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES MORE MIRACLES THAN I CAN REMEMBER, SO , TOM, PLEASE DON'T ASSUME, INFER OR PRESUME TO KNOW WHAT I DO OR DON'T BELIEVE IN. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE!! GOD WILLING, MAYBE ONE DAY YOU CAN BOAST, "NOW I KNOW WHAT STONY WAS TALKING ABOUT."

......................................AD FIN...........

peddler2 answered on 12/04/07:

Wow Stony,I am shocked you do not know the scriptures!
I thought every Christian knows that chapter and verse. Most Charismatics/Pentecostals say something brilliant like it is legalism which is nonsense.
Biblical Illiteracy in he church is without excuse!
.
It is so sad to see what has happened to Christianity. Anyone who can convince people they were led to preach and have charisma are allowed to.
The Bible says to study to show thy self approved unto God.
The first thing you have to do is read all of Chapter 14 of 1st of Corinthians so you will absolutely understand the context. Paul is teaching on the gift of tongues {miraculously speaking in a language foreign to you that you do not know}.
.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
.
He is talking about speaking in tongues and if you are ignorant of this verse then I must assume you are also ignorant of the fact that every time the gift of tongues was used in the Bible it was speaking in a language {a tongue} foreign to the speaker and people understood him and people got saved every single time. Tongues is a sign to the unbeliever not a look at me I talking to God and only He knows what I am saying gibberish.
.
Think about it Stony. If only God understands it you are not talking to God He is talking to Himself.
.
If you read the history of Pentecostalism it is truly bizzare.
At the turn of the century in Topeka Kansas a man named Charles F. Parham announced his group would speak in tongues. He used the Biblical definition which is a language unknown to you. In other words if I suddenly could preach in Chinese that would be the gift of tongues.
He is considered the Father of Pentecostalism although no Pentecostals today accepts the Biblical definition of tongues that he did.
When one of his followers started to claim to speak in tongues ,Chinese and Bohemian I believe she claimed,linguist from the university of Kansas came out and listened.
They said it was gibberish.
He sent missionaries all over the world who believed they would be able to speak in the languages of the countries they were sent to.
All returned in shame.
It is a long and bizarre story but when Parham witnessed the goings on at Azuza Street he coined he word , Holy Rollers, and called it Satanic.
In a nutshell the man Pentecostals look to as their Father would say what they do now, speak in gibberish, howl, the Toronto Blessing etc. , is Satanic.
That is strange.
You should read the Bible and believe it over your human emotions and reasoning.
Jesus Christ in the Bible warned of this.
.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
.
Read about people like William Branham who claimed to be Elijah and had the same visitation that Joseph Smith and Mohamed had.
He is considered by most Pentecostals to be a prophet yet he made prophecies that did not come true which is Biblical proof he was not.
He claimed among other things:

“Same thing by being a true Christian. You have to be identified with it. I preached with Moses and war-with Noah and warned the people of the oncoming judgment, to be a real Christian. I was with Moses at the burning bush; I saw the Pillar of Fire; I saw His glory. I was with Moses up there in the wilderness. To be a Christian, I have to be identified with everything God was, to be a Christian. I seen His glory; I heard His voice. Don't try to explain it away from me now, 'cause I was there. I know what I'm talking about. I seen what happened. Yes, sir!”

“I was at the Red Sea when I seen the Spirit of God move down and part the water from one side, … through about a ninety foot sea. I seen the Spirit of God. I walked with Moses through that dry ground, across that Red Sea. I stood by Mount Sinai and seen the thunder and lightning falling. I eat manna with them out there. I drank from that Rock; I'm still doing it tonight. I was identified with the manna-eaters. I was identified with them that drunk from the rock.”

“I was with John the Baptist and before them critics. I seen the Spirit of God descending; I heard the voice of God say, “This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in.” Yes, sir! I sure was Identified with him. That's exactly right.”

“I was with the 120 in the Upper Room. I was identified up there with them. Oh, 1-1 feel religious. Amen! I was identified there. I'm one of them. I was identified; I got the same experience they had. I was there when it happened, to be a true Christian.” (THE MIGHTY GOD UNVEILED BEFORE US p.27).



Listen to the rant ,sound familiar?
Look at me I am holy, look at me I experienced it, look at me I felt it.
.
Like Joseph Smith he came from a background in the occult.

Kurt Koch wrote: “...Branharm's parents believed in fortune telling and he was burdened through occultism at an early age.” Branham, has a pyramid shaped tombstone. So he was very much influenced by paganism

Branham said the ZODIAC AND THE EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS were equal to the Scriptures in the revelation of God's word. he has a pyramid shaped tombstone in Indiana. (William M. Branham, Adoption (Jeffersonville, IN: Spoken Word Publications), pp. 31,104)

The names of the churches superimposed over the men's names in the following order: Ephesian-Paul ; Smyrnea-Ireneaus ; Pergamean-Martin ; Thyatirean-Columba ; Sardisean-Luther; Philadelphia-Wesley; Laodicean-Branham (well named since he represents this church age perfectly with being a false prophet of the church) I find it somewhat interesting to assign men to each church when the bible does not, and then to put oneself in the book of Revelation like this is boasting.

William Branham believed in three bibles. He claimed that in addition to the written bible that we all know, there are two others: “The first one, he put in the sky, the Zodiac…he made the next one in the pyramid, back in the days of enoch…(Robert Livesay, Understanding deception, new wine press 1989) This is pure occultism people involved in esoterism and theosophy have believed this long before Branham

Never met a Pentecostal who read their history .

STONY rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 asked on 12/03/07 - Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

.
.
As a follow-on th domino's question. Please feel free to comment....even you Ruthy;)




© 1982 by Robert J. Schadewald

Reprinted from Creation/Evolution IX (1982)

Some years ago, NASA released the first deep-space photographs of the beautiful cloud-swirled blue-green agate we call Earth. A reporter showed one of them to the late Samuel Shenton, then president of International Flat Earth Research Society. Shenton studied it for a moment and said, “It's easy to see how such a picture could fool the untrained eye.”

Well-trained eyes (and minds) are characteristic of pseudoscientists. Shenton rejected the spherical earth as conflicting with a literal interpretation of the Bible, and he trained his eyes and his mind to reject evidence which contradicted his view. Scientific creationists must similarly train their minds to reject the overwhelming evidence from geology, biology, physics and astronomy which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. In a public forum, the best way to demonstrate that creationism is pseudoscience is to show just how well-trained creationist minds are.

Pseudoscience differs from science in several fundamental ways, but most notably in its attitude toward hypothesis testing. In science, hypotheses are ideas proposed to explain the facts, and they're not considered much good unless they can survive rigorous tests. In pseudoscience, hypotheses are erected as defenses against the facts. Pseudoscientists frequently offer hypotheses flatly contradicted by well-known facts which can be ignored only by well-trained minds. Therefore, to demonstrate that creationists are pseudoscientists, one need only carry some creationist hypotheses to their logical conclusions.

Fossils and Animals

Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals which perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in “fossil graveyards” as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored of the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He told me that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karroo Formation could be resurrected, there would be 21 of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1% of the vertebrate fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded.

I sprang this argument on Duane Gish during a joint appearance on WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa, on October 21st, 1980. Gish did the only thing he could: he stonewalled by challenging my figures, in essence calling me a liar. I didn't have a calculator with me, but I duplicated the calculation with pencil and paper and hit him with it again. His reply? Creationists can't answer everything. It's been estimated that there are 100 billion billion herring in the sea. How did I account for that?! Later, I tried this number on a calculator and discovered that it amounts to about 27,000 herring per square foot of ocean surface. I concluded (a) that all of the herring are red, and (b) that they were created ex nihilo by Duane Gish on the evening of October 21st, 1980.

Marine Fossils

The continents are, on average, covered with sedimentary rock to a depth of about one mile. Some of the rock (chalk, for instance) is essentially 100% fossils and many limestones also contain high percentages of marine fossils. On the other hand, some rock is barren. Suppose that, on average, marine fossils comprise .1% of the volume of the rock. If all of the fossilized marine animals could be resurrected, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 1.5 feet. What did they eat?

Creationists can't appeal to the tropical paradise they imagine existed below the pre- Flood canopy because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit the earth from supporting that much animal biomass. The first law says that energy can't be created, so the animals would have to get their energy from the sun. The second law limits the efficiency with which solar energy can be converted to food. The amount of solar energy available is not nearly sufficient.

Varves

The famous Green River formation covers tens of thousands of square miles. In places, it contains about 20 million varves, each varve consisting of a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. According to the conventional geologic interpretation, the layers are sediments laid down in a complex of ancient freshwater lakes. The coarser light sediments were laid down during the summer, when streams poured run-off water into the lake. The fine dark sediments were laid down in the winter, when there was less run-off. (The process can be observed in modern freshwater lakes.) If this interpretation is correct, the varves of the Green River formation must have formed over a period of 20 million years.

Creationists insist that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that the geologic strata were laid down by the Flood. Whitcomb and Morris (p. 427) therefore attempt to attribute the Green River varves to “a complex of shallow turbidity currents ...” Turbidity currents, flows of mud-laden water, generally occur in the ocean, resulting from underwater landslides. If the Green River shales were laid down during the Flood, there must have been 40 million turbidity currents, alternately light and dark, over about 300 days. A simple calculation (which creationists have avoided for 20 years) shows that the layers must have formed at the rate of about three layers every two seconds. A sequence of 40 million turbidity currents covering tens of thousands of square miles every two-thirds of a second seems a bit unlikely.

Henry Morris apparently can't deal with these simple numbers. Biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University dropped this bombshell on him during a debate in Tampa, Florida, on September 19th, 1981, and Morris didn't attempt a reply. Fred Edwords used essentially the same argument against Duane Gish in a debate on February 2, 1982. In rebuttal, Gish claimed that some of the fossilized fishes project through several layers of sediment, and therefore the layers can't be semiannual. As usual, Gish's argument ignores the main issue, which is the alleged formation of millions of distinct layers of sediment in less than a year. Furthermore, Gish's argument is false, according to American Museum of Natural History paleontologist R. Lance Grande, an authority on the Green River Formation. Grande says that while bones or fins of an individual fish may cut several layers, in general each fish is blanketed by a single layer of sediment.

Disease Germs

For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.

Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the Ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each “kind” are supposed to have been on the Ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the Ark embarked. He recovered, but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct!

Creationists can't pin the blame for germs on Satan. If they do, the immediate question is: How do we know Satan didn't create the rest of the universe? That has frequently been proposed, and if Satan can create one thing, he can create another. If a creationist tries to claim germs are mutations of otherwise benign organisms (degenerate forms, of course), he will actually be arguing for evolution. Such hypothetical mutations could only be considered favorable, since only the mutated forms survived.

Fossil Sequence

At all costs, creationists avoid discussing how fossils came to be stratified as they are. Out of perhaps thousands of pages Henry Morris has written on creationism, only a dozen or so are devoted to this critical subject, and he achieves that page count only by recycling three simple apologetics in several books. The mechanisms he offers might be called victim habitat, victim mobility, and hydraulic sorting. In practise, the victim habitat and mobility apologetics are generally combined. Creationists argue that the Flood would first engulf marine animals, then slow lowland creatures like reptiles, etc., while wily and speedy man escaped to the hilltops. To a creationist, this adequately explains the order in which fossils occur in the geologic column. A scientist might test these hypotheses by examining how well they explain the fact that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. A scenario with magnolias (a primitive plant) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed along with early mammals, is unconvincing.

If explanations based on victim habitat and mobility are absurd, the hydraulic sorting apologetic is flatly contradicted by the fossil record. An object's hydrodynamic drag is directly proportional to its cross sectional area and its drag coefficient. Therefore when objects with the same density and the same drag coefficient move through a fluid, they are sorted according to size. (Mining engineers exploit this phenomena in some ore separation processes.) This means that all small trilobites should be found higher in the fossil record than large ones. That is not what we find, however, so the hydraulic sorting argument is immediately falsified. Indeed, one wonders how Henry Morris, a hydraulic engineer, could ever have offered it with a straight face.

Overturned Strata

Ever since George McCready Price, many creationists have pointed to overturned strata as evidence against conventional geology. Actually, geologists have a good explanation for overturned strata, where the normal order of fossils is precisely reversed. The evidence for folding is usually obvious, and where it's not, it can be inferred from the reversed fossil order. But creationists have no explanation for such strata. Could the Flood suddenly reverse the laws of hydrodynamics (or whatever)? All of the phenomena which characterize overturned strata are impossible for creationists to explain. Well-preserved trilobites, for instance, are usually found belly down in the rock. If rock strata containing trilobites are overturned, we would expect to find most of the trilobites belly up. Indeed, that is what we do find in overturned strata. Other things which show a geologist or paleontologist which way is up include worm and brachiopod burrows, footprints, fossilized mud cracks, raindrop craters, graded bedding, etc. Actually, it's not surprising that creationists can't explain these features when they're upside down; they can't explain them when they're right side up, either.

Each of the six preceding arguments subjects a well-known creationist hypothesis to an elementary and obvious test. In each case, the hypothesis fails miserably. In each case, the failure is obvious to anyone not protected from reality by a special kind of blindness.

Studying science doesn't make one a scientist any more than studying ethics makes one honest. The studies must be applied. Forming and testing hypotheses is the foundation of science, and those who refuse to test their hypotheses cannot be called scientists, no matter what their credentials. Most people who call themselves creationists have no scientific training, and they cannot be expected to know and apply the scientific method. But the professional creationists who flog the public with their doctorates (earned, honorary, or bogus) have no excuse. Because they fail to submit their hypotheses to the most elementary tests, they fully deserve the appellation of pseudoscientist.

References

Gardner, Martin. 1957. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: Dover, pp. 127-133.

Gish, Duane T. 1978. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

peddler2 answered on 12/03/07:

Pete

This is a bit dated even for a person of your abilities. You are about 30 years behind in your c/p fallacious argument.
Even the Encyclopedia Britannica details the fact that hardly anyone ever believed in the Flat Earth and certainly no one associated with the church in Columbus' day.
The idea that the Bible teaches a flat earth was created by A. White the atheist fiction writer when he was denied funding by Cambridge .
.
The more you say pseudo-science the less credible you become. If you define pseudo science as anyone who believes the Bible then Chemistry, Biology, Modern Rocketry, Computer science, The Germ Theory of Disease, Calculus, The Laws of Physics and Motion ,Astronomy ,Natural Selection, Genetics,etc. etc. are pseudo science as they were all founded by Christian Creationist. No major field of science has ever been founded by an evolutionist. If you disagree, name one, I dare you!
.

The Green River formation is evidence of a watery catastrophe not millions of years.
We find fish buried alive in the process of eating other fish, fish that exploded , multi strata fossils all over the Green River formation. Few field geologist tries to use the Green River as 'proof' of millions of years because the evidence screams catastrophe. Apparently you are 40 years behind the times in geology and are not aware Neo-Catastrophism is the new dogma .
.
The germ argument is old as well . There are other explanations and you should read the answers of the creationist instead of making this outrageous claim that this has not been answered.
.
No geologist do not have a good answer for The 15k square mile unconformity in the Northwestern United States left no erosion marks. That is impossible. No explanation of where the force to move 15k square miles hundreds of feet thick hundreds of miles is made. When the facts don't fit the predetermined ideas they are simply ignored.


Since you admit you lack the intellectual ability to answer my questions and you are so lazy that the latest c/p argument you can find is more than a quarter of a century old I am not going to waste my time answering them and will past the answers for you.
If you really think you have the brains to debate me pick one argument and we will debate that one-in your own words..

.
First answer my simple question. How is it possible , even in theory, to date a rock with no historical record of its age without making multiple, unprovable, and unknowable assumptions?

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/02/07 - A new evidence of the great flood...................


I just read in discover magazine that a scientist has discovered that there was a great flood about 5000 years ago.
He says that he has discovered evidence of what caused it.
He says that a large meteor splashed down in the ocean near Madagascar which cause a great 200 foot high tsunami and vaporized enough water to cause rain to fall world wide for many days.
He did say anything about God telling Noah to get ready for it by building a big ship.
What do you think of that scientific discovery?

peddler2 answered on 12/03/07:

Fred
If you did not hate me you would not find it necessary to call me vile names everytime you address me.
I can feel your hate, it is an evil spirit.
It controls you to the point you cannot be civil if you tried. Satan has defeated you.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/02/07 - Ooops
Correction:

Surprised none of you 'historians' picked up on this.
In my haste to kick Anti-Semitic ass, I proffered the Hungarian "Iron Cross"..rather than the Romanian "Iron Guard"...the Christian Anti-Semitic organization of Romania placed under the protection of St. Michael the Archangel. One of the most virulent and active Anti-Semitic groups ever to function in a civilized world.

For a complete history of Christian Anti-Semitism, and how it helped Hitler in his attempts to eradicate European Jewry, read: "The Anguish of the Jews--Twenty three centuries of Anti-Semitism"....by Edward Flannery. You will never be able to look at Christianity, again, in the same light!!!

peddler2 answered on 12/02/07:

Domino

Not everyone is a weak minded anti-Chrisian bigot here, most , but not all.
Lots of evil was done in the name of Christianity but not by Christianity.
The Bible teaches us that the Jews are God's chosen and warns not only those that abuse them but those that fail to help them of the wrath of God.
We worship a Jew .We worship from a Jewish Bible the God of the Jews.
Get a grip!

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/02/07 - My Christmas/Holiday gift....

A listing of books from my library that might help you find the TRUE GOD, the REAL Jesus, and a much fuller life than the one most of you are leading:

"Who Is Jesus? Answers to your questions about the Historical Jesus" [John Dominic Crosson]

"The History of God" The Four thousand-year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. [Karen Armstrong]

"Wanderings" Chaim Potoks History of the Jews.

"Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament" [Theodor H. Gaster]

"The Secret Message of Jesus" Uncovering the truth that could change everything. [Brian D. McLaren]

"Genesis and the Big Bang" The discovery of Harmony between Modern Science and the Bible. [Gerald L. Schroeder]

"The Field Guide to Early Man" [David Lambert and the Daigram Group]

"God and Evil -Contemporary Perspectives in Philosophy" [Edited by Nelson Pike]

"The Pagan Christ - Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity?" [Tom Harpur]

"The Mythmaker-Paul and the Invention of Christianity. [Hyam Maccoby]

"The Dark Side of Christian History" [Helen Ellerbe}

"Who Wrote the Bible? [Richard Elliot Freedman]

"The Christ" [Charles Guignebert]

"A New Christianity for a New World" [John Shelby Spong]

"A Book of the Beginnings" Gerald Massey

"Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls" [Barbara Thiering].

"The Coming of the Cosmic Christ" [Matthew Fox]

"Paul-The Mind of the Apostle" [A.N.Wilson]

"Augustus to Constantine -The Emergence of Christianity in the Roman World" [Robert M. Grant]

"Daily Life in the Time of Jesus" [Henri Daniel-Rops]

"Saint Peter -A Biography" [Michael Grant]

"Excavating Jesus -Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts" [John Dominic Crossan & Jonathan L. Reed]

"Who Killed Jesus? -Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism" [John Domninic Crossan]

"Summer for the Gods -The Scopes Trial and America's
Continuing Debate over Science and Religion" [Edward J. Larson]

"A Reasonable Covenant - Rational Approaches to Christian Theology" [John G. Macort]

"The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics" [Jean Doresse]

"Faith Religon and Theology -A Contemporary Introduction" [Brennan R. Hill, Paul Knitter & William Madges].

"Darwin's Ghost - The Origin of Species Updated" [Steve Jones]

and a great reference work:

"An Encyclopedia of Religions" [M.A. Canney]

Only a sampling, and there are at least 300 more for those who are interested. Would be happy to supply a precis of any title. Happy Reading. LOL

peddler2 answered on 12/02/07:


Your library?
How do you find room with all the movies you have made?
I noticed you promote a book:
The History of God" The Four thousand-year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. [Karen Armstrong]

The title suggests that earth history is 4000 years old which supports the Bibles timeline of the flood, not your ideas.

.
Why would a God hating atheist care if the BB could be reconciled with Genesis. You absolutey loathe the Bible so you must know that compromise leads to unbelief.
I am going to challenge you to reconcile Genesis with the BB, that will be interesting.
.
If Paul invented Christianity why did James and Peter etc. go along?
.
I have read Darwin's Ghost. It is a joke , a really poorly written rehash of very tired arguments. The fact you listed that one makes me question if you actually read any of these books. I know you never read the Descent of Man because you did not know Darwin said we were monkeys.
What is great about Darwins Ghost as a reference? Give me an example.
.
There is a book there I belive I will read-Summer for the God's. I have the original transcipt from the trial and they are so different from the Hollywood version that if you turn the Hollywod versian {Inherent the Spin} completely backwards you get very close to the truth.
The fact you recommend it you must believe it is very liberal as I have no reason to believe you ever read it but after reading a bit about the book it sounds interesting.
At least the guy is truthful about Scopes not really being a science teacher and that rhe whole trial was a ploy by the A.C.L.U. .
I like reading different viewpoints as long as they are honestly what the person believes even if they are wrong.
I am sure you by the Hollywood version Hook ,Line , and Sinker.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 12/01/07 - Ronnie Exposes his racism!

I googled the article and found it on Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071127/ts_alt_afp/usamericasrussiaanthropologymigration

Perhaps Ronnie would like to explain why he is frequenting racist web forums!

I remember on time that Ronnie attacked a Christian author and the source of his attcak was a Wiccan site.

Ronnie, care to explain why you frequent these sites?

peddler2 answered on 12/01/07:

Ok, I will explain,Ronnie is an anti-Christian racist.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 12/01/07 - "Institute of Creation Research" shows lack of knowledge . . . . . .

 
 
In an article by David F. Coppedge "Inflating the Evidence" the ICR shows lack of scientific knowledge.
 
The article is about the Big Bang and one of the proposed processes that has been suggested several decades ago. That process - called inflation - has to do with early developments in the universe, that prevented an early collapse due to gravity.
 
Briefly : this has to do with the Big Bang model being unstable (the "flatness" problem).
The universe as we know it today can only exist if conditions in it's earliest development are rather specific. One of the first suggested options was a proposed model called inflation : an extreme rapid expansion in the earliest moments of the Big Bang.
 
What David F. Coppedge and the ICR does not seem to know is that there are several alternative theories supporting the Big Bang, which do not require inflation.
The best of these options is the VSL theory (the Variable Speed of Light model) that suggests that - although the speed of light since seconds after the Big Bang has been stable at 300.000 Km/sec - the speed of light could have been much faster during the extreme energetic conditions of the Big Bang itself, creating a similar result as inflation should have done.
 
The VSL model also solves almost all other pending queries on Big Bang cosmology, including that of Vacuum Energy and the since 1998 measured increasing expansion of the universe).
 
The conclusion of the article is the obvious one for the ICR explanation for everything : the creationists' wild claim of ID.
 
My conclusion is : the ICR should keep to posting all kind of semi-religious babble articles that simpletons like pedliar2 think to understand and use in their postings to Q&A boards (where their actual failure to understand what they post is revealed once they receive requests to provide more information and fail to do so).
 
 
Link to ICR article
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 12/01/07:

Perv

I asked you to explain it in your own words.
The article is a lie as the IRC is more than aware of every attempt to explain away the flatness problem. Inflation is the most popular by a huge margin. One does not get a PHD in astro-physics like Dr. Humphreys and make Newtoian like predictions is they are as stupid as you propose they are. Of course yours is a religious argument from an amoral religion so truth is not high on the list of importance.

Until I made you aware of it you did not it existed. The BB is taught as fact and you have proven to yourself that even secular scientist disagree on the "fact" of the BB.

What is most dishonest is no mention is made of the fact that there are lots of secular scientists who don't believe in the BB at all.
Many are afraid to say so because it will be the end of their career. The article you posted fails to mention that little tid bit either. Halton Arp

Another thing they forgot to mention is flatness is just one of many problems that has no good solution.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Jesushelper76 asked on 12/01/07 - Christmas

What does Christmas mean to you? Does anybody value the true meaning of Christmas or has it been lost? Your thoughts.

peddler2 answered on 12/01/07:

I will let others decide if we should ot not.

If we are going to celebrate the Birthday of Jesus Christ then we should give gifts to Him, not each other. Children would learn true joy by doing that instead of demanding their parent buy them gifts.

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Jesushelper76 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 11/29/07 - The word love is mentioned hundreds of times......

I in the New testament.
One of the best way to learn what being a real true Christian is to look up every verse and related passages and take them to mind and heart.
Here is one example.....
1 Cor 13: 4. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5. does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6. does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7. bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

peddler2 answered on 11/29/07:

Fred

Jesus spoke of hell more than heaven.
Why do you suppose that is?

He viciously attacked the Pharisees and Saducees. Why do you suppose that is?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/29/07 - Why Intelligent Design is WRONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 
 
Have a look here at this video!
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/29/07:

Why seeing you are intellectually inferior to the point all that you can do is name call and hand wave do you believe your own bs?

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/29/07 - Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 
 
Have a look here at this video!
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/29/07:

Again my connection is too slow.
I will look at it when I am on a faster line.
However I am sure it is only your perception.
I have met Hovind and he is a master orator and was absolutely feared by evolutionists.

He had to pay evolutionists to debate him as they were warned not to by the N.C.S.E. .

Ever since the 80's very few evolutionist will debate creationist because they always lose. If you studied the subject instead of letting others think for you it might change your life.

Listen to a couple dozen debates and then decide. The vast majority of creationists were former evolutionists and know both side. The vast majority of evolutionists know nothing of the creationist arguments because their religious beliefs won't allow them to look at the issue with an open mind.

The ones that do often end up as creationists and they fear it will happen to them. That is why you are mortally afraid to study the Bible or creation/evolution with an open mind.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 11/28/07 - Theophus?????

Hey Peddliar, why are you keeping us on tenterhooks waiting for your explination of Jesus of Nazareth as 'THEOPHUS'!!!!

Is it possible, just slightly possible that you were trying to get your tongue around Theophaneia, and just couldn't make it??????????? LOL

peddler2 answered on 11/28/07:

Is it possible you are really a braindead teenager with an unnatural attraction to men?

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Jesushelper76 asked on 11/27/07 - To Peddler2

You call me a coward for saying that the Jesus I believe in is a loving, forgiving, understanding. That the Jesus I believe in does not hate anybody. That Jesus tells us to love ALL PEOPLE. Even the unbelievers. There are so many examples and quotes I can give but you will need to find that out for yourself. You call me a coward, for what? For stating that the way you behave, the words you speak is opposite of how Jesus would have treated others. You have shown others, why most people stay a way of Christianity because of the hatred you show towards others and your words that are written are proof of the hatred you have and you will be accountable for these words, not I. I speak of a Jesus who loves others and Jesus is the one that has told us to become more like him and live by his example. Your doing the opposite of him. People who preach using his name are not necessarily going to be accepted in the gates of heaven. Like I have always said it is your approach and hatred that pushes people away. Your doing a disservice to Jesus and He will award you for instead of being like a fisherman and bringing people into the word. Your having the opposite effect and actually taking people away from Jesus by showing your hatred and true disgust and intolerance to anybody that questions you.

Have a good day, and Coward I am not. Just speaking the truth.

peddler2 answered on 11/27/07:

Princess

Could you quote chapter and verse to JH where the Bible says Jesus is a created being and not the creator God of the Universe?

Also where he beat out his brother Lucifer for the right to be the saviour?

Jesushelper76 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Jesushelper76 asked on 11/27/07 - To Peddler2

You call me a coward for saying that the Jesus I believe in is a loving, forgiving, understanding. That the Jesus I believe in does not hate anybody. That Jesus tells us to love ALL PEOPLE. Even the unbelievers. There are so many examples and quotes I can give but you will need to find that out for yourself. You call me a coward, for what? For stating that the way you behave, the words you speak is opposite of how Jesus would have treated others. You have shown others, why most people stay a way of Christianity because of the hatred you show towards others and your words that are written are proof of the hatred you have and you will be accountable for these words, not I. I speak of a Jesus who loves others and Jesus is the one that has told us to become more like him and live by his example. Your doing the opposite of him. People who preach using his name are not necessarily going to be accepted in the gates of heaven. Like I have always said it is your approach and hatred that pushes people away. Your doing a disservice to Jesus and He will award you for instead of being like a fisherman and bringing people into the word. Your having the opposite effect and actually taking people away from Jesus by showing your hatred and true disgust and intolerance to anybody that questions you.

Have a good day, and Coward I am not. Just speaking the truth.

peddler2 answered on 11/27/07:

Princess

Could you quote chapter and verse to JH where the Bible says Jesus is a created being and not the creator God of the Universe?

Also where he beat out his brother Lucifer for the right to be the saviour?

Jesushelper76 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Ccl471 asked on 11/27/07 - On the Wings of a Cherub

Is there a verse in the Bible that says something to the effect that the Lord was flying, standing on the wings of a cherub?

If there is, would you please provide me with the book, chapter and verse?


Many thanks,
C.L.

peddler2 answered on 11/27/07:

As PC said you can find these things yourself. Of course we welcome questions but I suspect you are grandstanding.
Does this verse disturb you somehow? Are you honestly seeking truth or trying to raise doubt in others?

Why did you ask the question?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 11/26/07 - Does Ronnie Worship Jesus?

I have asked many times, but Ronnie to date has ducked every request. I wonder why - it is not a hard question.

Ronnie - do you worship Jesus?

peddler2 answered on 11/27/07:

The Mormon Jesus is Satans Brother.
Can you quote chapter and verse?

Are all atheists pro-Mormonism or are all Mormons pro-atheism or is the same religion?

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 asked on 11/26/07 - For Paraclete & anyone else interested.

Brian, you asked John for detail on the similarities between the story of Jesus & other myths.

I hope you find the link below of interest:

http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

peddler2 answered on 11/26/07:

No reputable historian ,atheist or otherwise, would ever claim Jesus Christ did not exist.
Only a stupid atheist trying to convince himself he is the supreme being in the universe would claim that.
Really you should update your bs, it is a bit stale.

As far as similarities what does that mean? Any person who reads the Gilgamesh myth for instance will see it is a poor copy of the Biblical account. Square boats sink in a light breeze. The idea that the fruit in the garden of Eden was an apple comes from the pagan version of the story. It is obvious the Bible is the original but you are an atheist and therefore 2 + 2 = 5.
For 100 years atheist and pseudo-atheistic New Age Christians held to the documentary hypothesis which had as it's principle tenet that Moses could not read. It was based on the lack of HARD evidence that he could. Based on ignorance! When we found writing hundreds of years before Moses it should have been the end of the DHP but again, 2 + 2 = 5 to the atheist so evidence is of no importance if it contradicts teir religous beliefs. We have found kingdoms mentioned no where else in the world outside the Bible yet you ignore that and present what we cannot support from a source atheists will accept as proof the Bible is a fraud.

It is your religious belief that there is no God not your logical one. Matter does not create intelligence.
Atheism is a self refuting argument. If it was true you could not know it. Atheism is a materialistic philosophy. Intelligence is a non-material entity.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/25/07 - Many "Jesus Christ's" Around, It Seems ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 
 
From my archive of previous interesting posts/answers given.
 
The following mythical gods were Saviour gods who were killed or died for their 'people', ascended/descended into some form of Hell/Hades/Heaven, and rose again.
 
They were all born of virgin mothers, impregnated by a diety, and many of them had stars proclaiming
their births and 12 disciples. Many of them had to escape the wrath of a murderous ruler:
 
OSIRIS
HORUS
KRISHNA
BACCHUS
ORPHEUS
HERMES
BALDAR
ADONIS
HERCULES
ATTIS
MITHRAS
TAMMUZ OF SYRIA
THOR
BEDDRUS OF JAPAN
DEVA TAT OF SIAM
DIONYSUS
IUSA
ATYS
BALARAMA
VYASA
BUDDHA
SERAPIS
MARDUK
IZDUBAR
WITOBA

 
and at least 25 others that preceded Jesus Christ.
 
What the Bible amounts to is a pious plagiarizing of every myth and every belief system that preceded Christianity ... from Cannan, Babylon, Sumer, Assyia, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, India ... literally the entire then known world.
 
There is not ONE original thought in the Bible, EXCEPT the doctrine of a perpetual hell ...
Every purported miracle, every parable, literally every word forced into Jesus mouth, had been done before or spoken before by one or other of the Mythical gods.
 
The parallels between Buddha, Jesus and Horus are so striking that, taken from their original sources one could not tell which of the three was being spoken of.
 
 
Any comments?
 
 
 




peddler2 answered on 11/26/07:

Prince

Why not admit you are just as much an atheist as Perv?

Perv

You are just expanding your field of ignorance.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ , His perfect life , and the miracles He performed are historical events. You relagated them to myths to convince yourself amorality is without consequence.

You are wrong and you argue from ignorance.

If you actually read the Gilgamesh drivel you would realize it is the copy , not the Bible. But truth is not what you seek but escape.

You are super religious or you would not be here at all.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/25/07 - Is Atheism a religion ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 
 
Atheism
 
A Theism
 
A = no (or without)
 
Theism = belief in deities
 
Atheism = No (or without) belief in deities.
 
Atheist : one who has no (or is without) belief in a deity or deities.
 
- - -
 
If Atheism is religion, "albino" is a suntan!
 
I repeat one of my previous posts, in view of pedliar's post on the same topic, but with a different line of thought.
 
---
 
"Atheism is a religion", for some strange reason, is often used by theists to critizise non-believers.
 
It seems odd for a follower of a faith to try to attack Atheism by saying it is also a faith. I think the reasoning is that if Atheism is a faith or religion, then Atheists have no cause to criticize other faiths or religions.
The obvious flaw in this argument is that if Atheism were indeed a religion, then theists would have no reason to criticize Atheism being taught in schools as part of religious education, or even the setting up of Atheist-run schools alongside Baptist, Catholic and Muslim schools.
 
Alternatively, the idea is that Atheists are hypocrites for attacking the faithful when Atheism itself is a result of faith.
 
However, the big problem is this :
 
---
 
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OR A FAITH!
 
Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an Atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are either an Agnostic or an Atheist.
 
There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God".
The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief.
I don't know any Atheists who "believe" God does not exist/ Gods do not exist.
All the Atheists I know simply do not believe God exists, or ignore Gods existence.
 
There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence.
 
In many cases, Atheists will say that "God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes.
In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, who yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory.
If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described.
This is not faith - this is reason.
 
If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"?
These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.
 
Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?
 
If you believe that unicorns do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No unicorns" religion? Is it a matter of faith that unicorns do not exist? Can I come along to your non-unicorn church with you tomorrow?
 
If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!
 
If my "not believing in your God" is a faith, then your "not believing in other Gods" is an equal faith.
 
If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion.
 
Atheism differs from religion on the following points :
 
No Religion
No Belief in God(s)
No Prayer
No Holy Book
No Scripture
No Priests / religious leaders
No Belief in supernatural (including angels / devils)
No Miracles
No Afterlife
No Holy wars
No Heaven / Hell
No Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.)
No Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue)
No Belief despite conflicting evidence
No Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans
No Murderous fundamentalist extremists
No Annoying street / doorstep preachers
No Soul
No Regular ceremonies / acts of worship
No Sin
No Blasphemy
No "We are God's chosen people"
 
Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them.
Declaring it to be otherwise, will not make it so.
 
 
Any comments?
 
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/26/07:

You are the best evidence that atheism is a stupid religion.

Evolution is atheism and even famous atheist admit it is religion.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/24/07 - "BTW - Hows your movie going ? " ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 
 
In topic "Fred-Is this article real?" by pedliar2 , this follow-up was posted :
 
 
Clarification/Follow-up by peddler2 on 11/24/07 3:02 pm:
 
Domino
 
Seeing as I had to teach you who Eve was why should I care what your opinion is?
All of your opinions are spoon fed to you and you prefer it that way.
I like to learn, think for myself
 
BTW-Hows your movie going?

 
 
Well : just as 1 + 1 = 2, what conclusion can you draw from that little slip-up?
 
That is one of the problems when using multiple handles/aka's : in the end you start making mistakes, and post the cr*p you use to post under one handle under another handle !!!
 
 
Any comments?
 
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/25/07:

Perv

If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

If you were a dective you could not solve a crime you yourself commited.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/25/07 - Pleasure, Jacky JesseJamesDupree ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 
 
Topic : "Thanks Pericles" by JesseJamesDupree dated 11/25/07
 
Pleasure, Jacky JesseJamesDupree
 
What a pity that you blocked me, otherwise I could have replied to your topic directly!
 
And I needed (to say) that too! No need to let you feel guilty about that any longer.
 
As long as you keep to your promise no longer to abuse and harass people ....
 
 
Any comments?
 
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/25/07:

Magnificent? You funny!!!!!!!!!!!

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 11/24/07 - Understanding Purgatory...........................



The origin of the word "hell" comes from the Indo-European "kel". Kel's meaning of "hidden place" gave us modern day words such as: cell, cellar, conceal, and occult. "Hell" came into English from the German "khel"
.
The Swedish gave us the meaning of hell as a place of punishment ("vete") from their word "helvete". So, when the Holy Bible was translated into various languages translators used words they thought were equivalent to Hebrew, Latin, and ancient Greek sources. As a result we have variations in English versions of today.

Early translators used the Hebrew "sheol" (meaning dark hidden place of the dead) to mean "hell". Few modern translators do. That is why "hell" is absent from most modern translations of the Old Covenant. "Sheol" is a place where the Hebrews believe the dead can be prayed for to encourage God to raise them to heaven. There are numerous historical references to such activity. That activity is also found in the complete Bible in
Maccabees 12:46.

"Hell" is found in the King James Version 54 times, in the New International 14 times, and in the New American Standard 13 times. In the Hebrew Bible we find the word "Sheol" (She oh l) is used to also mean "the grave" and as a place near to "bowr" the pit. The KJV always translates "sheol" as hell, regardless of the fact that the Old Covenant often refers to "sheol" as a place near to or on the way to the pit of hell. We see in Isaiah
14:15 that sheol is at the side of the pit. Also in Ezekiel 31:16 we see that sheol is on the way to the pit. Jesus used the word "Gehenna", a reference to the valley of the Son of Hinnon (Ge Hinnon). It was the local dump where garbage was burned. In every instance where Jesus spoke of punishing fire ("pur" in Greek) he used the word "Gehenna". Jesus used the Greek word "haides" four times as also a place for punishment. It's been translated into English as "the depths" and as "Hades" and as "hell". But the Greek word for hell is "Tartaroo"! Peter used it in 2 Peter 2:4. The Hebrew "Sheol" and the Greek "Hades" translates in the Latin as "Purgatorio", a place near the fires ("pur") of hell.

In Isaiah 28:10 the prophet is scolding the Priests for their bad teaching of the people causing them punishment after death. He says, "Your covenant with death shall be canceled, and your pact with "sheol" shall not stand." In other word's the people in "sheol" would be saved from the punishment they were experiencing.

To the Hebrews "sheol" is a dark hidden place of gloom and misery which is aptly pointed out by Jonah 2:2, "in the belly of 'sheol' I cried out and You heard my voice." How much despair would one have in such a place? The Greek sailor who was swallowed by a whale shark some years ago was insane when found by rescuers after the huge fish had vomited him out.

The old Covenant tells us that a person can be save from sheol. There's references in the New that attest to that in regards to Hades. Acts 2:27 gives us a sample of the two,"Because you will not leave my soul in Hades." It is a tie of the two words from the two covenants for it is Peter quoting King David. Peter used the Greek "haides" when quoting David's use of the word "sheol".

What mystery lies in the words of 1 Peter 3:18 & 19 where he tells us that Jesus died in body but was "made alive by the spirit" and in that state "went and preached to the spirits in prison?" Could Peter be speaking of the souls imprisoned in what today we refer to as purgatory? Keeping in mind that hell is a permanent abode from which no lost soul escapes, theologians have struggled to find a better interpretation but have fallen short.

Here is another to mentally chew on. When Jesus told the thief on the cross next Him, "Today you will be with me in paradise," John 20:17, was he speaking of heaven? If so, three days later, near his tomb, why did he tell Mary not to touch him because he had not ascended? If the paradise Jesus spoke of is heaven we have a biblical conflict.

No, there is no conflict, because Jesus was speaking of that which Peter told us. He and the thief, on the day of their death, would visit the "spirits in prison".

So we now see that in scripture it's not just sheol and Hades translate that into the Latin Purgatorio. The paradise Jesus spoke of to the thief is the prison he that day would visit point to Purgatorio as well.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, the apostle Paul is discussing the works of the faith. He says that each person's work in building the faith will be tested as if by fire. If the person's work remains, that person will be rewarded. But, "If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss;" (Greek word here translated as "loss" is "zemioo" which also means to experience detriment or receive damage). "But," Paul continues, "he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through flames."

In other words if our works of faith are not as good as they should be we can still be saved but we will be scorched (cleansed) in the process. We must keep in mind that Paul was a Hebrew of his time and thus often spoke and wrote with symbolism. The Holy Bible is full of it, particularly in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation.

It is in Revelation that the Apostle John says that Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:13. It doesn't make sense that Paul is saying that hell will be thrown into hell. We remember that Jesus used the word "Gehenna" when describing the lake of fire hell.

The Church which Christ built on The Rock, teaches from these and other references that the place of cleansing is called in English, "Purgatory", from the Latin "Purgatorio" which translates from the Hebrew "sheol" and the Greek "haides". People there are not completely dead. It's like a driver (spirit, our driving force) walking away from his broken down or worn out car (our bodies). But, Jesus tells us that there is a great rift which people in "haides" cannot cross to heaven. Luke 16:20-31. So how are they going to get out? Can their way out be bought? No, but the treasures they have laid up in heaven will help. So will how fast and completely they are cleansed. Can prayers of the faithful help? Of course. "With God all things are possible," Matthew 19:25.


Luke 12:57 “The servant who knew his master’s will, but did not prepare to do what his master wanted, will be punished with sound blows; but the one who did what deserved a punishment without knowing it shall receive fewer blows”.

peddler2 answered on 11/25/07:

Fred

If I was a lowlife I would accuse you of spamming for your double post above. However the Bible says not to bear false witness.
You on the other hand would because you think the Bible is simply a rough outline for humans to use to decide truth.

All you are intellectually capable of is c&P and poisoning the well. You made no attempt to refue PC's or Tom's or my logical argument.

I already know your response to this. You will poison the well with mindless, childish name calling and will make no attempt to defend your case.

You have no case, just a big mouth and a weak mind.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 11/24/07 - Contemplating today's Gospel.........................

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Saturday 33rd in Ordinary Time

Today's Gospel (Lk 20:27-40): Some Sadducees arrived. These people claim that there is no resurrection and they asked Jesus this question, «Master, in the Scripture Moses told us: ‘If anyone dies leaving a wife but no children, his brother must take the wife, and the child to be born will be regarded as the child of the deceased man’. Now, there were seven brothers; the first married a wife, but he died without children; and the second and the third took the wife; in fact all seven died leaving no children. Last of all the woman died. On the day of the resurrection, to which of them will the woman be wife? For the seven had her as wife».

And Jesus replied, «Taking husband or wife is proper to people of this world, but for those who are considered worthy of the world to come and of resurrection from the dead, there is no more marriage. Besides, they cannot die for they are like the angels. They too are sons and daughters of God because they are born of the resurrection. Yes, the dead will be raised, and even Moses implied it in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For He is God of the living and not of the dead, and for him all are alive».

Some teachers of the Law then agreed with Jesus, «Master, you have spoken well». They didn't dare to ask him anything else.

Commentary: Fr. Ramon Corts i Blay (Barcelona, Catalonia)

«For He is God of the living and not of the dead, and for him all are alive»

Today, God's word deals with the outstanding matter of the resurrection from the dead. It is peculiar that, as the Sadducees did, we keep on asking useless and pointless questions. We try to explain the substance of afterlife with world criteria, when in the world to come everything is different: «But for those who are considered worthy of the world to come and of resurrection from the dead, there is no more marriage» (Lk 20:35). Setting off from wrong criteria leads you to wrong conclusions.

Should we love each other more and better, we would not be surprised to see that, in Heaven, there is not the exclusive kind of love we have down here, otherwise normal for us because of our limited intelligence, but which makes it very difficult for us to get away from our closer circles. In Heaven we shall all love each other with a pure heart, without any feelings of envy or distrust, and, not only husband and wife, our sons or those or our own blood, but everybody, without exception nor language country, race or culture discriminations, for «true love attains a great strength» (St. Paulinus of Nola).

These words of the Scripture coming out of Jesus' lips are very convenient for us. They indeed are, for, it could happen to us that, in the maelstrom of our daily chores that do not allow us any time to think, and influenced by an environmental culture that denies eternal life, we should be doubtful with regards to the resurrection of the dead. Yes, it is very convenient that the same Lord tells us there will be a future beyond the destruction of our body and of this passing world: «Yes, the dead will be raised, and even Moses implied it in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For He is God of the living and not of the dead, and for him all are alive» (Lk 20:37-38).

peddler2 answered on 11/24/07:

So He is not the God of Purgatory. That is the belief of the Druids.
Now you understand.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 11/23/07 - Isn't it uncanny....

The way the Unholy holly shows up with her redundant stupidites every time domino pins Peddliar's ass to the wall??? Why isn't our Christian prophetess, the UNHOLY HOLLY hanging her head in shame over her repeated and, obviously, assinine predictions that, 'come Thanksgiving' we would all be banned from the Christianity board. Just another psychotic liar, or another demented fundamentalist deciever???????

peddler2 answered on 11/24/07:

By the way Liz calling me a woman, being abusive, in the same post you say you repoted me as an abusive person shows the depth of your intelligence.

That is why I want to give a saucer for Christmas. I knew you would appreciate something shallow.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
holly. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 11/23/07 - Response to domino

I am more than willing to address your question.

Jesus warned that there would be many who would profess to be Christians but were not, and scripture also says that men will fail us but God will not.

There has been a long of history of people using "Christianity" to get money, sex and / or power, and we see that with the popes. In my opinion, this would include men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Richard Roberts, and his father Oral, Benny Hinn, and too many others to list.

This is a primary focus of the ministry that I am in - opposing and exposing these false doctrines, false prophets and false teachers.

The actions of these men have done more than anything else to try to discredit Christianity, and yet today we find people pointing to specific denomination or churches, or leaders as the path to their salvation rather than a focus on the gospel that we find in the Bible which focuses on Jesus Christ. I find this quite disturbing because so many people will end up in hell following men rather than placing their hope in the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in scripture.

BTW, The allegations regarding the Roberts is worse than has been reported in the secular media. I have a copy of the document prepared by Linday Roberts sister (Stephanie Cantese) and the allegations are quite disturbing.

Thanks for asking.

Tom
http://discern.ca

peddler2 answered on 11/24/07:

Tom

What about the Roberts? I have not heard about it yet.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 11/24/07 - Insanity reigns

Australia is lost to the left. That's right, the political spectrum in Australia has moved solidly to the left with the destruction of it's liberal government with a movement of over 5%. The incoming government will have 70% former union officials in it's front bench. This means a radical change in all areas of policy and no more so than in our support for the war on terror

peddler2 answered on 11/24/07:

Perv

This is the Christianity Board. Experts here should have at least a third grade understanding of the Bible and you do not.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/20/07 - Why Does God Rejoice Murder And Violence ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 
 
In her regular posts to this board pedliar2 babbles a lot on what happened in the "Coliseum" (properly spelled and named "The Colosseum of Rome").
 
But never you see pedliar referring to all the terror oozing out of the Old Testament.
That book that she so admires, and claims to be the literal word of her deity.
A book full of :


  • murdering many thousands of women.
  • murdering many thousands of children.
  • murdering of thousands of babies.
  • murdering of the old and the sick.
  • abuse.
  • harassment.
  • deliberate pain.
  • hate.
  • intolerance.
  • racism.
  • bigotism.
  • gender abuse.
  • war.
  • fighting.
  • slavery.

That, with all the above either instructed or sanctioned by her Christian deity?
 
With pleasure I will post details on that all.
That would make a lot of topics on which can be commented.
I have them all here in my files.
Nicely saved in different categories.
However posting all these topics may flood the board for several days.
 
---
 
But than I ask myself again :
 
Why does pedliar2 not want to love and forgive her "neighbours"?
 
And also why does pedliar2 not want to "spread the Christian word"?
 
And : is pedliar2 actually worth the attention?
 
---
 
I can not imagine why Christians would post like she does on this Christianity board.
 
Why does pedliar2 insist on showing again and again to all here that she is not a true Christian, but a moronic bigoted religious hypocrite instead?
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/22/07:

Perv

God created you. He does not need to ask permission to take you out and He will .
He did give you a choice about eternity but you are condemned to die just as I am.

He decides what is murder , not you.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/20/07 - Christian or a hate-filled Dogma babbler?

Ref: Topic "The Mother Church or the Revolving Dogma Machine?" by pedliar2 dated 11/19/07
 
With posting that topic and header, pedliar2 showed that she can't grasp that the God of her religious belief wants her to love and forgive her "neighbours"?
And that she can't grasp that one can not "spread the word" if one approaches all "brothers and sisters" with so much anger, hatred, and despite she so profoundly displays on this board.
 
No matter any possible long-held claim by the Roman Catholic Church.
No matter whatever one finds of the Roman Catholic history.
No matter whatever one finds of the Roman Catholic dogma's.
No matter whatever one posts in a 26 "example" list.
No matter who knows or knows not what the future holds?
No matter even if ever abortions will be legalized by the Vatican.
 
I can not imagine that real Christians post like on this Christianity board.
 
THAT is sad. Very sad. Very sad indeed!
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/20/07:

Perv

You cannot think or imagine much of anything. You are an atheist who wants to feed Christians to wild animals and laugh as they are eaten alive.
The mere fact that Fred does not chastize you and in fact brown noses all the God hating atheists here only proves he is an unbeliever.

Your absurd notion that you are the judge of God's people shows your intelligence. The fact Fred supports you shows his.

Why don't you learn something?

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 11/18/07 - Ronnie, Why not just come clean

Ronnie,

The facts are on the board for anyone to check - you did not acknowledge the source. Now you try to accuse others of the same thing, but Ronnie that does nothing to enhance your credibility.

Just come clean.

Tom

peddler2 answered on 11/18/07:

fred

How would you tell if someone was in their right mind?
You say telling the truth is bigotry and just like your fellow pagans you never document anything, just rant and rave like a lunatic.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
JesseJamesDupree asked on 11/15/07 - John...............

Why bug me? I have stopped bugging you.

peddler2 answered on 11/15/07:

Thank you .

darleneclemintine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/14/07 - Why would Geraghty say this?


Jim Geraghty of The National Review questions a comment made by actor Robert Redford that Mormons


"are very adept at not being fazed and speaking fluently and gracefully. Why? Because every single male who's a Mormon goes on a mission for two years when they're 19 or 20. They learn how to deflect blows and stay on message. No wonder Utah is the place that all these Republican senators go. It's perfect. So when you see Mitt Romney, he's already been practicing how to deflect blows and stay on message. But it's plastic."


"As usual," Geraghty opines, "it's acceptable to make derisive remarks about Mormonism that would never be tolerated about other faiths"


Why is this seen as alright?

peddler2 answered on 11/14/07:

My name is not Ruth and were you always a sodomite with a gender idenity crisis or is that the new wave in Moronism?

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/14/07 - Colossians 1:15-23 - "The Great Christology" .......

This scriptural passage refers to the position of Christ more so than at any other place in the whole of scripture. Besides which, this bloc of scripture is remarkable for its richness and attention to the exaltation given to Jesus Christ ['God exalted Christ'] by God after Jesus had completed his earthly mission, for which mission God anointed him, begat him, set him forth, sustained, guided and directed him, and, when he had completed his work, exalted him, according to the scriptures.



The 'work' or mission of Jesus is related no only to the rescuing of mankind from the tragic effects of sin, but also, likely to the false teaching around at the time Paul penned this epistle, he makes special reference to the part Jesus played in the creation of the universe.

Paul identifies Jesus as associated with the creation of the world and with God's new 'creation' (15) and 'the first-born from the dead' (18).


Jesus is the goal of creation ('all things were created ... for him'). Contrast this statement with 1 Corinthians 8:6 where God and only God is the goal. Jesus Christ is also 'the head of the church' (18), and in him 'all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell. (19), [See Colossians 2.9.]


Jesus is God's revealed secret (17) [See also 2:2, and see the antithesis of all trinitarian belief]. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth, who had been done to death as an insurrectionary [terrorist] some 30 years earlier, is now said to occupy a position uniquely close to that of God himself in His creative and redemptive work. And this is inseparably connected with his death on the cross, for it was there, on the cross that 'all things, whether on earth or in heaven' were reconciled to God by Jesus Christ (20). It was there, on the cross, that estranged humanity was brought back to God (20). It was on the cross that Jesus Christ entailed the debt of humanity's sinfulness and discharged the debt, thus establishing their freedom [see also 2.14 f.]



The portrayal of Christ's humiliation and exaltation in Philippians 2.5-11 reflects Paul's 'Servant of the Lord' Christology, and the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord puts glory on God the Father, and thus, says Paul, does the Son serve also the Father.



In Colossians Paul almost uses a 'Logos' Christology [in all but name!] equivalent to those found at John 1.1 ff. and Hebrews 1.1 ff, where the Logos is clearly subservient to the Father, as is shown in Paul's "Servant Christology.' But whereas the Jewish conception of God's Wisdom or Word treats it as among created things, some Christians shrink from this on theological grounds. Yet, some Christian theologians will have it, the phrase could mean this, just as in Revelation 3:14 'the beginning of God's creation' could mean 'the first thing created.' But this sense does not take not account verse 16 where Jesus Christ is the agent of creation, and not part of it.



As later creeds express it, Jesus was 'begotten not created,' and he was begotten before all creation (17), and as the first begotten or firstborn, he holds a supremacy over the rest of the family.

He is the head of the family, the church, the first-born from the dead, and holds these positions under the pleasure of his father (19). Fulness means that Jesus shares in the divinity of his Father who is God Almighty.



It needs to be remembered that this passage is one in which Paul seeks to re-establish the position of Jesus Christ in the minds of Christians who have established for themselves a sect of angel worship and made Jesus just another angel. This explains Paul's language, direction, and intent,and the bloc clearly addresses this problem head on.


Thus this passage in no way identifies Jesus Christ as God the Father, but as the Son of the Father.

Christ, a title, does not mean GOD or anything like unto it. It refers to he whom God Himself begat, anointed, sent forth as a sacrifice for the sins of men, and who by his own good pleasure and will he exalted.

peddler2 answered on 11/14/07:

What is there to refute?

All you did is repeat a made up story with no substance.
The Bible says that Jesus Christ is God. The Bible is written at about a fith grade level, obviously beyond your grasp.

Just because you say it means the complete opposite of what it says just means you can say anything.
You are a parrot. Mormons are told what to think and lose the ability to reason on their own.

If you want to believe that Christians found the Dead Sea Scrolls and along with 1500 years of Jewish History before the time of Christ perverted it all and erased the truth from the minds of every Jew on earth and then put them back knowing they would be discovered 2100 years later go ahead. Be that stupid! I cannot imagine being stupid enough to believe that!.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/14/07 - Review ....................................... I can see that ...

... the bigots are taking a licking! God be praised!

peddler2 answered on 11/14/07:

The Mormon god is spelled with a little bitty g.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/14/07 - Why would Geraghty say this?


Jim Geraghty of The National Review questions a comment made by actor Robert Redford that Mormons


"are very adept at not being fazed and speaking fluently and gracefully. Why? Because every single male who's a Mormon goes on a mission for two years when they're 19 or 20. They learn how to deflect blows and stay on message. No wonder Utah is the place that all these Republican senators go. It's perfect. So when you see Mitt Romney, he's already been practicing how to deflect blows and stay on message. But it's plastic."


"As usual," Geraghty opines, "it's acceptable to make derisive remarks about Mormonism that would never be tolerated about other faiths"


Why is this seen as alright?

peddler2 answered on 11/14/07:


Because it is true. Mormons spend 2 years lying to people and deceiving them about the godmaker cult.
Truth is always acceptable.

Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/13/07 - Teens Allegedly Burn and Behead Man ........

               
 
DETROIT (Nov. 12) - Two thrill-seeking teenagers stabbed an adult acquaintance, took a blowtorch to his corpse and threw his severed head into a river, prosecutors said Monday as they charged the pair.
 
Alexander Letkemann, 18, left, and Jean Orlewicz, 17
Wayne County Sheriff / AP
 
Alexander Letkemann, 18, left, and Jean Orlewicz, 17, are accused of planning the slaying of a 26-year-old acquaintance earlier this month. The victim's hands and feet reportedly were burned with a blowtorch in a possible effort to conceal his identity.
Canton High School senior Jean Pierre Orlewicz, 17, and Alexander James Letkemann, 18, ambushed 26-year-old Daniel Sorenson on Wednesday in a garage owned by Orlewicz's grandfather, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said. A tarp had been spread on the floor, she said. 
Based on story by Corey Williams (AP)
 
---
 
Another terrible story of violence and murder by teenagers in the US.
As no sources made any mention of evolution and/or Atheism, it seems fair to assume that both boys grew up in normal Christian homes ....
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/13/07:

Well Perv I proved the Liberal Press supresses any information that makes atheists look bad.
Information such as the FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE SERIAL KILLER WHO EVER LIVED BELEIEVED HE CAME FROM POND SCUM is supressed.

The argument from ignorance that these boys were not evolutionists is childish. Of course they were! Anyone who believes in God is afraid of Him. He disaproves of murder unlike your father the devil.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/12/07 - Bible question for ALL Christians.

Is the Bible to be believed literally?

peddler2 answered on 11/13/07:

I meant you say:

To say The Bible is true but you cannot take it literally is an idiotic statement.

If you can't take it literally where the style justifies it, historical narrative for instance, then who is the God? Is it God teaching you? No Prince if you decide truth you have elected yourself God.
Jesus Christ is the truth, the living word,not Joseph Smith and certainly not you.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/12/07 - Atheistic Catholic (Oxy) Moron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

     
 
pedliar2 posted topic "Atheistic Catholic O'Reilly Suppresses Truth!"
 
... and continued with ...
 
Fox News suppresed (sic) the whole issue that this was motivated by Darwinism. A deliberate coverup (sic).
 
 
Some comments are in order here :
 
The combination Atheistic Catholic is an oxymoron.
The combination is contradicting and impossible.
Only an (oxy) Moron can post anything like that.
 
 
As I already stated in my topic "Mudslinging #2a" :
 
Unlike the religious fundamentalists want, the Internet is free to post whatever you want, even if it is completely wrong.
..//..
What is of course the wrong thing to do is to use any private and/or objectively unsupported info as a kind of evidence for whatever you like to see as true.
 
---
 
As to "Fox News suppresed (sic) the whole issue that this was motivated by Darwinism. A deliberate coverup (sic)" :
 
I do not expect anyone to be surprised by that, as Fox News is not recognized as a reliable news source anywhere on earth, except by some Yankee nutcases.
 
 
Most people know that.
Pedliar2 apparently does not.
How sad!
 
 
Any comments?
 
 
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/12/07:

Perv

It may be an oxymoron but it is a fact.
Bill O'Reilly is a Catholic-a member of the RCC.
He does not believe in God just as the Pope does not. Therefore he is an atheist. Both of them believe the world and all the life it contains came about with out any need for God.
Of course Fred is a Mormon -Catholic Atheist. I am not sure what the word for that is but he is all that.

You are just a simple moron.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/12/07 - BROADCAST - Listen and Hear for Yourselves - President Thomas S. Monson to speak at BYU devotional N

President Thomas S. Monson to speak at BYU devotional Nov. 13

President Thomas S. Monson, first counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, will deliver a Brigham Young University devotional address on Tuesday, Nov. 13, at 11:05 a.m. in the Marriott Center.

The devotional will be presented live on BYU Television, KBYU TV, KBYU FM and byubroadcasting.org. For rebroadcast information, visit byubroadcasting.org.

President Monson has served as a counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ since Nov. 10, 1985, serving as counselor to Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter and Gordon B. Hinckley. He was ordained an Apostle and called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on Oct. 4, 1963, at the age of 36. His other Church callings have included Canadian Mission president, stake president and bishop.

Professionally, President Monson has had a distinguished career in publishing and printing, where he rose to the position of general manager for the Deseret News Press, one of the largest commercial printing firms in the West. With his broad business background, President Monson served for many years as a board member of several prominent businesses and industries.

President Monson has a long association with BYU, where he received his MBA and honorary Doctor of Laws degree. He serves as first vice chairman of the BYU Board of Trustees and on the Church Board of Education.

peddler2 answered on 11/12/07:

Why?

Who gives a rat's ass what the latest Moron has to say at a university named a lunitic who preached that Adam was god,that there are inhabitants on the sun and the moon and that gold grows like hair?

And they considered nim the smartest one!

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/12/07 - The real truth about (High) School Massacres . . . . . .

 
 
pedliar2 suggested in her topic "Evolution Superhero - Natural Selector Man - Murders 8" a link between evolution, Atheism, and school killings.
 
What made pedliar2's topic so bad was her own disgusting fundamentalist attempt to promote her bigoted anti-evolution anti-Darwinism, anti-Humanism opinion, thereby misusing that tragedy for personal reasons. It placed pedliar2 on the lowest of the lowest step of the moral and ethics ladder. Quite remarkable for someone who claims that her "morals" are of a higher (Christian) value than those of other worldviews.
 
The reality of almost all school massacres is that the common part is unrelated to both evolution as well as Atheism. Most killers actually grew up in Christian families. Often in very strict Christian families, where repression of the individual was not uncommon.
 
The real cause for most of the killers' behavior is found in the upbringing, the violence they encounter at home, and the personal treatment they received from others by the killers.
 
"When kids feel less than human and grow up in a social environment that tacitly permits them to act out violently, they may decide that the only way to rehumanize themselves is to eliminate those who have belittled them".
 
Add to this that both in Finland and the US gun possession is high, as is in these countries the murder and suicide rates.
 
By following the links I provide below you get more understanding of the real reasons that are at the base of most school massacres.
 
Link to article on "Common features in many high school shootings"
 
Link to article "Finnish teenager shoots himself after rampage"
 
Link to article "Gun ownership in Finland - the highest in Europe"
 
Link to article on US school killings
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/12/07:

Perv

There is no truth according to you. The REAl truth would be absolute and you whine like a baby there is no such thing as absolute truth.

You are Humpty Dumpty!

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
JesseJamesDupree asked on 11/11/07 - Observations.........................

As I near my 45th Birthday, I have discovered a few things about life. The older you get, the less you actually know, I cannot be absolutely sure about anything, and I am in no way, fit to stand in judgement of anyone. I have discovered God in a variety of places, and frankly I haven't found God too often in Church. Yes I go to Church every week to hear the sermons, but I am outside alot in my occupation, and I find God much more dramatically in the nature around us. I live in the "Ohio Valley", right on the banks of the Mighty Ohio River. One morning as I was out making my rounds, I looked out upon the Ohio, as i was quite a bit above it on some hilly terrain, and about a mile away it took a nice graceful bend, and the waters were a very dark shade of blue, and the hillsides surrounding it were alive with the colors of fall. it would have made a great picturepostcard. I also thought of the Bible where it said "Be still and know I am God", right there I could believe it. I cannot live a sinless life. I tried and failed. So I try my best, raise my kids and try to be a positive influence to everyone. So far I have pretty much secured all three. I hope this pleases God enought to let me in the "Pearly Gates". If not then I suppose I will deal with that when the time comes. Oh well, enuff "waxin' philosophical" with y'all, I got hell to raise!!:)

peddler2 answered on 11/11/07:

No JJD you have been deceived. There is truth and His name is Jesus Christ and you can know He has given you eternal life.

It seems like you are worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

We can see God's fingerprint on the wonders of creatiom but He is not nature.

It is sad to see people miserable and afraid ofr their soul because they either do not know or do not believe what God told us in the Bible.

David knew he was going to heaven.

Sa 12:17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
2Sa 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
2Sa 12:19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
2Sa 12:20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshiped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
2Sa 12:21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
2Sa 12:22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.


1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Being saved does not mean living a good life , although you will, it does not mean going to church regularly, although you should, it does not depend on you giving to widows and orphans although you are commanded to.
No Jesse is depends on you admitting you are sinner and deserve hell and asking Jesus Christ to give you the gift of eternal life and accepting and believing He has.
You don't do it over and over just once.
When we stray we lose our fellowship not our salvation.

I have no pity on the problems you cause yourself by "hell raising" . Drawing attention to yourself is juvenile.
If you seek happiness and peace you must also seek it for others.

My advice is to quit being so self centered and do something for God. Be an sher, clean the church, paint , do this and I promise it will bring joy. Christians are only happy when they are serving God.
We were made to be servants as or Lord was a servant.



Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/10/07 - At last! The Mormon Bible - the TRUTH!


Who Says Mormons Don't Appreciate the Bible?, April 27, 2007
.
.
By J. Brian Watkins (San Dimas, CA United States)
.
The Bible is the best-selling book ever written. One cannot hope to fathom the depths of literature without obtaining at least a passing familiarity with the Bible. However, in what I believe to be a misguided attempt to expand the reach of the book, it has been rewritten in a myriad of fashions in order to reach a "wider" audience; in forms as diverse as Hawaiian slang, hip-hop, gender neutral, and just about any other form that mankind can dream up.
.
I for one am grateful to have been brought up with the good old King James version. The language of the King James has a gravitas that seems to this reviewer to be perfectly appropriate. The formality of King James' English adds to the power of the words--again personal opinion. I'm sure that the Revised Standard has the same power and hold upon a person introduced to the Bible through that translation. Mormons are big on the issue of translation--we are taught that the Bible is correct so far as it is translated correctly and our Church holds that the King James translation is preferred to other translations.
.
Well, among all the translations available, here's why you should try this version: This Bible was the result of years of diligent work by LDS scholars who succeeded in providing amazingly detailed and accessible internal translation aids for the archaic English, Hebrew, and Greek words, as well as cross-referencing, maps, pictures of the Holy Land, indices and a Bible Dictionary. You could spend a ton of money and not find an index or concordance as complete as the cross-references included in this volume. The references add tremendously to the ability to understand the work.
.
This Bible also has cross-references to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, each of which are considered canonical by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka LDS Church or Mormon Church). These aid the reader in examining how these other books relate to and clarify Biblical teachings. Better yet, any Mormon missionary will jump at the chance to put this one in your hand.
.
Folks, save the arguments. Instead, if you appreciate the Bible and want to learn something about one of the few religious movements that continues to increase in numbers and influence, if you have an interest as to the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Bible--this is an indispensable primary source. Indeed, many members of the LDS Church, including myself, carry four-in-one volumes that include all of the previously referenced "standard" works--the LDS Canon, if you will, of which the first book is the Bible. Why rely on others to give you your opinion? Check out the source documentation.
.
Try and see. These Bibles aren't hard to get. Regardless of the extent or nature of your religious persuasions--whether or not they encompass the Bible--you will be pleasantly surprised by the power and accessibility of this King James based version.
.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000EZ5CXQ/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt/105-2267403-1587666?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
.

And that's the way it is!

peddler2 answered on 11/11/07:

Earth to Prince.

It is a version. A version is by definition a variance.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ver·sion /ˈvɜrʒən, -ʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vur-zhuhn, -shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a particular account of some matter, as from one person or source, contrasted with some other account: two different versions of the accident.
2. a particular form or variant of something: a modern version of an antique.

That is as mindless an argument as I have ever heard!


PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/10/07 - To all Bigots ... is this how you behave?


I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: “Stop. Don’t do it.”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.

“Well, there’s so much to live for!”

“Like what?”

“Are you religious?”

He said: “Yes.”

I said: “Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?”

“Christian.”

“Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

“Protestant.”

“Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

“Baptist.”

“Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

“Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”

He said: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.”

I said: “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed him off.

peddler2 answered on 11/10/07:

There was a Mormon standing on a bridge.

A New Age Christian ran up to him and said don't jump there is much to live for.

The Mormon said he had enough more spirit wives than necessary to become god of his own planet and spend eternity fornicating.

The New Age Christian asked him how he could get the same deal. He said believe Joseph Smith and the Yellow Submarine Theory and have at least 10 spirit wives. He thought spirit wife meant any female you have sex with so he jumped with him.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/09/07 - Saint Paul - Apostle of Jesus Christ or an Imposter?

Was Saint Paul the Apostle really an apostle of Jesus Christ or was he, as seems to have been suggested, an imposter who claimed an office that was not his and to which he was not entitled?

All answers are welcome,but if you can show from the Good Book some support for your position on this man it will be a bonus.


Thank you for your kind opinion.

Ronnie




.

.

.

.

.

peddler2 answered on 11/10/07:

My blood pressure is like your I.Q.

Well below normal.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/09/07 - Saint Paul - Apostle of Jesus Christ or an Imposter?

Was Saint Paul the Apostle really an apostle of Jesus Christ or was he, as seems to have been suggested, an imposter who claimed an office that was not his and to which he was not entitled?

All answers are welcome,but if you can show from the Good Book some support for your position on this man it will be a bonus.


Thank you for your kind opinion.

Ronnie




.

.

.

.

.

peddler2 answered on 11/09/07:

Where did you get the info? Quija Board? Or maybe rocks in your hat that speak to you?

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/07/07 - Two apostles visit editorial boards to address misconceptions


Two apostles visit editorial boards to address misconceptions
.
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007 12:56 a.m. MST
.
LDS Newsroom reports that Elders M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have completed a first round of visits to the Washington, D.C., editorial boards of major American newspapers and magazines. The visits are part of a series of initiatives to more clearly define the Church in the public news media at a time when its beliefs and practices are being widely discussed. Elders Ballard and Cook, who both serve on the Church’s Public Affairs Committee, generally spent about an hour each with the editorial boards of USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal (in New York), the New Republic and the National Review. Editorial boards typically include opinion-page writers and other senior columnists and journalists. To read the complete story from the LDS Newsroom Web site please goto:


http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f6f89dccfb616110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

peddler2 answered on 11/08/07:

What does silly really mean to a person who thinks people that preach gold grows like hair and the moon is inhabited by 6 foot tall Quakers?

Enquiring minds want to know!

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 11/04/07 - Brigahm Young: Adam came from another planet

"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation....He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."
(Source: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:331-2)

peddler2 answered on 11/04/07:

That is deep. Adam was made from dust on some imaginary planet and also procreated as we are.

Mormons will believe anything.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/03/07 - Creationism : more empty babbling!         .

                            
 
Latest publication by the Institute for Creation research :
 
Darwinism: Survival without Purpose, by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
 
(Please note that Wikipedia states : "Dr Gerald R. "Jerry" Bergman is an American young earth creationist. He is an active supporter of the (ACM) anti-cult movement. He is also known for his stance against Jehovah's Witnesses".
 
The article poses a lot of comments and questions on evolution, and focuses on nitty-gritty details.
However, it does not in any way explains or supports the basis for it's own preference for creation as the religious alternative for evolution.
 
It also omits to admit that there is no objective support for creationism, i.e. that creationism is nothing else but empty babbling, while there are ever-growing mountains of evidence for evolution to be the "Oxham razored" explanation for the development of all life on earth.
 
Therefore the entire article is useless from a scientific point of view.
But than : who expects anything else from creationists?
 
:)
 
 
Have a look yourself : link to Jerry Bergman's drivel
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/03/07:

pERV

You are mindless. All you do is throw a temper tantrum and say I am right and you are wrong and you never counter the objection.

Not only are you ignorant of what the creationist position is you are ignorant of the ever changing history of evolution much less the latest version.

You are not God and saying it is wrong no matter how loud you do it does not make it so.

I would love to debate you on this but you are too ignorant to do anything but flap your arms like a baboon.

Read, educate yourself . Don't be ignorant all your life. Life is a vapour and if you are wrong it will be an eternity in hell.

Pretending there is no objection from science for atheism and that all real scientist are atheist is childish and stupid.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/26/07 - The earliest Christians first century Christians ....



Tom actually believes that ALL the first Christians were Jews. I have pointed out that this is incorrect.


Does anyone wish to comment with historical and/or biblical evidence?

No one could even get their Bible open!


Poor dim Tom refers to Jesus as a plural, eg:



Toms777 Exactly. Perhaps Ronnie does not know that and for that matter the Messiah himself, were Jews.

Oh, Tom, were he?


Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. LOLOLOLOL

peddler2 answered on 11/03/07:

So what is your point? To prove you can badger people and be an asshole?

The Bible clearly shows they were all Jews. Paul was a tax collector -James was His brother-Peter was a Gallilean fisherman and you are brain dead.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/28/07 - How many apostles are there in the Bible?

Tom says there are twelve, but he is wrong. How many can you read about in the New testament?

Tom reminds me of the simpleton puritan who refused to wear a hat because 'it is against God's order to put a round hat on a square head!'

What made him [and Tom] think that heads are square?

He believed his head to be square because there is a verse that says 'thou shalt not cut the corners of thy head.'

Therefore, he concluded, since the Bile cannot be wrong, his head had to be square but hats were round.

That explains a lot of Tom's foolishnesses.

Tom, do you want to try and count again?



peddler2 answered on 11/03/07:

Fred

Your consitant pro-atheist , pro-pagan stance is remakable.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/28/07 - How many apostles are there in the Bible?

Tom says there are twelve, but he is wrong. How many can you read about in the New testament?

Tom reminds me of the simpleton puritan who refused to wear a hat because 'it is against God's order to put a round hat on a square head!'

What made him [and Tom] think that heads are square?

He believed his head to be square because there is a verse that says 'thou shalt not cut the corners of thy head.'

Therefore, he concluded, since the Bile cannot be wrong, his head had to be square but hats were round.

That explains a lot of Tom's foolishnesses.

Tom, do you want to try and count again?



peddler2 answered on 11/03/07:

Fred

Your consitant pro-atheist , pro-pagan stance is remakable.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/01/07 - Important thoughts for true Christians

                              .
ALPHABET OF HAPPINESS
 
* A--Accept *
Accept others for who they are and for the choices they've made even if you have difficulty understanding their beliefs, motives, or actions.
 
*B--Break Away *
Break away from everything that stands in the way of what you hope to accomplish with your life.
 
*C--Create *
Create a family of friends whom you can share your hopes, dreams, sorrows, and happiness with.
 
*D--Decide *
Decide that you'll be successful and happy come what may, and good things will find you.
The roadblocks are only minor obstacles along the way.
 
*E--Explore *
Explore and experiment. The world has much to offer, and you have much to give.
And every time you try something new, you'll learn more about yourself.
 
*F--Forgive *
Forgive and forget. Grudges only weigh you down and inspire unhappiness and grief.
Soar above it, and remember that everyone makes mistakes.
 
*G--Grow *
Leave the childhood monsters behind. They can no longer hurt you or stand in your way.
 
*H--Hope *
Hope for the best and never forget that anything is possible as long as you remain dedicated to the task.
 
*I--Ignore *
Ignore the negative voice inside your head. Focus instead on your goals and remember your accomplishments.
Your past success is only a small inkling of what the future holds.
 
*J--Journey*
Journey to new worlds, new possibilities, by remaining open-minded.
Try to learn something new every day, and you'll grow.
 
*K--Know *
Know that no matter how bad things seem, they'll always get better.
The warmth of spring always follows the harshest winter.
 
*L--Love *
Let love fill your heart instead of hate. When hate is in your heart, there's room for nothing else, but when love is in your heart, there's room for endless happiness.
 
*M--Manage *
Manage your time and your expenses wisely, and you'll suffer less stress and worry.
Then you'll be able to focus on the important things in life.
 
*N--Notice *
Never ignore the poor, infirm, helpless, weak, or suffering.
Offer your assistance when possible, and always your kindness and understanding.
 
*O--Open *
Open your eyes and take in all the beauty around you. Even during the worst of times, there's still much to be thankful for.
 
*P--Play *
Never forget to have fun along the way. Success means nothing without happiness.
 
*Q--Question *
Ask many questions, because you're here to learn.
 
*R--Relax *
Refuse to let worry and stress rule your life, and remember that things always have a way of working out in the end.
 
*S--Share *
Share your talent, skills, knowledge, and time with others.
Everything that you invest in others will return to you many times over.
 
*T--Try *
Even when your dreams seem impossible to reach, try anyway.
You'll be amazed by what you can accomplish.
 
*U--Use *
Use your gifts to your best ability. Talent that's wasted has no value.
Talent that's used will bring unexpected rewards.
 
*V--Value *
Value the friends and family members who've supported and encouraged you, and be there for them as well.
 
*W--Work *
Work hard every day to be the best person you can be, but never feel guilty if you fall short of your goals.
Every sunrise offers a second chance.
 
*X--X-Ray *
Look deep inside the hearts of those around you and you'll see the goodness and beauty within.
 
*Y--Yield *
Yield to commitment. If you stay on track and remain dedicated, you'll find success at the end of the road.
 
*Z--Zoom *
Zoom to a happy place when bad memories or sorrow rear a ugly head.
 
 
---
 
 
The most destructive habit is WORRY
 
The most fateful attitude is HATRED
 
The greatest joy is GIVING
 
The greatest problem to overcome is FEAR
 
The most powerful force in life is LOVE
 
The one thing no one can take from you is your EDUCATION.
 
The most prized possession is INTEGRITY
 
The most beautiful attire is SMILE
 
The greatest 'shot in the arm' is ENCOURAGEMENT
 
The most satisfying work is HELPING OTHERS
 
The greatest asset if COURAGE.
 
The most powerful communication is TELLING THE TRUTH.
 
....Is your list different from the above???...
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/02/07:

If you are so happy why are you here trying to convince others that you are ?

Telling the truth would not include claiming to be an expert on Darwin and the Bible when you are to lazy to read either.

If you are so happy why do you call for innocent people to be imprisoned and murdered?

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 11/01/07 - Can You Be Moral Without God?

                                    .
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."- Albert Einstein, in an article which appeared in New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.
 
Fundamentalists are fond of saying that humanist morality isn't "universal".
They argue that we humans cannot distinguish right from wrong without divine guidance, so humanist ethics are essentially a rudderless ship, with each person defining his own version of morality to suit his convenience.
The problems with this argument (apart from its bigoted attitude) are easy to see, because they fail to ask the obvious question: to paraphrase Socrates, is something righteous because the gods deem it so, or do "the gods" deem it so because it is righteous?
Fundamentalists argue the former, while humanists (not to mention most polytheistic religions) argue the latter: that morality transcends even the gods.
If you are fundamentalist and you lean toward the former, then answer this: since your religion is not universal, then how can a system of morality which requires your religion be universal?
 
The world has many religions. If there is no morality without God, then should we believe that morality doesn't exist in any part of the world until it converts to Judaism or one of its offshoots?
The ancient Chinese religious triumvirate of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism wasn't based on Christianity.
The Greeks had democracy, civilization, philosophy, and science long before Jesus was born.
The Egyptians built a thriving civilization more than four thousand years ago.
The Romans built an Empire without any help from Jesus or his God.
Tribes and civilizations flourished throughout Africa, Australia, South America, North America, and islands all over the Pacific Ocean.
All these places had different religions, different customs, different languages ... but they still shared certain moral concepts.
Murder was considered immoral. Theft was considered immoral in all societies too large to function as tribal collectives.
It was considered noble to help another, and contemptible to hurt others for the sake of personal gain.
Honesty was praised. Deception and betrayal were vilified.
Governments and gods didn't always obey these laws, but philosophers in all these places somehow found a way to come to similar conclusions.
The question that fundamentalists ignore is: if morality flows from God and God alone, then how did this happen?
Given the enormous differences in religious beliefs between all these cultures, how did people independently arrive at similar conclusions all over the world, with regard to murder, betrayal, theft, and altruism?
Could there (gasp!) be a moral standard out there which doesn't require God?
Like the Golden Rule ? (Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself)
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 11/02/07:

And why is your opinion of what it should be suoerior to mine, or Jerry Dahmers,or Charles Manson?

Morality is a Christian concept. An atheist must borrow the Christian worldview and it's morals to claim morality.
Aheism is amoral, the struggle to reproduce is all there is. Atheism teaches we are animals. Moral limits have to be set by God.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 11/01/07 - Is it "Three Cheers" for Cherie, or send her to the cellar to peel potatoes until she respects

Religion 'is no excuse for inequality'
MARTYN McLAUGHLIN (mmclaughlin@scotsman.com)
.
AS HER husband works to bring about peace between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims, Cherie Blair yesterday put both religions in the dock over their unequal treatment of women.
.
With characteristic aplomb, she attacked the continuing inequality of women's role in world religion and said differences of culture or religion could not be used as a justification for denying equal rights.
.
She denounced the treatment of women on religious grounds as a "distortion" of the true message of faiths such as Islam.
.
Casting aside suggestions by some human rights advocates that the emancipation of women could not occur in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia because of cultural and religious sensitivities, Mrs Blair said women's rights were a "universal ethic that cuts across all cultures and all religions...and imperative for our shared humanity."
.
Mrs Blair, whose husband, Tony, became Middle East peace envoy after stepping down as prime minister in June, is a leading human rights lawyer and, in a speech at Chatham House in London, she acknowledged that Britain and other western nations had more to do to deliver equal pay and career opportunities for women.
.
But she highlighted new laws in Egypt that give men and women different rights on divorce, as well as Orthodox Jewish practices, under which a woman cannot divorce without her husband's consent. In some parts of the world, domestic violence was still not a crime, widows were ostracised and women were treated effectively as their husbands' property, she said.
.
Mrs Blair - a liberal Catholic who has criticised the Vatican for its view of women as "workers" rather than "thinkers" - stressed no such practices could be justified by religion. "There remain those who try to justify or excuse such discrimination and denial of human rights elsewhere by reference to different cultural or religious standards. We simply can't go along with this view," she said.
.
She rejected the widely-held opinion that Islam was innately discriminatory towards women, and suggested the application of Sharia law in some Muslim countries went against the true precepts of the faith. "It is not laid down in the Koran that women can be beaten by their husbands or that their evidence should be devalued, as it is in some Islamic courts," she said.
.
Mona Siddiqui, professor of Islamic Studies at Glasgow University, said: "I agree women should be given an equal voice, but it is a matter many cultures and religions are still struggling with. Equality is not the same in everyone's eyes. Women in different areas of the world have different opinions on what equality is and what it should be; too often they are left out of that dialogue."
.
Morag Mylne, of the Kirk's Church and Society Council, said: "Worldwide, it's clear there are examples where women are not just discriminated against, but suffer and are at harm because their rights are not recognised."
.
The Catholic Church said: "Cherie Blair's assertion that women and men are equal human beings and deserving of equal respect is absolutely correct." It added: "Reserving certain roles within the Church exclusively to men or exclusively to women in no way contradicts or conflicts with this principle."
.
.
ISLAM is fraught with contradictions on the issue of women's rights.
.
While the Koran notes the religious and moral equality of the sexes, Sharia law differentiates between the roles and rights of men and women.
.
Islam gives women the right to own, which entitles them to have personal possessions. While women have fewer financial obligations than men, some of their financial rights are limited.
.
Scholars agree that a woman should act and dress in a way that does not draw sexual attention when she is in the presence of someone of the opposite sex. Some scholars specify which areas of the body must be covered; most of these require that everything besides the face and hands be covered, and some require all but the eyes to be covered, using garments such as chadors or burkas.
.
In Islam, there is no difference between men and women's relationship to God; they receive identical rewards and punishments for their conduct, yet women's right to take a full part in their religion is still subject to restrictions.
.
CATHOLICISM
.
IT IS not only its stance on abortion and birth control which has elicited criticism over the way the Roman Catholic Church regards women.
.
The internal workings of the Catholic Church have repeatedly been attacked over the limited roles available for women, particularly their lack of participation in influencing church policies and decision making. The official position of the Church, as expressed in its current canon law and catechism, is that "only a baptised man validly receives sacred ordination".
.
A spokesman for the Church said yesterday: "There are obvious examples in the Catholic Church of roles that are open to women, and others that are not. These are very clearly based on scripture." This requirement by scripture, the Church emphasises, is simply a matter of divine law, and thus doctrinal.
.
However, the Catholic Women's Ordination, a group dedicated to having women ordained, points to many examples of women fulfilling leadership roles in both the Old and New Testaments.
.
PROTESTANTISM
.
THE Church of Scotland, the nation's main exponent of Protestantism, prides itself on its gender equality. Since as early as 1968, all ministries and offices have been open to women and men. However, it was not until three years ago that a woman, Dr Alison Elliot, was chosen to be Moderator of the General Assembly. In May this year, the Rev Sheilagh Kesting became the first female minister to become Moderator. Morag Mylne, of the Kirk's Church and Society Council, said: "In the past, women were not equally represented. Nowadays, the Church reflects men and women equally. It's important not because of gender issues, but in terms of a Christian's relationship with God."
.
JUDAISM
.
ACCORDING to Halakha (Jewish law), women are exempt from most time-bound positive mitzvot (commandments), as well as a few other mitzvot, such as the study of Torah or the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Orthodox Judaism prescribes different roles and religious obligations for men and women. According to some, men and women have complementary, yet fundamentally different roles in religious life, resulting in different obligations. In the area of education, women were historically exempted from any study beyond an understanding of the practical aspects of Torah. However, most Modern Orthodox women attend college.
.
SIKHISM
.
SIKH history portrays the role of women very prominently and depicts them as equal in service, devotion, sacrifice and courage. From the religion's earliest days, women were simply seen as unequivocal equals. The scriptures state that the Sikh woman is considered to have the same soul as man, and an equal right to grow spiritually.
.
The Sikh woman is allowed to lead religious congregations, to take part in the Akhand Path (the continuous recitation of the Holy Scriptures) and to participate in religious, cultural, social and secular activities. According to Sikhism, man and woman are two sides of the same coin of the human race. Man takes birth from a woman, and woman is born of a man. This system is interrelating and inter-dependent. Sikhism believes that man can never feel secure and complete in life without a woman: a man's success depends upon the love and support of the woman who shares her life with him, and vice versa. However, high principles set by prophets and religious leaders have always been very difficult to implement and put into practice.
.
HINDUISM
.
WIDELY disputed, the role of women in Hinduism varies according to different sects. Some traditions revere the goddess Durgaas as a female form of god, while others consider the Hindu god to be of both male and female aspects. There are many other female saints and gurus.
.
Parts of the Manu Samhita, or sacred law, state that women have generous property rights, with the sole right to certain finances or property. Yet the Manu contradicts itself by elsewhere declaring that a wife has no property, and wealth earned is for the husband alone.
.
As a whole, in a Hindu marriage, both husband and wife are regarded as two parts of one, complementing each other and becoming one in their spiritual journey, though in modern times, the Hindu wife has traditionally been viewed as someone who must remain chaste or pure. Both Manu Samhita and Arthashastra, an ancient treatise on economic administration, say that, if the husband is impotent, a traitor, has become an ascetic or an outcast, or absconds, the wife can leave him and remarry.
.
.
COMMENTS?
.
.

peddler2 answered on 11/01/07:

It really matters not what her opinion is.
The Quran teaches women are just above cattle.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 11/01/07 - Stupid or chronic liars????

Were the authors of the books of the Bible, merely illiterate to the point of stupidity, or were they actually telling lies to promote their NEW religion???

We have Matthew claiming in 27:5...that Judas 'threw' his betrayal price into the Temple and went out and hanged himself. The priests then gathered up the money and used to buy a potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. IT'S IN THE BOOK!!!

Yet the author of the Acts of the Apostles claims in 1:18...that Judas KEPT the money: "He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out."

Rather than expunge one or other of these claims....later bible translations carry weak footnotes, as in the New American Bible footnote to Acts 1:18 "Here Luke records a POPULAR tradition about the death of Judas that DIFFERS from the one in Math 27:5. According to one Judas hanged himself. Here, although the text is NOT CERTAIN (?), Judas is depicted as purchasing a piece of property with the betrayal money and being killed IN A FALL" !!!!!

One of these verses is either an error or a lie....And as John Wesley aptly stated: "If there be one error in the Holy Bible it CANNOT BE THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD!!!!"

Comments on only ONE of the more than TWO THOUSAND errors, contradictions and lies that pepper the Bible, are certainly welcome. LOL

peddler2 answered on 11/01/07:

As I said you have no response but hand waving and name calling.
If you are really interested in the truth go research the rebuttals and get back to me.
Your mind is welded shut and empty.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 11/01/07 - Who lied: God or the authors of the Bible?????

If the Yahweh of the Old Testament could not, or did not, repent, why are we told, over and over again, that he did; from Malachi all the way to James?????

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD; I change not."

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, the he should LIE; neither the son of man, that he should REPENT."

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the LORD have spoken it; it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will NOT go back, neither will I spare, neither will I REPENT."

James 1:17 "..the Father of Light, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of TURNING."

o.k. God does not repent......??????

Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD REPENTED of the EVIL which he thought to do unto his people." (Not only repentant, but capable of thinking EVIL).

Jonah 3:10 "..and GOD REPENTED of the EVIL, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (Just in case we missed it in Exodus).

Jeremiah 15:6 "Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward, therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee and destroy thee: I AM WEARY OF REPENTING." (And WE are weary reading about his flip flops).

Of course the worst of these mind changes came in Genesis 6:6-7 when the so-called OMNISCIENT god who called all of his creation GOOD, decided that it was not so good, after all, and decided to destroy it. Didn't the astygmatic fool KNOW, in his Omniscience, that he would have to destroy what he created??? Could he not SEE that far into the future when he made his monumental blunder???????? Didn't he KNOW the beginning from the end???? ERGO: He was either NOT Omniscient, could NOT see the future, or he was an addle patted fool. For if he KNEW the future, he certainly could not REGRET something he did, and REPENT of having done it!!!! Ya THINK???????????????



peddler2 answered on 11/01/07:

Evil is a meaninless term to an atheist such as yourself. Evil is an absolute and all you have is your opinion.
Aparently you presume your opinion is worthy of God paying attention to it.

What we have is an ignorant person copying arguments answered 100 years before he was born presuming to judge his creator.

I am not impressed.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 10/31/07 - It's finally happened!!!

The pseudo-Christians are ALL at each other's throats!!!! Stony finally exposes Jessica Jane Dupoop as a raving idiot. The brain-dead Peddliar tries to lecture the sanctimonious asshole Milton Heywired, Parakeet attacks Stony as a bigger idiot than Jessica Jane Dupoop, the unholy holy is reduced to re-posting jibberish in defence of her Christian cohort bible babblers...and Jessica Jane Dupoop keeps shoving it up ALL of their keisters!!!!!! IT HAD TO HAPPEN..BUT WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG????????????? ROTFLMAO

peddler2 answered on 10/31/07:

So you are the "Real" Christian?

BTW is it true your new movie is the worlds first filmed entirely on a camera phone?

Has any body noticed JJD and You show up and leave at the same time?

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
holly. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/30/07 - Was Jesus (Julius) Caesar ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 
Francesco Carotta is an Italian linguist, philosopher, publisher and author.
 
Carotta is known for his theory that the historical Jesus was Julius Caesar. This thesis was first released in two publications in the author's Kore publishing house (1988, 1989) and two newspaper articles in the Stadtzeitung (City Newspaper) of Freiburg (April 1989) and die tageszeitung, Berlin (December 23, 1991). Then after more than ten years of study Carotta published the results of his investigation in the German book Was Jesus Caesar? (1999). Dutch (2002) and English translations are available, Jesus was Caesar. On the Julian Origin of Christianity (2005).
 
Carotta came to the conclusion that Jesus is Divus Iulius, the deified Julius Caesar, as he has been transmitted through history, after a detailed comparison of the accounts on Julius Caesar and the Roman civil war in Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio and Plutarchus with the Greek Gospel of Mark. Using the tools of linguistics, philology and textual criticism as well as numismatical, iconographic, and archaeological evidence, Carotta argues that the Gospel of Mark is a corrupted retelling of the Roman civil war from Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon to his assassination and funeral (apotheosis); Jesus from the Jordan to his crucifixion and resurrection. This mutation and delocalization came about by a long process of copying, mistranslating, misinterpreting, adaptation and redaction in a different cultural context. The metamorphosis was sanctioned under Vespasian and his historian Flavius Josephus who is also known as the apostle Paul. Jesus is the Divus Iulius of the Flavians.
 
 
Link to site about Francesco Carotta and "Was Jesus (Julius) Caesar" ?
 
 
Any comments?
 
 

peddler2 answered on 10/30/07:

Are you from Kolob or simply lost in space?

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/29/07 - Brigham Young: Adam is God

"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true."
(Source: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:331)

peddler2 answered on 10/29/07:

Sad that millions follow a group of evil men like the Mormon prophets. Who claim they speak for god.

holly. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Hwood asked on 10/29/07 - Do you really want the truth.


First let me say this. God does not need to be proved. If, and I mean IF, you want the truth, this is how it is done. You must go with an open heart and an open mind. Be sincere and welcome Jesus into your heart, not your mind, your HEART!

The way you do this, is to go some place and kneel, lie down, or stand. It doesn’t matter. Be honest when you ask Jesus to accept you, and forgive all your sins. Then you will start to see the truth. It is still by faith, but you have a helper now. It is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will stay with you to the end of your life, if you will stay honest, and want Him to be with you.

If you should stumble and fall, just get up, ask Him to forgive you. He will be quick to do that. He even wants to do that. It does not make Him angry. He love you that much..

Now you are going to get some other mixed up nonsense. Just stay with Jesus. If you will just ask Him, He will tell you who the other person is working for. You will detect Satan in him, and there will be no mistake about it..

I am not telling anyone this who does not want to be saved. That is up to you. I am telling this to those who want the truth, and I mean the REAL TRUTH. In Jesus’ name. M.L.

peddler2 answered on 10/29/07:

HWood

I know you are a Christian and love the Lord but you might want to stop and think about what you are saying and how it sounds to the unsaved.

Please do not take offense.

Psa 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

I will play the devil's advocate.

There is no real argument about your first statement. God does not need to be proved. The existence of God is self evident, axiomatic.

However this idea of not using your mind is not biblical.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

From an unsaved persons view you are telling me what my teacher told me. Kids are taught that Christians are just reacting to emotional stimulus and reject "science" and logic. That appears to be consistent with my observation of your argument.
Hwood lots of people have religious experiences, Hindus , Buddhist , Muslims etc.
What you are saying I see as no different from what the Mormons do to win converts. Go get on your knees and ask the Holy Spirit to tell you if Mormonism is true. Millions "feel" the spirit told them it was and the devil gets the victory.
Why are your "feelings" superior to anyone else's?

Hwood God gave us the most precious thing He owns, his Word. He puts His word above His name.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Philippians 2:9 (KJV) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

John 8:31 (KJV) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

Psalm 119:160 (KJV) Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Proverb 30:5 (KJV) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

John 6:63 (KJV) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

On October 31st 1517 Martin Luther did something that changed the world so dramatically that besides the death and resurrection of Christ it is hard to find a more important event.

The world was in darkness because the truth of God's word was in the hands of a few who held it in unrighteousness. . When Luther nailed those 95 thesis's to the Castle Church in Wittenberg it started a chain of events that reshaped the world. By giving the common man access to the scriptures it ushered in the return to Biblical authority .

The phenomenal rise in scientific knowledge , wealth , and freedom the world had never know came into being.

Sadly we are now regressing back to the dark ages with the rise of militant atheism and Islam. If you look at what God did to His chosen through the Philistines and the Chaldean's for their departure from Biblical authority imagine what is going to happen to us? You can already see the winds of change in Europe as Islam continues to grow and gain power. We are next.

Few agree but I am absolutely convinced that the departure from Biblical authority is the root cause of the decline of the West. The return to it our only hope on this planet.

2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Not studying and standing on the word of God is disobedience. Sadly New Age Christianity has chosen to ignore the Bible and preach a different Jesus , pretend there is no hell and live like the world.

I know your heart is in the right place but please consider that what you are teaching , to use your heart and not your mind is what the pagans preach and I know you do not want to emulate them.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/28/07 - This is for Tom Smith……............................


In reference to Liz’s question “Are we as "Christ- like living by the Scriptures?
And in regard to your comment to my answer.
You said, and I quote you here, “I am interested to know how you will react standing before God, defending the cults (Mormonism, JWs) and attacking Christianity. If you are, as you claim to be, a Christian, I would expect to see concern for her soul, not wishing her well on her way to hell.)”
Your comment is another lying twisting of what I said.
I do not defend cults of any sort, but I do defend other peoples’ right to believe as they wish.
I do not attack Christianity. That is another of you several lies in that short quote.
I do not CLAIM to be a Christian, I am a Christian.
You are not the one who judges whether anyone goes to hell so quit trying to play God.
Only God knows and will judge who goes where; most certainly not you who continues to emulate Satan with your bigotry, twisting, abusing, and lying.
You should be more concerned with the destiny of you own soul for it appears to be in grave danger from you Satanic activities.




peddler2 answered on 10/28/07:

fred
Only person in a rage would statr most every response by name calling and make statements that the truth is unimportant only your hatred of the person speaking.
Seeing as the truth means nothing to you what purpose would listening to you serve?

Do you deny that you said Ronnie is a Christian, are you foolish enough to do that. These are facts Fred and you know it.
When you say things like that which you often do you are calling God a liar.


So what if you call me a liar? You admit to falsley accusing Tom and I and that you care nothing about the truth so what does lie mean to an amoral person such as yourself?

The only people laughing are atheists, pagans and New Agers , your click does not impress me.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
holly23 asked on 10/27/07 - Genisis 2 and 3

Genisis 2:9 ...In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genisis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." God had not yet created Eve right?
Genisis 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Are we to assume that it is Adam who informed Eve of the forbidden fruit in Genisis 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " Did God tell Eve not to touch the fruit or did Adam? Did God tell Adam not to touch it? What do you think would have happened if Adam and Eve had found and eaten from the tree of life before they found and ate the forbidden apple? What tree is the tree of life?

peddler2 answered on 10/28/07:

Holly the Bible is God's word. It is unwise to add to it. It clearly states that God took Enoch and that is confirmed in the New Testament.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

What you are doing is making the Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam ,the appeal to ignorance .
The Bible does not say this or that so maybe it is.
It is also a what if question. What if superman was on Germany's side during the war?
It is a mindless argument. Even if it were true the only way to find out is to ask God and that will probably entail dying first.
Even when that opportunity arises to ask God personally I have no intention of asking such a ridiculous question.
The Bible makes it plain that it was God's decision and no humans but Adam and Eve ever stepped foot in the Garden of Eden.
God drove them out.

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Holly the Bible is 66 books penned by over 40 writers over thousands of years but it has only one author. It is a message from beyond the dimensions of time and space. It is literally the Word of God.

The warnings for changing a single word are to have your name blotted ot from the Book of Life. It is best to trust God , not man.

This is the central verse in the Bible:

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

It is no accident that it is central. The Russelitites have done extreme violence to the scriptures and what you are doing is what Satan did, questioning the word of God.
Perhaps out of ignorance but there is no excuse. God said He took Enoch so to speculate that somehow God slipped up and let Enoch eat from the Tree of Life and then made up the story that He took him, translated his as He did Elijah is idolatry.
, putting yourself above God.
Please take the Bible seriously, it is the key to salvation.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
1Co 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.




holly23 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/23/07 - Once again I will be gone for several days......

I would ask that everyone behave themselves and those who call themselves Christian but are bigots, twisters and liars have shown that they will not do that so I won't bother.
But I do wish peace and kindness to all.
Goodbye for now.

peddler2 answered on 10/27/07:

Snort a comment? Please describe how you would do that? Got pics?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/26/07 - Ronnie denies Scripture

Ronnie denies that Jews can worship the one true God, and in so doing denies scripture.

1 Cor 12:12-13
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
NKJV

Rom 11:1-6
11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
NKJV

Why would anyone deny scripture and single out a single race for such an attack?

peddler2 answered on 10/27/07:

The Mormons called Christians gentiles because they think they are god's chosen people. The god of this world perhaps.

They baptize the dead from the holocaust which is a great insult to the Jews.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/26/07 - The earliest Christians first century Christians ....

Tom actually believes that ALL the first Christians were Jews. I have pointed out that this is incorrect.

Does anyone wish to comment with historical and/or biblical evidence?

peddler2 answered on 10/26/07:

Ronnie

Tom is an expert on the Bible and all you know is what the Mormons told you to think.

Tom knows that there were converts amoung the gentiles but the first converts were the apostles who were Jews.

So he is absolutly correct. You are just redefining earliest.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/26/07 - Tom and Brian say that 'Jews worship the Trinity!' ......................

Are they correct?
............................

peddler2 answered on 10/26/07:

I notice there is no evidence they made that statement anf the only people jumping on the bandwagon with out thinking are openly anti-Christian bigots who are only here to annoy decent people.
Atheist and pagans are all the same.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 10/25/07 - "The dead know nothing?

Peddler where is your Hell Fire?

You say, you believe all of the Bible, than why is it "The dead know nothing?


Ec 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
"The dead know nothing?

Ec 9:6 As well their love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun.

Where is your Hell Fire now?
You take Scriptures that are symbolic, than turn them into horror storys, anyone on here can look these scriptures up, and see that God Jesus Christ is a God of love-

I will keep you in my Prayers that you may come to know the true God.

peddler2 answered on 10/26/07:

Liz

Seeing as the only source for your beliefs is what you want to believe then you are your own god. Why waste my time with these off the shelf objections from liberal theology? I am just a human being.
Come up with an original objection , if you can.

This one has been asked here over and over and no matter how man times it is answered it will be asked again. Your mind is welded shut. If you really werye interested in the truth you would already know both sides of that argument.

Domino is the only one you are going to listen to anyway. He will never tell you that anything you do is wrong or that there are concequences for sin and that is what you want to hear.
Such as bearing false witness against me about the KKK. But you think you are above God's Law.

All you are doing is trying to convince yourself you don't need to obey God and that anyone who does is stupid.
If the best you can do is bring up this lame argument and accuse me of being a racist I am not impressed with your intelligence .

Clarification/Follow-up by Liz22 on 10/25/07 6:31 pm:
Peddler. Come on, leave Belle and Prince out of this. I Pray that the Lord will forgive you for being part of the KKK.!
The Bible say's. "The dead no nothing" Read the scriptures!

Your god is the Devil, and the god of this world


The KKK? What next?

Liz the argument about the dead knowing nothing is simply something you are repeating. No one who actually studied the bible would ask it. If you want to believe there is no hell go ahead, no one can stop you. When you die you will find out.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/25/07 - Free and reliable source of information about Mormonism ...

.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism published in 1992 by Macmillan Publishing Co of NY, is now available free online at:

www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/

.

.

peddler2 answered on 10/26/07:

Considering the record of B.Y.U. firing anyone who for instance says the DNA evidence does not support the BOM or the Egyption writings did not say what Smith claimed we can rely on the fact it will be fact free.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/24/07 - What is your view of ............................................................

.
'Replacement Theology'?

peddler2 answered on 10/25/07:

My view is that anyone so ignorant of Christianity to suggest this nonsense should not be calling themselves an expert.
Of course you call yourself a Christian so why would be expecting any honesty from you.

How do you feel about the fact taught the coming Messiah would be God Himself?

Isa 9:6 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/24/07 - What is your view of ............................................................

.
'Replacement Theology'?

peddler2 answered on 10/25/07:

My view is that anyone so ignorant of Christianity to suggest this nonsense should not be calling themselves an expert.
Of course you call yourself a Christian so why would be expecting any honesty from you.

How do you feel about the fact taught the coming Messiah would be God Himself?

Isa 9:6 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 10/24/07 - Was Joseph Smith the first?

Was Joesph Smith the first science fiction writer in the Americas. We see perhaps a century after Smith, L Ron Hubbard give birth to another bizzare religion based on his science fiction writings, but was Joseph Smith the first, with his talk of white elephants on yellow submarines,the lost tribes voyaging in space, strange beasties and even stranger peoples and cities no trace of which have ben found, gods, men from Earth, ruling planets, and God himself a man from Earth. Let's face it Smith's imagination was as good as or better than Asimov or Hubbard

peddler2 answered on 10/25/07:

He was a science fiction writer but not the first. Long before him the Nebular Hypothesis which is the core of the Big Bang theory to this day was given to Emmanuel Swedenbord by people from Jupiter and Neptune at a seance.
Most of the Christians I tell this to refuse to accept it although it is well documented because they want to look cool and say they undstand the BB.
What is odd is I really do understand it and most other people i meet who truly undestand it don't believe it either.

Smith was imaginative but not the first.
The science fiction story that fish turned into people over millions of years dates back to at least 2600 years ago.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/24/07 - Brian, to answer your question - - -

I didn't say I would say 'yes' to a Hindu God, are you gone mad? But I am not a weak-kneed scaredy cat like you that would run away from a man praying. There are Hindus in Australia, and they have as much right to pray in your country as here in the USA, or wherever they happen to be.

What are you scared of? You are under the wrong impression if you think that Americans worship Jehovah. Jews do, but Americans worship whatever God they happen to believe in just as you believe in the Babylonian trinity god that has no home in the Bible.

.

You satanic bigots spend you time telling people what they should believe in but you don;t know what it is that you believe in yourselves.

If I were to ask you what your god was like and how you would recognise him if you met him, you would not be able to make an answer that wasn't total gibberish.

Jews do not worship Jesus, but Christians do. You cannot make the Jewish God the Christian God without being laughed off the planet by Jews. Come on, Brian, talk sense at least one day a year.

You say you believe in the trinity found in the Bible. bring me a rabbi that agrees with your Biblical trinity. bring me a Christian that accepts the Jewish god as Jews believe their El Shaddai to be.

The Jewish God has no Son, the God of the Jews is strictly ONE GOD, and Jews are strictly monotheistic, but you are polytheistic, tritheistic, and you believe in three gods in one god, a triune-ity, a contradiction in logic, reason, language and the Bible.

You cannot match up your God with the God of the Jews, so why spend time trying to convince me of something that you do not understand yourself?

I believe in the God of the Bible and in the Jesus of the Bible abd I will show you point for point in any Bible you care to require where I believe in what the Bible believes in and where you do not.
.
As to whether I will be a god myself some day, all I know is that the Bible promises those who are faithful that they will become joint heirs with Christ of everything the Father has. If I am wrong to believe that, then it is because the Bible is wrong to say it, and that should give you something to seriously consider for the next fews
days.
.
I pray for your peace. may God lead you towards it.

peddler2 answered on 10/24/07:

Ronnie

You are not ore at home in the old testament. It appears that you have never bothered to read the OT or you have the reading comprehension skills of a 2 year old with severe brain damage and total blindness,that's not real good.

You make these bold claims but you never address the fact that the Jewish scriptures do teach of the God -Man to come that we {Christians, not heathens like you} know as Jesus Christ.

Ignoring the facts that disprove your cults stupid teachings does not make them true or any less stupid. If it was possible it would make them more stupid but I don't see that as a real possibility. What can you say to top a religion who says god told them people live on the sun and gold grows like hair?

This disproves your god from Kolob theory:

Isa 9:6 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


The Jewish scriptures did in fact point to the coming Messiah who would be God. Jesus said He was God and proved it by using the Old Testament. The fact that you find it necessary to bring god down to your level does not bring Him down to your level.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Again ,Checkmate.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/24/07 - Bigotry + Intolerance = Evil

Saturday, July 14, 2007
Conservative Christian Bigots Disrupt Senate Floor
.
For the first time in American history a Hindu led the opening prayer for the Senate on Thursday.
.
A conservative group calling itself, "American Family Association" disrupted the Senate and interrupt the prayer to protest the prayer being led by an "evil" Hindu.
.
They call themselves "Christians" but they certainly do not appear to be very familiar with the teachings of Jesus.
.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
- Matthew 5:43-48



.

peddler2 answered on 10/24/07:

Ronnie

You are after all the worst student in answerway history.
It may be they are ignorant of the Mormon Jesus created by a guy with magic rocks in his hat.

The real Jesus , the God man of the Bible would have rebuked them and called them vipers.

Ronnie you are not a Christian you are a pagan. Christ is not a last name. Baby raper Smith made it plain Mormons were not Christians, that Christian was a dirty word.

You don't believe in the Christian God .
You are going to hell if you don't repent.
Not only will you go to hell but your punishment will be much worse than many others as you have not only refused to believe in the one true God but have declared war on Him and tried to recruit others .

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/22/07 - LDS Church Recognizes Community Leaders for Their Commitment to Family



DENVER 19 October 2007 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints honored a Catholic archbishop for his work to protect traditional marriage and an adoption agency for their efforts to help abused, neglected and abandoned children.


Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and The Adoption Exchange received the 2007 Colorado Family Values Award at a ceremony earlier this week.


Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Catholic Archiocese of Denver and Dixie van de Flier Davis of the Adoption Exchanged greetings following the 2007 Colorado Family Values Awards ceremony.


© 2007 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.


The Family Values Award, which originated in 1991 and was inspired by the renewed emphasis on family issues in the United States, acknowledges community leaders who are "striving to advance standards and values that are consistent with the Church position on the family."


Elder Steven E. Snow, a Church leader from Salt Lake City, presented the awards to the Colorado recipients and expressed gratitude for "their voices of counsel and warning and for their courage to protect and secure families."


Archbishop Chaput, in accepting the award, noted: "This award is important to me and to the community because the family is important. It is the foundation stone of society. The stronger a nation's family life, the stronger a nation's public life."


In June 2007 the archbishop launched the Denver "For Your Marriage" campaign in an effort to "help couples deepen and preserve their marriages whether they are Catholic or not."


"Catholics and Mormons have the same concerns and similar values rooted in our belief of a loving God. It makes sense to work together and support each other whenever we can, and the Catholics warmly welcome that," said Archbishop Chaput.


Also honored was The Adoption Exchange. Founded in 1983 by child advocates and social workers, the agency works to find families for abused, neglected and abandoned children placed in foster care. Their commitment extends beyond just placing children in homes - to working with families throughout the entire adoption process.


"It's all about family!" noted Dixie van de Flier Davis, president and executive director of The Adoption Exchange, in receipt of the award. "Someone to believe in, to love you, discipline you, keep you safe and coach you to success. The LDS Church and The Adoption Exchange share a commitment to families."


Members of the LDS Church have presented the Family Values Award both internationally and in the United States. Recent awards were given in California and Australia.


Mormons in California honored John Zickefoose and Kathy Azevado. Zickefoose is the founder of United Neighbors Involving Today's Youth - a nonprofit organization that gets young people involved in positive activities. He is also on the Corona-Norco YMCA Alternative to Domestic Violence board a group that helps battered women. Azevado serves on the board of directors for the Foundation of Community and Family Health, as well as the local American Cancer Society.


In Australia, Sue Gordon and Gerard and Madeline Gorian were acknowledged for their work in the Western Australian community. Gordon is the Chairperson of the Prime Minister's National Indigenous Council and is a magistrate in the Perth Children's Court. The Gorians, originally from France, are members of the Reform Church and advocate that all laws should be measured for the impact they can have on the family. Mr. Gorian is the Western Australia state director of the Christian Democratic Party, with his wife serving as the party secretary.





It is good to know that some Christians are working for the betterment of people's lives, and not spending their time ratting at others because their bigotry dictates that they must!


What fine examples!




peddler2 answered on 10/24/07:

I know you do not Prince Echo When Think.
You have said many times Jesus was no God.
What is between your ears?

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/23/07 - Racism and Christianity and paraclete





Brian, to forestall you moaning that I have not answerred the queastionas you ask, I put this in full view of the discerning puiblic:


You asked where I got this "****?"
.
One source among many is:

http://www.hurights.or.jp/asia-pacific/no_9/no9_past.htm

'HURIGHTS' stands for Human Rights. If you do not consider Aborigines as humans, then you will not grant them human rights, and since you clearly do not, then you clearly do not consider them fully human. Achtung!




Still blind to your own racism. What gives you the right to remove ANY child from its parents? Hitlerian eugenics. That is not Christianity and since you evidently support Nazi eugenics, then you cannot be a Christian.

"British" refers to those born in the British Isles of Irish and other nationalities. You racists always find a bogey man when you ARE the bogeymen.

You are too quick to lay all the ills in Australia at the feet of the English, typical of a rascally racists, but why can you not be man enough to stand up and tell the truth that you, yourself, and your Irish forbears bear as much responsibility as anyone else for the racism that is rife in Australia today?
.
You will die a bitter an duinfuilfilled old man because everything wtrong in youtr life is someone else's fault. It seems that your cult cannot find healing foer you, and so naother failure to lay at the feet of your Aboriginal ancestors, whose fault it is that you were 'stolen.'
.
You climbed the wrong tree, Brian. You should have climbed the one where a man takes resposbibility for his own life and does not wander through his years blerating about how everything is the faultr of someone who did somehting a thousand years befiore, or four hundred years before, or fifty years bedfore, but manfully grasps whatever the circumstances of his birth have delievered into his hands and makes somehting noble of his days.
.
You are nothing but a childishly pathetic moaner who surveys the flour, eggs, butter, dried fruit, black treacle, zest, &c. that lie on the table before him and then breaks down and weeps because he wasn't given a cake!
.
There are some things that real men do for themselves instead of waiting until their mammies come along, wipe their noses, change their smelly nappies, and set them back on their feet again. It is called manhood.
.
Real men do not bewail the past: they do something with the present to make a better future.
.
Your feet are stuck in the days that probably never were, and the saddest thing of all is that your lack of insight and your heavy burden of self-pity means that you will never understand that the Irish peasant was not the only one who suffered at the hands of their government; English people suffered just as much and in some cases even more.

But you were not taught the songs of ther English suffering masses - only those for the Irish sufferers, and thus it is that you have a distorted vision of what you believe is your past history, and you use that distortion as a lens through which to view those whom history and false traditions and your pettifogging xenophobia have marked as your natural enemies.
.
With Hitler it was the Jews, especially those who had jobs when he was penniless.
It is extraordinary how little unconnected things will be grasped upon by the failed to explain their failure and those who had no hand in their dismal failures become - as they erringly suppose - the authors of their misfortunes.
.
You hate all English, and thus a large proportion of your own countrymen,because they are to blame for your dismal life. You hate Aborigines because you feel crushingly guilty for not standing up for their rights even though they are treated far worse than any British government ever treated the Irish, and you are too cowardly to stand up for the rights of these black fellas because you refuse to recognise that you have displaced them and still displace them in the same way that the Palestinians were displaced to make room for Jews who had no ties to Palestine, and you fsil to rervcopgnise that Eammon De valera caslled on the same League of Nations to help settle the Irish Free State question as some years later settle the Palestinian question. Why the double standard, Brian? Why the double mindedness? Why the schizophrenic mindset that applauds an institution (LON) on the one hand but fails to recognise their part in the other hand? The kindest view to take of your positions is that you are simply unlearned of the fact of the history to which you make so many urgent please in your own cases, but ignore when you choose to look at other cases. You have a very 'selective' understanding of history.
.
So, Brian, let me get you straight: you call taking children away from their parents for eugenic [read, 'Nazi'] reasons, and enslaving them, and putting them among White Australian Christians who beat then, abuse then, rape them, flog them, and kill them,"caring for them properly.'
.
That is a strange religion you have there, Brian. What is it called?
.
If you ever have a 'half-caste ' [a quaint term that I am surprised to find used in the modern world, where mixed-race is the accepted term except amongst racists] child, will you voluntarily give that child to be raped by other [ all-White] members of your White Christian Australian family? Is that your religion? Is it your religion that makes Aborigines unfit to live? Unfit to be educated? Unfit to take part in the democratic process?
.
Is it your religion that persons of colour - Brown, black, Indians, Negroes, etc - should not be permitted to emigrate to Australia? When did that little bit of Australian racism finally die the death?
.
.
When a country becomes independent of its colonial mother, it is then responsible for its own actions.
.
I find it remarkable that the very faults and racism that you lay at the feet of your former colonial masters finds a ready and welcome home in your own mind, and that you apply it to every one who is different from you int he smallest way, whether it is in colour, education, faith, skin colour, politics, etc.
.
Like your nation, you still have some way to go before you have purged yourself of the very defects and evils that you are so ready to pin onto the jackets of others. Yet you exhibit no signs that you have any interest in dragging yourself out of the Stygian darkness and making your feeble way toward the light of Christ.
.

And that, Brine, is YOUR tragedy!

.

Naturally I do not expect a response from you. I am disinterested in your bleatings and your feigned religion and you blame-laying and your childish antics. As the ancient said, "I seek a man!"
.
Clearly, it is not you.
.
I asked what you cult was doing about the horror, but your answer shows that you are doing nothing. Jesus would do plenty, but you will do nothing.
.
How do you live with yourself? Do you eagerly await the return of Hitler in the flesh?
.
Paraclete is the name given to the Holy Ghost. See what you assume. You say that you adopt the title because it means 'a helper.' Will you - Paraclete - help Mormons, JWs, RCCs, Aborigines, Muslims, etc, or do you only help yourself and attack the others?
.
I could go on, but although I knock loudly it is apparent that there is no one at home.

.


peddler2 answered on 10/24/07:

He is my brother in Christ. If you became a Christian you would be as well.
prince you make up your own religion like Smith did.
The Bible says you will burn. You might ought to read it.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Hwood asked on 10/23/07 - How will you face Thjs Judge?

It had been a hectic week. First there was Christmas, with all the shopping, the partying, and drinking. Then came New Years. Ellen did not remember to much about it. As she stood beside her husband, Ed. Looking around the courtroom, she had never seen so many people in court. Thinking about it, she had never seen a courtroom this size.

As the Judge came in, she thought that he looked familiar. Maybe he was an old person of long ago. She was not too sure where they were, or what they had done. Ellen jumped, and she felt Ed tense up. She had never heard a scream like that before. She looked and they were dragging this man toward the door. He was fighting and screaming. His face she would never forget. It was blood red and the blood veins stood out on his neck. His eyes were like bubbles about to burst. She wondered what he had done, and what they were going to do with him.

Then she heard a voice call her husband’’s name. As he started to move forward, she started to move with him. A hand reached out and blocked her from moving. A voice said that she would be called later, when it was her turn. Then she heard that scream again. It made the hair stand up on her neck. She turn to looked, and it was Ed. He was struggling and fighting, while screaming.

She wanted to go to him, but was forbidden by the guard. She ask the guard if he could tell her what crime they had committed, and what they were going to do with them? He said that he did not know, but that Jesus would explain it all to her, when it came her time to go up.

Jesus! She turned around fast and took another look at the Judge. That explains why she knew this person. Yes, it had been a long time ago, in Sunday School. She was just a small child. She had learned about this man. The sweat was thick on her face as she sat up in bed. Looking to her left, there was Ed. It had been a dream, or had it been a warning?

Sunday morning they were in church. Ed said that he had wanted to come for a long time, but he wasn’’t sure how she felt about it. She smiled and said, "you won’’t have to wonder anymore."

peddler2 answered on 10/23/07:

Dreams can be a warning. God does speak to people in dreams.

Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 10/23/07 - Where do they come from???

Where do fools, like the anti-Mormon bigot "server" come from????? And what is her/his/it's purpose on this board. Certainly NOT to answer questions, since, in the three months she/he/it has signed on, she/he/it has racked up 79 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, HAS REFUSED TO ANSWER 880 public questions, and in three months has given ONLY TWO ANSWERS....And since she/he/it has not had the guts to sign up as an EXPERT in ANY category, I have to ask which of our resident bigots is using 'server' as an alias to spew Anti-Mormon venom with hoped-for impunity?????????

peddler2 answered on 10/23/07:

They descened from a rock. First the rock appears for no reason and rain appears for no reason and then evolution occurs for no reason and you end up with people like you who cannot reason because materialsm is all there is .

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
frick rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/22/07 - Tom's cult and its involvements in Child abuse raises red flags ..................

ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
OF THE MESSIANIC COMMUNITY
ON THE WELFARE AND BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN
excerpt from a psychological report submitted as evidence, stipulated to by the parties and found as fact by the court, in a child custody case prepared for the court by Dr. Craig Knapp, a licensed psychologist




Given [the mother's] stated intentions to maintain a long term ongoing relationship with the Messianic Community, it seems appropriate to comment on the potential influence which the Messianic Community might conceivably have on the children (regardless of eventual parental custody arrangements).

Given issues which have arisen during the course of this evaluation, specific "risk" factors include the potential for abuse, abduction, and potential influences educationally, in terms of the children's ongoing developmental needs, nurturance, and potential influence of fostering ongoing positive relationships between the children and both parents.




.


.

peddler2 answered on 10/23/07:

Mormons hate Messianic Jews. That means they cannot Baptize them when there dead as they do to harass Holocaust victims families.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/23/07 - Baptist finds fault with AV(KF) Bibker - 'not word of God'




The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (F.B.F.) is quickly adopting the modern [Bible] versions that remove dozens of verses from the Bible and that are based upon the undependable critical Greek New Testament fashioned by Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s.





The head of the F.B.F. is Pastor Rodney Bell of Tabernacle Baptist Church, Virginia Beach, Virginia. He used to stand for the King James Bible. Students who graduated from his school in former decades will testify that he and the other teachers taught them to defend the King James Bible. When Dr. Bell chose a man to head up his school 15 years ago, he chose Dr. Thomas Strouse. Strouse left a teaching position at Maranatha Baptist Bible Seminary in 1988 and founded Tabernacle Baptist Bible Seminary in Virginia Beach under the pastoral oversight of Rodney Bell. Dr. Strouse headed up the doctorate program at Tabernacle until 2000, when he moved to Newington, Connecticut, to establish the Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary under the pastoral direction of Michael J. Bates. Dr. Strouse has a B.S. in industrial engineering from Purdue University, an M.Div. in theology and Biblical languages from Maranatha Baptist Graduate School of Theology, and a Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University. Strouse was a founding member of the Dean Burgon Society (1979) and stands firmly for the Received Text and the King James Bible.




It is obvious from the choice of this man to head up his school that Dr. Bell was once willing to take his stand for the KJV. But while Dr. Strouse has not changed his position on the Bible (Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary has cast its lot with those who defend the KJV), Dr. Bell certainly has.

Today Dr. Bell holds (or at least allows for) the strange and impossible position that the Received Text is the preserved Word of God and so is the Critical Text, that the KJV is fine and so is the NASV, even though they are based on radically different Greek texts. At least this is what his position tells us, because he has declared that the Bible Version issue is a non-issue within the F.B.F., that men are not allowed to defend the KJV, and that those who prefer other texts and versions are welcome to do so without fear of rebuke.


In fact, the topic cannot even be debated, because the unity of the fellowship is more important than conflict! I wonder where I have heard that before? Oh, yes, now I remember. It is the very theme song of the ecumenical crowd, from the New Evangelicals to the Charismatics to the theological Modernists.






















..
.

peddler2 answered on 10/23/07:

Spamming your own post with white space?
BTW this is one group. They are not associated with mine.

It is like Mormons. True Mormons still practice polygamy {child rape} as Joseph Smith taught and practicd.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/23/07 - "Christianity Board" ???

                                                                               
 

Regrettably I have to note that both parties in the battle between literal Bible believers versus Mormons have run out of moral decency and mutual respect, and are now fighting each other on the level of "fishwives" in a "yes you are" - "no YOU are" shouting match.
 
 
As Atheist I can only be amazed at the amount of hatred , despite, intolerance, and religious bigotism that is heaped onto this board by two "Christians" of different persuasion against each other.
 
 
I can understand Ronnie's irritation, after having been bombarded so long with so much hatred and despite by toms777. But still .....
 
 
Let me state this once more : Christianity : the religious belief in Jesus being your Saviour, and of LOVE and FORGIVENESS to all.
 
 
It seems that the basics of Christianity are still not very clear to these two "Christians"! How sad to see ...
Why are both LOVE and FORGIVENESS such difficult concepts and unattainable qualifications for so many Christians?
 
 
John
 
 
Any comments?
 

peddler2 answered on 10/23/07:

ROFLUMEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An atheists who calls for Christian babies to be hung on spears in the coliseum is going to judge who is and who is not Christian?

Brain damage perhaps?

Liz22 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 10/22/07 - more from the muslim hater !

the Muslims say that Mohammed got the quoran from an angel in a cave God warns us that

2 corrinthians ;13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

I believe it was this immage in the cave and for a christian to approve the works of satin is sin indeed

peddler2 answered on 10/22/07:

The angel of light {Gabriel} showed himself to Mohammed precisely as the angel of light {Moroni} showed himself to Joseph Smith and precisely as the amgel of light {unnamed} revealed himself to the Pentscostal preacher William Brannon.

All three had to ask someone else if it was from god.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/22/07 - Are you greedy for this world's wealth???????????

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Monday 29th in Ordinary Time

Today's Gospel (Lk 12:13-21): Someone in the crowd spoke to Jesus, «Master, tell my brother to share with me the family inheritance». He replied, «My friend, who has appointed me as your judge or your attorney?». Then Jesus said to the people, «Be on your guard and avoid every kind of greed, for even though you have many possessions, it is not that which gives you life».

And Jesus continued with this story, «There was a rich man and his land had produced a good harvest. He thought: ‘What shall I do? For I am short of room to store my harvest. So this is what he planned: I will pull down my barns and build bigger ones to store all this grain, which is my wealth. Then I may say to myself: My friend, you have a lot of good things put by for many years. Rest, eat, drink and enjoy yourself’. But God said to him: ‘You fool! This very night your life will be taken from you; tell me who shall get all you have put aside?’. This is the lot of the one who stores up riches instead of amassing for God».

Commentary: Fr. Lluc Torcal OSB cist. (Monk of Santa Mª de Poblet-Tarragona, Catalonia)

«Even though you have many possessions, it is not that which gives you life»

Today, if we do not close our eyes and our ears, the Gospel will strike us through its clarity and directness: «Be on your guard and avoid every kind of greed, for even though you have many possessions, it is not that which gives you life» (Lk 12:15). Where does man's life come from?

We know quite well where Jesus' life comes from, because He, himself, has told us: «For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself» (Jn 5:26). We also know that Jesus' life does not come only from the Father, but it also consists in abiding by his will, as the Father's will is the nourishment for Jesus, and it amounts to carry out His work of salvation among men, by offering his life for his friends, which is the greatest love sign. Jesus' life is, therefore, a life totally received from the Father and totally handed over to the same Father and, through the love to the Father, to all men. How can human life, therefore, be sufficient per se? How can it be denied that our life is a gift we have received and, because of that, if nothing else, we have to be grateful for? «Nobody can claim to be the master of his own life» (St. Jerome).

Following this same logic, the missing question could only be: how can our life have any meaning at all if it chooses to close upon itself, and is satisfied by saying: «My friend, you have a lot of good things put by for many years. Rest, eat, drink and enjoy yourself» (Lk 12:19)? If Jesus' life is a gift received and a gift always given with love, our own life —that we cannot deny we have also received— ought to become, following Jesus' life, a total donation to God and to our brothers, because «Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life» (Jn 12:25).

peddler2 answered on 10/22/07:

Have you been watching Pinkie and the Brain?

Read the Vatican 2 . The RCC sure wants all the property {money and lands}it stole back. Do you support that?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 10/21/07 - please rtemember!


REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military Barracks in Saudi Arabia !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001!

REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!



Now the United States Postal Service REMEMBERS and HONORS the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a commemorative first class Holiday postage stamp. Bull!

REMEMBER to adamantly and vocally BOYCOTT this stamp
When purchasing your stamps at the post office. To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.

peddler2 answered on 10/22/07:

Rev

Most of those here consider Christians who believe the Bible as bad as those who trust the Quran.
Until you yourself take the stand that the Bible is true from the beginning instead of kowtowing to the millions of years beliefs of the materialist why is your opinion better than Fred's or Domino's who say the Muslims who did this are radical fundamentalist instead of just good Muslims?

We are not at war with the Muslims we are at war with their god, we are at war with Islam. Unless you stand on God's word then why s your opinion any better than theirs?

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The atheists and the New Agers don't regard the Bible in their thoughts .Christianity as a whole has become humanistic and idolatrous deciding which part of the Bible is true and which part is false. When you deny the first sentence in the Bible which refutes millions of years and the Big Bang then how can you claim that we are at war with Allah? Why is Genesis 1:1 is not true and you agree can you say that Eph 6:12 is ?

The only hope of defeating the Muslims is a New Reformation , a return to Biblical authority. If America returned to it's Christian roots instead of wasting American blood and money creating an Islamic Republic we hope will be easier to deal with we would set up a free state where there was religious freedom and let the power of the Holy Spirit change the hearts of our enemies and defeat the evil one.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/21/07 - Peddliar says Brian paraclete is an atheist!

Are you going to stand for that, Brian? have you nothing to say in your own defense at being recognised as an atheist by the Great Ruth, AKA, "SHE WHO IS NEVER WRONG!"


Come on, Bri, stand up to the bully!




.

peddler2 answered on 10/21/07:

Bully?
You ar the little weakling at school that started fights between other people.
Brian knows I never said such a thing. Brian is a Christian, you are a follower of Satan, of the occult.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 asked on 10/20/07 - Closet Mormon

daft Tom's daughter holly. tells me that I am a "closet Mormon"

Can one of the normal folk here explain what that means?

Pete

peddler2 answered on 10/21/07:

Petie

How can I answer? You consider yourself normal and your religion believes dirt came to life by magic. I say that believing in spontaneous generation is stupid but you don't. So normal to you is braindead to me.
You need to define normal.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/19/07 - MORMON.ORG REDESIGNED ........................................


See http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.cb5725b59dcb4a2b2c5e2ba6942826a0/?vgnextoid=7cecc8fe9c88d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=78d7ba4ef3fa5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____
Link

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - People interested in learning more about the Church can now access both basic and deep doctrine from the recently redesigned Web site, Mormon.org. The site is now easier to navigate and more closely aligned with the material found in the missionary lessons from "Preach My Gospel."


..

peddler2 answered on 10/20/07:

People interested in learning the truth of the holocaust can contact the Iranian Embassy.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 10/19/07 - Today's Funny True Story!!!!!

Today, my physician visited me, and he had a new assistant, a man with him. Everything went along as usual, and there came a time when the Doctor had to examine under my large breasts and my groin area for a skin condition. He asked Chris to hold a penknife with a light so he could look closely. Everything went along and Chris left with the blood samples and equipment, and the doctor and I said a few pleasant words. I had mentioned to Chris that it was important to like what you do earlier in conversation, and he agreed. He gave me a wink!

Well, my doctor said that they were short of staff today and that Chris was the husband of the Staff Nurse at a local hospital his practice delt with, and he was filling in!!!!!!!

lololololol.............I'm still laughing at this!!

How it pertains to Christianity??

I told my doctor who is a Christian about my dental problems and he said he had Christian benefactors for their practice, and I can have $300.00 toward my dental needs.

:):):)

peddler2 answered on 10/19/07:

Fudamental Christians give more to charity on a percentage basis than any other gfroup on earth.
Atheist give the least percentage wise than any other group.

What amazes me is those facts suprised the secularists who conducted the survey.

Why would one organism give to help another organism? That would be anti-evolutionary!

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 10/18/07 - Is this guy for real?

after years of telling us there is no God and the Bible is bunk John appears to have turned the corner

He said
"I on the other hand see the Bible's general message as guideline for life, without nitpicking small parts out of chapters, pages, or lines that suits my purpose.

John

Could this athiest actual read the Bible?

peddler2 answered on 10/19/07:

Perv

You have never read the Bible or Darwin.
You can't answer the simplest questions about either subject.

Of course being an atheist who do you have to answer to for lying?

You should read the Bible , and the Quran, and the Hadeths,and the Vatican 2 , and the councils,and Darwin,lll three of them, and Haeckel , and Lyell , and LaPlace, and LaMark, and Hutton,and so on.

You should study both sides of the argument and then you could discuss these subjects with me, on my level instead of waving your hands .

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 10/18/07 - Is this guy for real?

after years of telling us there is no God and the Bible is bunk John appears to have turned the corner

He said
"I on the other hand see the Bible's general message as guideline for life, without nitpicking small parts out of chapters, pages, or lines that suits my purpose.

John

Could this athiest actual read the Bible?

peddler2 answered on 10/19/07:

Perv

You have never read the Bible or Darwin.
You can't answer the simplest questions about either subject.

Of course being an atheist who do you have to answer to for lying?

You should read the Bible , and the Quran, and the Hadeths,and the Vatican 2 , and the councils,and Darwin,lll three of them, and Haeckel , and Lyell , and LaPlace, and LaMark, and Hutton,and so on.

You should study both sides of the argument and then you could discuss these subjects with me, on my level instead of waving your hands .

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 10/18/07 - Is this guy for real?

after years of telling us there is no God and the Bible is bunk John appears to have turned the corner

He said
"I on the other hand see the Bible's general message as guideline for life, without nitpicking small parts out of chapters, pages, or lines that suits my purpose.

John

Could this athiest actual read the Bible?

peddler2 answered on 10/19/07:

Perv

You have never read the Bible or Darwin.
You can't answer the simplest questions about either subject.

Of course being an atheist who do you have to answer to for lying?

You should read the Bible , and the Quran, and the Hadeths,and the Vatican 2 , and the councils,and Darwin,lll three of them, and Haeckel , and Lyell , and LaPlace, and LaMark, and Hutton,and so on.

You should study both sides of the argument and then you could discuss these subjects with me, on my level instead of waving your hands .

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/18/07 - Paraclete, holly, et al ............................................................. From a Black M

Dispelling the Black Myth

by Renee Olson

First, I want to thank my father for being here with me today. Together with my father as the ranking black priesthood holder, and me as the token black of FAIR, we absolve all of you of your white guilt and say unto you, "be healed."

Now--let's talk.

As apologists, two of the biggest concerns we deal with are the seed of Cain and blacks and the priesthood. I will address both of those issues. Now, I know these are big issues that antis use, because I used them myself when I was an anti. I thought no self-respecting black person in their right mind would ever consider joining a racist church if they only knew the truth...or at least the truth as I knew it.
My Life Before Mormonism

As many of you from the FAIR list know, I started out as an anti. I became an anti because my best friends, who lived right across the street and used to be Roman Catholic, all of a sudden became Mormon. So instead of going to mass, now they wanted me to come to homemaking. I went to my pastor and asked if my church had any info on the Mormons because I knew nothing about them. Of course he told me to stay away from them because Mormons brainwash their people into believing they are the only correct church on the Earth and only through them can one go to heaven.

Gee, isn't that what I was taught as a Southern Baptist? Go figure!

Then I learned that two men were coming to my church from the Home Mission Board in Atlanta. They would be doing two workshops; one on Mormonism and the other on Jehovah's Witnesses. Guess which one I chose? Of course I went to the workshop on Mormonism. After taking the two-day seminar, I was told I could earn a certificate that would make me a "lay volunteer," knowledgeable in that faith group. So I took the opportunity, determined to learn all I could to help get my friends out of Mormonism.

To make a long story short, after doing my "calling" for six years, I spent another 10 in the "desert" or "wilderness" of life where my pride was completely broken down to nothing, until the Master felt I had been sufficiently softened and was ready to be used for His purposes. Now, I'm on the other side and realize just who did the brainwashing. If anyone desires to hear the whole story with all its gory details, see me later.
Mormon Myths

I want to discuss some of the myths surrounding the Mormon Church. I'm sure we've all heard that blacks didn't fight valiantly in the pre-existence. (I used to teach that one.) I've also heard that because Noah's son Ham married a black Egyptian, which was outside of the approved lineage, Ham's posterity would not hold the priesthood. Another one I've heard is that Egyptus wanted a matriarchal line rather than honoring the man as patriarch and so the priesthood was denied her people for that mistake. There's also the myth that black people just aren't as intellectually superior. Now I really take offense at that one! The fact that I've joined the Church makes me infinitely intellectually superior to any and all of our critics--including the white ones! Anyone want to add any other myths to the list?

In their book Mormon America, the Ostlings quotes Brigham Young as characterizing descendants of Cain as "black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.ŕ And these are our good points! But I swear this only happens when we're angry!

Ostling says that Young specified that the biblical "mark" God put on Cain was "the flat nose and black skin." I feel slighted! I have a European nose rather than a black nose. And by the way, one thing I'd really like to know is if one drop of black blood makes you African American, does one drop of white blood make me white European? I have good reason to ask...I'm over 35% white!

OK. I think we all know the truth of this statement about black people or, rather, the lack of truth about it. I'm sure there is no one here who thinks a black person is automatically intellectually inferior just because he's black.

Before I proceed to answer this claim, I want to share some more from other prophets/apostles to help us understand just how rampant this is. Had it been only one person, the Church could have dealt with it rather easily. But what do you do when it's General Authorities like Mark E. Petersen.

Elder Petersen, in his talk, Race Problems As They Affect The Church, said,

Is there any reason to think that the same principles of rewards and punishments did not apply to us and our deeds in the pre-existent world as will apply hereafter? Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. He is not a respecter of persons. He will mete to us according to what we deserve. With that in mind, can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States?

Well, gee, I guess I should be grateful that Heavenly Father saw fit, in His infinite mercy, to at least allow me to be born in the United States!

I submit to you, brothers and sisters, that Heavenly Father did not punish us by giving us black skin and He didn't show preference by allowing some to be born here while others endure different circumstances. Notice I didn't say bad or evil circumstances, just different. But let's continue, because I think in order to understand the priesthood ban, we must understand the prevailing attitudes of the day.

Elder Petersen goes on to talk about how the Lord separated the races and we shouldn't have brought them together again. He further reiterates the Church's stand on interracial marriage by saying,

We must not inter-marry with the Negro. There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!

(I wonder how many people in this audience have done their genealogies only to find out they have a black relative somewhere. Hmmm...)

Oh, and speaking of intermarriage? Brigham Young said,

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.2

Let's not tell my white husband about that one! And let's definitely not tell the father of my children--he's white too!

Now that we've heard from Brigham Young, let's hear from someone more modern, like Bruce R. McConkie. In his wonderful book, Mormon Doctrine, we read,

Cain, Ham and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not inter-marry.3

Here, Elder McConkie hits both the curse and the fact that the races shouldn't mix.

At the time both of these Elders wrote these things, they had already been ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve, so we can't say they didn't know any better. However, let me ask you this: Does an apostle of the Lord speak for the whole Church? No. Only the prophet can do that. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped General Authorities from making damaging remarks.

Another unfortunate thing is that lay people, as well as our critics, either don't know or don't care. The statements were made by someone "in authority" whom we all sustain as "prophets, seers, and revelators."
Dealing with Charges of Racism

What are we supposed to do when someone makes an accusation against our Church leaders, either past or present, of being a racist? Agree with them--they certainly won't be expecting that! But, by agreeing with them, all the "arguments" cease, and you can begin to really teach them. If you disagree and try to defend the Church, you're already fighting a losing battle. Our Church leaders have made more than enough damning remarks to give our critics all the ammunition they need to accuse the Church of racism.

Now that we've agreed there is just cause for accusing the Church of racism, how do we deal with that? Well, I think we need to understand that our Church leaders are human. As a matter of fact, they are human first and Apostles second. As human beings and children of their Heavenly Father, they are entitled to their own thoughts, opinions and feelings, just like anyone else. Just because one is ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve doesn't mean Heavenly Father all of the sudden imparts all of His wisdom and knowledge to them! I think we also have to operate from the premise that no General Authority would intentionally do or say anything to deliberately hurt the cause of Christ.

Now, before I go on, I just have to add this one. It's a favorite of mine. After the 1978 revelation, Elder McConkie wrote, "Negro members of the Church may now perform missionary service and should bear the burdens of the kingdom equally with all other members of the Church." Just who did he think was bearing the bigger burden before? Hello!

It's not only General Authorities that have made damaging remarks or have written less than stellar books, but lay people have also gotten in the act. For example, the book, The Church and the Negro, by John Lund, is not a book I would recommend. He not only perpetuates the myth of blacks not being valiant in the pre-existence, but also blatantly speaks out of turn by saying that any white person who marries a Negro and has children with them forfeits their crown in heaven as well as a whole "nation of Priesthood holders." Books such as this are outdated and should not be referred to. Yes, it does have some correct information; but overall, the book is antiquated.

As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that except for the scriptures, anything written before 1978 that speaks of blacks should be avoided. This is why we have a living prophet on the Earth today. As Latter-day Saints, we have the most up-to-date information available. Even Elder McConkie said to forget everything said before, because the Lord had now revealed new light to man. We have to give him credit for that. His views before the ban was lifted may have seemed racist, but his attitude was on target for an apostle of the Lord. No matter how we as individuals may feel about something, when the Lord speaks, we are expected to listen, which means bringing our thinking in line with His.
The Priesthood Ban

Why the ban? The official statement from the Church is, "We don't know." However, we did not say the Lord instituted the ban. As a matter of fact, there is nowhere in scripture that says the Lord banned blacks from holding the priesthood. We know He allowed it because He didn't put a stop to it. He could have spoken at any time to His servant Joseph Smith or any of his successors. He didn't. Nor did the Lord speak up when the priesthood was confirmed on Elijah Abel. Now it's been said (again, another myth) that the priesthood was confirmed on Elijah because he was a light-skinned black man and they mistook him for white. But when it was found out that Elijah was, in fact, a black man, he was stripped of his priesthood. Berrett says he was, "one-eighth Negro and light of color.Ř This myth, as my father will attest, is not true. Elijah died a full priesthood holder as well as faithful member of the Church.

What can we logically conclude from this? Only that the Lord knew of the ban, but did nothing to stop it. As to the exact reason why, only He knows.

But after much prayer and many talks with God, I think I might have an answer. Now, mind you, this is the "gospel according to Renee." This isn't something any General Authority has said, so I take full responsibility for my feelings. And speaking as a black LDS, this explanation has helped me more than any other...

The Lord has tried many times to make Himself known to His people. Since the beginning of our world, I believe His biggest wish is for all of His children to make it back to Him. But in coming to this world, we were given free agency. And sad as is it may be, not all of Heavenly Father's children have used their free agency wisely. Christ Himself dealt with much opposition. The apostles dealt with opposition. Christians have always dealt with opposition. Finally, God had had enough, and when the last priesthood holder died, that was it! No more priesthood on the Earth...until the Church was restored.

We aren't saying there were no more believers in Christ; there were--there always have been. But being a believer and having the priesthood are two entirely different things! The priesthood was now missing. Why the Lord chose to wait all those years to restore the Church, I don't know. But He did, and now that He was ready to restore the Church, He still had to deal with the issues of the day. Slavery had not yet been abolished. So, Heavenly Father worked around it. He went ahead with His plans to reorganize His Church again. Remember, this would be the last time He did this on our Earth before the return of Christ.

Black people had been calling on God for years. They were already a tried and proven people. They were faithful in the midst of hardships. They had survived slavery; they had survived the taskmasters, they had survived the whip, the beatings, the hangings, the selling of their children. Heavenly Father knew He could count on them. So even though He didn't give the word for the priesthood ban, He used it to further His purposes.

Sure enough, the people who had been calling on Him all through their days of slavery didn't let Him down. When they heard the Gospel call, they responded. Saints like Jane Elizabeth Manning James, Elijah Abel, Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Samuel Chambers were among those who heard the Gospel message and responded. And since then, black people have continued to hear His call and respond to His voice.
The Curse of Cain

Brothers and sisters, black skin isn't a curse. The curse of Cain was eternal separation from God. The curse was never being allowed back in the Father's presence. The curse was knowing that he (Cain) had listened to the wrong voice and failed his mortal mission. That was the curse, not the skin. The dark skin was given as a protection. As my father has so beautifully taught me, black skin isn't a curse, it's a calling. I'd like to think that in the pre-existence, when told I had the opportunity to come to Earth, I chose this skin color just like I'm told I chose my parents (although I'm not so sure about that one). My father and I agree that we've become rather partial to our black skin and certainly hope we take it with us to the next life. After all, we make black look good!

I have a poem here written by Margaret Blair Young entitled He Gifted Us Our Race. Even though Sister Young is white, I think her poem accurately describes our feelings.

It's not a curse but a gift t'us,
The best path we could seek
A place where God can lift us
We kneel; our knees is weak

And when one of us is kneelin',
We understand his fears.
We know what all us is feelin'
We cry each other's tears.

That's just what Jesus done
For all us human folk.
He agreed to come get born
To feel ever' pain and poke.

So's he could understand us,
What it is to be a slave.
So's he could get beneath us
And push us outa the grave

Would you rather be the massa
Or the Roman with his whip?
Would you rather nail the Savior--
Put vinegar to his lip?

Or learn the lessons of sufferin'--
How we nothin' without grace.
Jesus, He give us a callin'
He gifted us our race.

Just makes ya wish ya were black, huh?
Moving Forward

I'd like to move on to some other issues, if I may, before my time runs out.

How can we as a Church break down the barriers and move the Lord's work forward? Well, first of all, we can begin to show respect for each other. By that I mean respect for each other's culture, language, rites, customs, etc. Black culture is not white culture. Black music, better known as gospel music, is not white music, better known as contemporary Christian music. When black people join this Church, they often (not always, but often) have a great deal of adjusting to do. When was the last time you heard some good black gospel singing in your ward? A few years ago, a senior sister missionary actually told me that we can't have black music in Church because black music isn't reverent! Excuse me!? Telling someone the music of their culture isn't reverent before God is not a good way to start, nor is it showing respect for that person's culture. How many of you have heard of Soul Saints before? This is an LDS group that sings the hymns of the Church with a bit of rhythm.

Another thing we can do is keep our hearts and minds open to people of other cultures and faiths. I'm not only talking about black people, but anyone! I was made to quit trying to destroy the Church and then subsequently brought into the fold because someone dared to get to know me, befriend me, understand me, and most importantly accept me where I was for who I was without judging me or my current beliefs. We need to stay open and listen to the Spirit more, and then be willing to obey that still small voice. There are still many of the old traditions and myths being taught in the homes of Church members during family home evening. And although many of you here today would probably say you don't have a problem with racism or people of other cultures, ask yourself how you would feel if your son or daughter came home and told you they'd fallen in love with someone of African-American or Chinese descent or some other culture or ethnic group you find less than desirable. Are you still okay with it? Of course if you just said to yourself, "I don't find any group 'less than desirable,"' then congratulations, you're probably well on your way to being part of the solution. If however, you sat there and actually had to think about that; then maybe you need to start with yourself and truly examine your own feelings before trying to help others. Ask Heavenly Father to show you where your issues are and help you to deal with them. Then help your brothers and sisters.

How can we drop racial barriers and come together? The quickest and easiest way I know of is get over it! Realize we're all God's children and He loves us all the same. In working at the Nauvoo Temple dedication I realized in a very real way that Heavenly Father loves little ole me just as much as He loves the prophet or any apostle. He looked out for me in wondrous ways and gave me miraculous on-the-spot answers to my prayers.

How do you fellowship a black person? Good question, cause ya'll know we can whip that "black attitude" out in a heartbeat, huh? Stop being afraid of a color! Realize there's a person under that skin color. A person just like you with fears, hopes, dreams, and issues. We all have issues. The best thing you can do when you see a black person or anyone new come to your ward for the first time is go up and introduce yourself. Ask if they need help, are they here searching for someone, can you help them find anything. I've been to some wards that were so friendly I felt like I was home. I attended a deaf ward in Salt Lake City on a fast and testimony Sunday. I was made to feel so at home that I felt comfortable giving my testimony and even volunteered to say the closing prayer in Relief Society. Those sisters made me feel right at home. That's the way it should be everywhere.

When I was back home in Ft. Madison, Iowa, I took my grandmother with me to Enrichment Night. It was her first time in the LDS Church, even though they meet in the Community of Christ building. She even made a dish to be served at the dinner. It was awesome! Even though that ward had never had a black person before, those sisters made my grandmother feel welcome. They talked with her and she got to know all of them. When Sunday rolled around, I invited her to come to Church with me. She came. Why? Because those sister made her want to come back. When we got to Church, the sisters who had come to enrichment the week before already knew her and were quick to come up and welcome her to Church. She actually stayed all three hours with me and had a wonderful time sharing some of her wisdom in Relief Society. Now, she's been put in touch with the full-time missionaries and has volunteered to help the sisters with whatever she can do.

You see, she had just as many issues about the Church as some of our members do with blacks. Before I even came, she (my grandmother) told her best friend that I was coming and we'd all be going through the Nauvoo Temple together. Her friend asked if I was black and was totally astonished when my grandmother said yes, I was black and LDS. Her friend (who was white) had no idea there were black members of the Church, even today! This is sad!

There are still some people out there (white and black) who still haven't heard the ban has been lifted. There are still some people out there who think blacks can't join the LDS Church. There are still some people out there who think the LDS Church is racist. We know the truth, so it's up to us to be proactive and do something about it. First, we start at home. We make sure that we ourselves are living up to the Lord's standard; that our thoughts and feelings are in line with His own. Then we deal with our families. Are we teaching correct principles in family home evening? Do we teach our children to be friendly to everyone at Church or school, including those who are different?

The next time a black person or someone of a different persuasion comes to your ward, what will you do? Can you see past the color to the person, the child of God inside? Can you just go up to them and introduce yourself and offer a helping hand? Can you open your mind and your heart to ways that might seem different from your own? Can you listen to music or hymns with a beat you're not quite used to and still think it reverent? Are you open to having a new experience with people you've never met? Are you willing to humble yourself and be teachable and learn from someone of another race, ethnic group or background?

Recognize that not all of us are in the same place in our spiritual growth. It doesn't matter if we're white, black or whatever. We all have to pass this Test of Life. Our "tests" are individualized, so our trials will be different. Don't let race be a stumbling block for you in your test anymore.


If you would like to hear this presentation on audio CD, you can order a copy by clicking on this link. The CD is great for listening to and sharing with friends. Your purchase also helps to support FAIR and its mission.

Notes

1 Richard Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2000), 100.

2 Ostling and Ostling, Mormon America, 101.

3 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 114.

4 William E. Berrett, "The Church and the Negroid People," quoted in John J. Stewart, Mormonism and the Negro, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960).





FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

If you like what FAIR does and you agree with our mission, we invite you to support FAIR in any way you are able. You can make a donation, or visit our Membership page for additional support ideas. FAIR only succeeds through the efforts of our gracious volunteers.

peddler2 answered on 10/19/07:

Fair is a joke.
Mormonism was founded by wacko's that said God cursed black people. Mormonisn is Satanic as it tries to cast doubt on God's word by inventing another gospel and claiming the Bible was so completely destroyed that we need a convicted conman to tell us what to believe.

They said God told them that blacks were cursed. By trying to wash that under the rug like you did with polygamy when the US Government was ready to drive them into the sea you are admitting again Mormonism is a lie from hell..

When you said polygamy was no longer allowed {until you get to become god} you were admitting that had nothing to do with it . This is no different. You are admitting your so called prophets are evil lying men who have no knowledge of the living God.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/18/07 - Burden of proof

............................

As so many on this board seem to have problems with understanding what proof actually is, hereby the Wikipedia explanation of "burden of proof" (logical fallacy).

In philosophy, the term burden of proof refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe.

All logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their conclusions to follow, and most logical arguments require a certain level of informality to be stated in a compact and comprehensible form.[1] Therefore it is always possible to seek to discredit an idea by suggesting that the Burden of Proof should be set to an inappropriately high level. For example when behaviourism was the dominant ideology in the study of animal behaviour, but social conditioning was dominant in human behaviour according to Mary Midgley.

there was a remarkable discrepancy between what was treated as a parsimonious explanation for a piece of human behaviour and what could count as such when the behaviour was of some other animal. The practice was that, in the human case, the normal, indeed practically the only, licensed form of explanation was in terms of culture or of free deliberate choice, or both. Anyone who suggested that an inborn tendency might be even a contributing factor in human choices tended to be denounced as a fascist. The burden of proof was accordingly laid entirely on this suggestion, and it was made impossibly heavy. To put it another way, any explanation that invoked culture, however vague, abstract, far-fetched, infertile and implausible, tended to be readily accepted, while any explanation in terms of innate tendencies, however careful, rigorous, well-documented, limited and specific tended to be ignored. In animal psychology, however, the opposite situation reigned. Here, what was taboo was the range of concepts that describes the conscious, cognitive side of experience. The preferred, safe kind of explanation here derived from ideas of innate programming and mechanical conditioning. If anything cognitive was mentioned, standards of rigour at once soared into a stratosphere where few arguments could hope to follow.[2]

The logical fallacy which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side.

Any comments?

John


peddler2 answered on 10/18/07:

Answers.com does not impress me but the statement:

" In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side."

make some sense. The farthest thing from common sense I can think of is to believe that events that are so far beyond the real of possibility to happen by chance such as spontaneous generation that they would have to be a qradrillion,qradrillion,
qradrillion,qradrillion times more likely to be considered at the level of absurdity {10x1 to the 50th power} .
Paintings don't paint themselves,books don't write themselves and nothing can create it self.
In order to create itself it would have to pre-exist itself. Thst is a really dumb thought.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/17/07 - Food supply and bio fuels

......................
A MORAL PROBLEM

The benefits of biofuels are in the balance. They've been touted as a "green gold" and embraced as a means to reduce vehicle carbon dioxide emissions. But on closer inspection, are they the green saviour they've been claimed to be and what are their wider impact on global food supplies and economic development?
Governments across the world have thrown their weight behind biofuels. But what are the consequences for the world food supply and the problems for farmers?

CLEAN, BUT IS IT GREEN?

There are two main types of biofuels, bioethanol and biodiesel, which can be derived from a number of different biomass, such as sugar cane, rapeseed, wheat and some grasses.

FOOD vs. FUEL

Here is the MORAL ISSUE : According to U.N. figures, there are two billion hectares of degraded land that could be put into production for energy crops. Using this fallow land across the world might be able to off-set some worries over deforestation and also the other big issue currently surrounding biofuels; the food vs. fuel conflict.

It could mean the end of grain mountains, the result of overproduction and farming subsidies but will also raise prices of food.

"Much has been made of rising grain prices in the last few months, which may in part have been driven by biofuel crop production and suggests that the biofuels aren't being grown on land that is fallow," says Spracklen.

There have already been flashpoints attributed by some to the growing food vs. fuel debate. A rise in the price of corn flour in Mexico at the beginning of 2007, led to protests and the so-called "tortilla riots." More expensive flour was blamed on the U.S.'s switch to energy crops, reducing the exports to Mexico.

Skeptics and pro-biofuel groups do agree on one point; better management of land and energy crops is needed to ensure better rewards for farmers and protect the environment.

What do you think?

Link to the extended supporting article

John


peddler2 answered on 10/18/07:

I see nuclear,wind and the improvement of photovolatics making a bigger impact that biofuels

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/16/07 - I'm going to make at least 2 people happy.

I'm going to be gone for several days.
That should please at least 2 people here.
I wont be around to keep minding them about who and what they are.
But I do wish peace and kindness to all.
May you all have or find it.

peddler2 answered on 10/17/07:

Fred

Jesus Christ said that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. Jesus Christ said you must believe everything Moses said.

You deny that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning and you say Moses was too stupid for God to have told him the truth about creation.

That is a fact. If you accept the Big Bang you deny Moses and therefore Jesus Christ as well. You worship the atheist scientist and the atheist Ratzinger , not Jesus.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JesseJamesDupree asked on 10/16/07 - freethunker...............

You are an old dutch dumbass.

peddler2 answered on 10/17/07:

freethunker! LOL!!!!!!!!

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/16/07 - Ancient reptile tracks unearthed

......................
Ancient reptile tracks unearthed, providing new insight on evolution, and evidence for a very old earth.

The earliest evidence for the existence of reptiles has been found in Canada.

The 315 million-year-old fossilised tracks give an insight into a key milestone in the history of life, when animals left water to live on dry land.

The footprints suggest reptiles evolved between one and three million years earlier than previously thought.

They were found by UK scientist Dr Howard Falcon-Lang in fossil-rich sea cliffs at New Brunswick. "The discovery was pure luck," he said.

"As I walked along remote sea-cliffs at the end of a long day in the field, I passed a recent rock fall.

"One large slab of rock was covered with hundreds of fossil footprints! The Sun was low in the sky and I probably wouldn't have seen them if it hadn't been for the shadows," the University of Bristol researcher explained.

Diverse ecology

The ancient trackway gives an insight into a time when invertebrates were evolving through amphibians to reptiles.

Artist's reconstruction of the trackmaker (Image: Steve Greb, Kentucky Geological Society)

The origin of reptiles, in particular the appearance of eggs protected by a shell, allowed four-legged animals to avoid having to go back into water to lay eggs, heralding life on dry land.

"The evolution of reptiles was one of the most important events in the whole history of life," Dr Falcon-Lang told BBC News.

"That paved the way for the diverse ecology that we have on our planet today."

Scientists believe the tracks preserved in sandstone were left by reptiles gathering around a watering hole on river plains that were dry for at least part of the year.

List of suspects

Using a bit of biological detective work, Dr Falcon-Lang and colleagues in the UK and Canada tracked down the likely maker of the footprints.

"There were only a few species capable of making prints like this around at the time so we came up with a shortlist of suspects," said Professor Mike Benton, also of the University of Bristol, who co-authored the study.

"However, the prints showed that the hands had five fingers and scales, sure evidence they were made by reptiles and not amphibians."

The most likely contender was a lizard-like reptile named Hylonomus lyelli after the 19th Century geologist Sir Charles Lyell.

Until now, the oldest evidence for reptiles was thought to be skeletal fossils of the creature found in 1859 by William Dawson.

Dr Falcon-Lang said the new material was found in the same general region of an area of rock formation known as Joggins but at a level almost a kilometre below Dawson's discovery.

"Consequently we can be confident the footprints are older than the skeletons," he said.

"The most likely track-maker was the Hylonomus lyelli reptile we know from the slightly later remains at Joggins," he added.

The results of the study are published in the Journal of the Geological Society of London.

Link to supporting article

John


peddler2 answered on 10/17/07:

Perv
How do you know how old they are? Where you there?
Unless you can demonstrate and explain how these dates were arrived at then it is simply a religious belief, not science.
Not only must you show how those dates could be known but you must do it without making a single assumption. I challemge you to do it with less than three.

Why do you keep making these definitive statements with nothing whatsoever to back them up?

If the new "dates" are millions of years different than the old ones it should make you a bit uneasy to proclaim these as true as they will change again. Of course that would involve integrity which does not exist in the atheist worldview.

Why do assume that everyone is naive as you and will blindly accept these dates? If you had a clue how radiometric dating works you have never demonstrated it. Just a big mouth and long arms that you wave as you jump up and down on your soapbox and wave like a baboon.



JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/16/07 - I'm going to make at least 2 people happy.

I'm going to be gone for several days.
That should please at least 2 people here.
I wont be around to keep minding them about who and what they are.
But I do wish peace and kindness to all.
May you all have or find it.

peddler2 answered on 10/16/07:

Your fellow atheists will miss you.
I hope you don't die on your trip as you have denied Christ is God and will go to hell if you do not repent first.

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

That is what Jesus said, of course you don't really care what Jesus said.
He says you don't believe Him , that should scare you. The reason it does not is that you are a non-believer, an atheist.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/16/07 - Abusive pedliar2 is losing it!


......................

This board has a new follower of JesseJamesDupree's multiple postings abuse :

pedliar2

The Question Board dated 10/15/07 shows :

Are any of you Atheists and New Agers compete... peddler2 10/15/07 0
Are any of you Atheists and New Agers compete... peddler2 10/15/07 0

To Ladybug the atheists brown noser. - When D.... peddler2 10/15/07 0
To Ladybug the atheists brown noser. - When D.... peddler2 10/15/07 0
To Ladybug the atheists brown noser. - When D.... peddler2 10/15/07 0
To Ladybug the atheists brown noser. - When D.... peddler2 10/15/07 0

Fred and Prince Support Satan - Recently the ....... peddler2 10/15/07 0
Fred and Prince Support Satan - Recently the ....... peddler2 10/15/07 0
Fred and Prince Support Satan - Recently the ....... peddler2 10/15/07 0
Fred and Prince Support Satan - Recently the ....... peddler2 10/15/07 0

This can not be blamed on a slow browser, a slow internet, or a slow server.
The real reason is that this is done deliberately by pedliar2.

Conclusion : abusive pedliar2 is losing it!

John


peddler2 answered on 10/16/07:

Actually lightning fried the modem in my desktop and for some reason my laptop makes no indication that it received the command.
I know you won't accept that and frankly the personal feelings of a gutless monster that advacates human babies be fed to wild animals in the coliseum mean nothing to me.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 10/16/07 - Apologies offered

......................

Somewhere I must have made a small mistake, leaving a tag open sowhere.
However : new messages are not affected by it, so it soon will fade out of sight.
I checked, but all previous messages turn out to be still accessable for reading and comment.
It's just a lay-out distortion!

John


peddler2 answered on 10/16/07:

An apology is meaningless unless you have a sincere commitment to change your ways.
In this case an apology would mean something if you were to say I regret hacking the board like a spoiled , mean spirited teenager and will cease and desist.

You have never truly admitted your were wrong or apologized for a single thing that I know of. For instance you stilll deny that Darwin taught we came from monkeys. I showed you it is the case and you know it is but you are too small of a person to admit your basic ignorance of your own religion not to mention mine so you live a lie instead.
Grow up little boy.

ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 10/15/07 - LADYBUG!

Is there someone in your sphere who can DELETE THE SPAM TRASH ON THIS BOARD?

Also, A MONITOR such as we experienced on AskMe.com would eliminate the hate; the spam, the attacks, etc..................

Thanks,
Bobbye

peddler2 answered on 10/15/07:

And who appointed you the high preist of truth? I thought Fred had that job for life.

Everyone has an opinion. God's opinion is that His word is true from the beginning but you deny that.

Any one who points out the fact that your views are anti-Biblical and therefore anti-Christian you wish to silence.

Why not start a new board for non Bible believers ? This is the Christianity board not the politically correct home of the social gospel.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/15/07 - What do you think about this??????????????????????????

PREDICTION NOW A REALITY: "MOMS & DADS" BANNED IN CAL. SCHOOLS



By Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
October 15, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
What started out as a prediction less than one year ago has become a reality thanks to California's lawmakers and liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In December 2006, author and political consultant Nathan Tabor wrote a story about the words "mom" and "dad" being banned in the United Kingdom. The British law prohibits nurses and hospitals from using the terms "mom," "dad," "wife," "husband," or "married."
"As part of Britain's National Health Service's new, politically correct policy guide, use of the above terms is considered homophobic and therefore requires anti-homophobic rules for their health care workers. Therefore, words such as mum and dad are banned," Tabor quoted a reporter from England's Daily Mail as saying.
Tabor ended his story about Britain's path to political correctness by stating, "If Americans think these activities are peculiar to the United Kingdom, they better think again."
"Surprisingly, it's taken less than a year for this politically-correct insanity to reach the United States. I knew it would happen; I just didn't suspect it would happen this quickly," said political consultant Michael Baker.
The terms "mom and dad" are now completely banned in California's school system and teachers are being ordered to use euphemisms for those terms. In addition, "husband and wife" are also banned under this new law signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. The newly signed law also mandates public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose to do so.
"With this decision, Gov. Schwartzeneggr has told parents that their values are irrelevant," said Police Lieutenant Steve Rogers, former president of Cops for Christ.
"When are parents going to wake up and pull their children out of the public schools?" he asked rhetorically.
"This is the kind of activity that is replacing real teaching in government schools," claims a Northern New Jersey public school teacher and administrator who requested anonymity for fear of retribution from the Board of Education and the teachers' union officials.
"We [teachers] give the kids lunches, we teach them how to use condoms, we instruct them about sex including gay sex, we simulate Islam, and in our spare time we teach our pupils how to read and write," she said.
"More and more Americans are starting to wake up to find their country and its traditions being slowly torn down by those who worship at the altar of the politically-correct orthodoxy," claims political strategist Baker.
"I shudder to think how millions of California children will be led astray, how marriage will be destroyed, and how immorality will step on the neck of morality when Governor Schwarzenegger signs five anti-family bills into law. The 'Terminator' has signed a very bad bill!" said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families.
"Meanwhile, homosexuals are given a free hand to do whatever they want to America's little children. They know that the church leadership is totally asleep at the wheel, said a New Jersey Methodist pastor.
"As The saying goes: when the cat's away, the mice will play," he added.
With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers.
Thomasson is disappointed with California's Christian pastors and elders. In the last five days, many individuals and several businesses have responded to CCF's action alert. However, to date, only one church out of thousands, has faxed in veto letters to the liberal Schwarzenegger's office in Sacramento.

peddler2 answered on 10/15/07:

This is the result of the loss of Biblical authority. It is the result of the church Kowtowing to the atheist over what they call science.
Millions of years of earth history and evolution have been accepted as fact by the liberal apostate churches from the RCC to the United Methodist. Once you allow the Satanic idea of questioning God and His word it is slippery slide downhill.
The problem is not with the liberal politicians it is with New Age Christians who exchange the truth of God for a lie.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/14/07 - To all Anti-Mormons here. Others please leave alone. Thank you.





Telling lies is not the way to get me to listen to your message of 'Christian love' nor will it persuade me that you have anything of spiritual, social, or intellectual value to offer me that rises to the high level of spiritual, social, and intellectual values that are held dear to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints as requisite parts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many ultra-conservative evangelical Protestant anti-Mormon critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also reject the title, declaring with varying degrees of plausibility that, while they despise Mormonism, they have "nothing but love for the Mormon people."

The Anti-Mormon Chorus will now sing, "Love Hurts!"

As I look at the troubles in the world, I am convinced that they all stem from lack of genuine love for one another. When love is displaced by greed, hatred, or desire for power, people suffer.

When a people are carefully selected for negative attention there is no godly principle at work, however much the practitioners of such enmity plead to one another that they are acting only out of a spirit of love and concern for the eternal welfare of those they choose to denounce, insult, demean, put down, and slander. Such attitudes and behaviours are positive marks of anti-Christs.

All the special pleading in or out of the world cannot change expressions of hate into vessels of love. That argument does not hold water and runs counter to scripture.

What shall we say then, as a final anti-Mormons Lie? Shall all anti-Mormons agree among themselves that Mormons must act like Christians even though Anti-Mormons are alleviated from acting in Christ-like ways, and even as anti-Mormons, singly or in groups, attack Mormons with unusual ferocity and without the Christian virtues of love, mercy, and brotherly kindness, that if a Mormon under their attack does not turn the other cheek and absorb their lies and abuse, that he is then to be further abused for behaving in an unchristian manner, and that the unchristian manners of the anti-Mormons are overlooked by God and also by Jesus Christ?

This is exactly what happens here. Will at least one Anti-Mormon show me biblical justification for this double standard, so that I can lie down and let you defecate all over me, and do it with equanimity knowing that I am at last behaving like a Christian according to your understanding of Christian behaviour based on what you can draw from the pages of the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ?

Will I obtain your several and joint approvals if, like Jesus, I open not my mouth against my tormentors?

Finally, is it possible to ask a serious question and have it answered directly without it being used as merely another occasion for anti-Mormons to heap more abuse on my head and ignore the substance of the question? Is that how your versions of Christianity works?


peddler2 answered on 10/15/07:

The only lies that have been told are the ones you tell to yourself.
The deceipt is that you are shown from LDS and numerous other reliable historical sources what a farce Mormonism is and you refuse to acknowledge them.

No ones expects you to change they just pray you do so you won't go to hell.
Even more importantly that you don't drag anyone else with you.

You deliberatley misrepresent the Bible, The BOM,The Jornal of Discourses,Doctrines and Covenants, The Pearl and anything else you can think of.

Iy like talking to a four year old with a face full of cookie crumbs denying they stole a cookie. We post the words of Smith, Young and others and you say it is not so.
What makes you tick?

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 10/14/07 - Back and rarin' to go.

Start cleaning up your acts, children. Daddy is back and ready to start kicking butt. You bigots and hate mongers have had free reign for too long. You Mormon bashers have had your last free bash. You spammers have had your last free spam. You lukewarm Christians who hand out petty threats to John, (but refuse to address the depravity of 'the hollow holly' who delights in multiple posting of Nazi icons; 'the fish peddler' whose bait is bigotry and hate rhetoric; 'Toms666 AntiChrist' who hides behind his perversion of the words of Scripture to spew his bile against all who are not a part of his cultish brand of Christian fundamentalism; 'Jesse James Depraved' whose obscenities have NEVER been roundly condemned by any except the NON-CHRISTIANS on this board, and the newest member of the lunatic fringe 'self-server' who is merely one more cloned alias;) are as useless to this board as any brain dead religious fanatic is to True Christianity.

Get ready: "The Times They ARE a'changin."

peddler2 answered on 10/15/07:

Did your insurance run out? Those sanitariums aren't cheap. Did the electro-shock help any?

Your pet dog Fred already has his nose up your kazoo, nothing has changed except when you are gone JJD is gone.

No one here has ever defended Holly but you accept Pervs spam . I think you are JJD.

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/14/07 - Hinckley: Mormon's Follow Different Jesus

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"
(Source: Current Mormon President Hinckley, LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )

peddler2 answered on 10/15/07:

Funny how the winds of change plow. Now the pagans claim to be Christians. What next? Hindu's,Christian Scientist or maybe the servants of Alfred E. Newman?

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jn17.3 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/13/07 - Bobbye, Do you believe this scripture?

Ezek 3:18-21
18 When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. 20 Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul."
NKJV

Acts 20:30-32
31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. 3
NKJV

2 Tim 4:1-5
4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
NKJV

peddler2 answered on 10/13/07:

Sadly most of the 'Christians' here are New Agers who reject the authority of the Bible and it's God and replace it with the humanistic social gospel.

That is anti-Christian . They cannot stand Bible believers even though they claim to worship one.
Jesus favorite argument was have you not read but most deny His word completely.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/13/07 - Brigham Young: Jewish Blood Transfusion

"Joseph said that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their veins,
and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the revolution and change
in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to
think they were going into fits."
(Source: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:269)

peddler2 answered on 10/13/07:

I think Young was a drunk who set around betting the other "prophets" of Mororni that there was nothing he could tell the Mormons they would not buy.
Apparently he never lost.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 10/12/07 - "WHAT BOARD IS THIS...DA, DA, DA, DA, DA?'

(1) HATE THE MORMONS BOARD?

(2) LYNCH THE FUNDAMENTALISTS BOARD?

(3) BURN THE PAGANS AT THE STAKE BOARD?

(4) DENY THAT THIS "CHRISTIANITY BOARD" HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTAINS BOARD?

(5) DECLARE CATHOLICISM AS 'THE ANTI-CHRIST' BOARD?

And all of this hatred in the name of religions; your God; my God; someone else's god, etc., etc.!

How did this Board sink to this level?

"And they shall know that ye are my disciples (Jesus') if you have love one for another."
Bobbye

peddler2 answered on 10/12/07:

Well Bobbye state your case. This is certainly not the board for those who lack commitment.


1. Do you believe that Mormons who deny that Jesus is God are Christians?
Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said here:

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Christians believe the Bible so they believe Jesus meant exactly what He said and the fact that Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is God means they will ALL go to hell when they die. Are you a Christian?

What is hate in your book?

1. Exposing the truth of what Mormonism teaches?
2. Not caring that millions of people will suffer an eternity in hell ?

Fundamentalists are supposed to be hated,Jesus Christ made that plain.

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

The Bible is very plainly written but few believe it.

I don't recall anyone wanting to burn pagans , however it has been suggested Christians should be fed to the lions and imprisoned for believing the Bible.

Sadly most of the participants here are either outright atheists, pagans, or New Age "Christians".

Considering the resident Catholic has proclaimed Mormons Christians , defends atheistic evolution and boldly claims what Jesus Christ said in the Bible is not true then that Catholic is anti-Christian.

Christianity is the only true religion. Some people who claim it as their own don't actually believe that. Do you?

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 10/12/07 - "WHAT BOARD IS THIS...DA, DA, DA, DA, DA?'

(1) HATE THE MORMONS BOARD?

(2) LYNCH THE FUNDAMENTALISTS BOARD?

(3) BURN THE PAGANS AT THE STAKE BOARD?

(4) DENY THAT THIS "CHRISTIANITY BOARD" HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTAINS BOARD?

(5) DECLARE CATHOLICISM AS 'THE ANTI-CHRIST' BOARD?

And all of this hatred in the name of religions; your God; my God; someone else's god, etc., etc.!

How did this Board sink to this level?

"And they shall know that ye are my disciples (Jesus') if you have love one for another."
Bobbye

peddler2 answered on 10/12/07:

Well Bobbye state your case. This is certainly not the board for those who lack commitment.


1. Do you believe that Mormons who deny that Jesus is God are Christians?
Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said here:

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Christians believe the Bible so they believe Jesus meant exactly what He said and the fact that Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is God means they will ALL go to hell when they die. Are you a Christian?

What is hate in your book?

1. Exposing the truth of what Mormonism teaches?
2. Not caring that millions of people will suffer an eternity in hell ?

Fundamentalists are supposed to be hated,Jesus Christ made that plain.

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

The Bible is very plainly written but few believe it.

I don't recall anyone wanting to burn pagans , however it has been suggested Christians should be fed to the lions and imprisoned for believing the Bible.

Sadly most of the participants here are either outright atheists, pagans, or New Age "Christians".

Considering the resident Catholic has proclaimed Mormons Christians , defends atheistic evolution and boldly claims what Jesus Christ said in the Bible is not true then that Catholic is anti-Christian.

Christianity is the only true religion. Some people who claim it as their own don't actually believe that. Do you?

ladybugca rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
darleneclemintine asked on 10/12/07 - comment

i haven't been here in a while but i see the hatred and intolerence is still growing everyday! oh well some take comfort in things that don't change. peace, and happy halloween to all. darlene

peddler2 answered on 10/12/07:

Promoting a druid holiday on a Christian forum is very hateful and disrespectful.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
darleneclemintine rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/12/07 - Brigham Young: President of the USA? or False prophecy?

"The Church and kingdom to which we belong will become the kingdom of our God and
his Christ, and brother Brigham Young will become President of the United States."
(Source: Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:219)

peddler2 answered on 10/12/07:

A bit confusing. If god has a christ then god would have a god.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 10/11/07 - Has he seen the light?


Top al-Qaeda terrorist finds Jesus

By staff writers

October 12, 2007 09:21am
Article from: NEWS.com.au



THE mastermind of the first terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Centre claims to have converted from Islam to Christianity.

Ramzi Yousef, a self-proclaimed Muslim extremist, plotted with others to blow up the twin towers in lower Manhattan. Six people died in the February 26, 1993, bombing.

Yousef was sentenced to life in prison plus 240 years for the New York bombing and another on a Philippines Airlines plane in 1994 in which a Japanese man died.

A report to be broadcast on 60 Minutes in the US this weekend claims Yousef has now converted to Christianity but the former warden of the supermax prison in Colorado has scoffed at the claims.

The prison in Florence houses the nation's toughest and most infamous criminals, such as Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph, would-be 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols and shoe bomber Richard Reid.

60 Minutes obtained exclusive footage of prisoners inside the facility, where special-case prisoners spend 23 hours a day in their cells.

Robert Hood, its warden from 2002 to 2005, told 60 Minutes Yousef was a special case.

He never left his cell because he did not want to face the indignity of a strip search required for recreation, he said.

When told that Yousef had begun leaving his cell and now claimed to be a Christian, Mr Hood said: "He's playing a game with someone. If he's doing that, he's doing it for the reaction ... he is the real deal.

posted without comment

peddler2 answered on 10/11/07:

I seems unlikely a Muslim would lie about that.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/09/07 - The Primitive Church believed and taught faithful Christians could become Gods

Father Chrysostom MacDonell:

"It is important here, though, to realise that, from the Orthodox perspective, the fall of man, as a biblical concept, is not a tumultuous plummeting into the depths of degradation; this is not the utter depravity of man found in Calvin. This idea is rooted in Augustine of Hippo, the prime mover of Western Theology, who perceived something called ‘Original Sin’ being passed on through the natural reproductive process; something with which we all become tainted in the course of nature.

"Eastern Theology, on the other hand, sees the Fall as a stumbling, an error, even if bearing tragic results. Yet this state is something that we now possess through being human by nature (essence), rather than a kind of guilt passed on in the course of nature, i.e. by the sexual act of our own progenitors.

"How, therefore, is man restored, becomes the theological problem that we face. In the Fall, man has not lost, in Orthodox thinking, the image of God; it has, rather, been covered up by the present human condition in this world. We have, however, certainly lost the second part of the biblical description: the likeness of God. It is precisely because we would become like God, knowing good and evil, that we lost paradise, lest we spoil that too. Banished, as St. Basil says, into this world, the aim of our life is to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, rediscovering the image, that is the icon of God within ourselves and one another and to restore the primal likeness of God.

"We are to be like God, not just as the persons – the individual consciousnesses that we are, but also to acquire by grace the nature, the essence of God. As St. Peter says: (II Peter 1:3-4)

"His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

"This brings us to the very heart of the Orthodox understanding of what it means to be human and what our calling is, in the mind of the philanthropic God.

"The purpose of our life is not merely the beatific vision of God, but to become God: deification, theosis. As St. Athanasius says:

"He (Christ) assumed a human body, that, having renewed it as its creator, he might deify it in himself…" (Contra Arianos)

"And again:

"The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine."
(De Incarnatione)

"The west has been very reticent in saying this. It is almost as if there has been a retreat here from the original vision. There has been, at the very least, a lowering of the sights. Is it rooted, yet again, in that love affair with Augustine of Hippo and his theology of guilt?
...

Is there a lingering Manichean horror at the thought of the divine nature sharing in the utter depravity of man’s fleshly life? (Once again, you might wish to blame Augustine…)

It is for this reason that the Fathers of the Church during the first four centuries had to battle so vehemently to preserve what they perceived as the apostolic vision in considering the nature, or rather, the natures of Christ. If we are to be fully saved the Redeemer had to become fully like us: of one essence with us in his humanity, but at the same time, had to be fully divine: of one essence with the Father, that he might restore our union with God, totally.

...

peddler2 answered on 10/11/07:

Prince

Christ is a title, not a last name. It refers to the expected one , the Messiah, God made flesh.
Try to remember that.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/09/07 - The Primitive Church believed and taught faithful Christians could become Gods

Father Chrysostom MacDonell:

"It is important here, though, to realise that, from the Orthodox perspective, the fall of man, as a biblical concept, is not a tumultuous plummeting into the depths of degradation; this is not the utter depravity of man found in Calvin. This idea is rooted in Augustine of Hippo, the prime mover of Western Theology, who perceived something called ‘Original Sin’ being passed on through the natural reproductive process; something with which we all become tainted in the course of nature.

"Eastern Theology, on the other hand, sees the Fall as a stumbling, an error, even if bearing tragic results. Yet this state is something that we now possess through being human by nature (essence), rather than a kind of guilt passed on in the course of nature, i.e. by the sexual act of our own progenitors.

"How, therefore, is man restored, becomes the theological problem that we face. In the Fall, man has not lost, in Orthodox thinking, the image of God; it has, rather, been covered up by the present human condition in this world. We have, however, certainly lost the second part of the biblical description: the likeness of God. It is precisely because we would become like God, knowing good and evil, that we lost paradise, lest we spoil that too. Banished, as St. Basil says, into this world, the aim of our life is to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, rediscovering the image, that is the icon of God within ourselves and one another and to restore the primal likeness of God.

"We are to be like God, not just as the persons – the individual consciousnesses that we are, but also to acquire by grace the nature, the essence of God. As St. Peter says: (II Peter 1:3-4)

"His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

"This brings us to the very heart of the Orthodox understanding of what it means to be human and what our calling is, in the mind of the philanthropic God.

"The purpose of our life is not merely the beatific vision of God, but to become God: deification, theosis. As St. Athanasius says:

"He (Christ) assumed a human body, that, having renewed it as its creator, he might deify it in himself…" (Contra Arianos)

"And again:

"The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine."
(De Incarnatione)

"The west has been very reticent in saying this. It is almost as if there has been a retreat here from the original vision. There has been, at the very least, a lowering of the sights. Is it rooted, yet again, in that love affair with Augustine of Hippo and his theology of guilt?
...

Is there a lingering Manichean horror at the thought of the divine nature sharing in the utter depravity of man’s fleshly life? (Once again, you might wish to blame Augustine…)

It is for this reason that the Fathers of the Church during the first four centuries had to battle so vehemently to preserve what they perceived as the apostolic vision in considering the nature, or rather, the natures of Christ. If we are to be fully saved the Redeemer had to become fully like us: of one essence with us in his humanity, but at the same time, had to be fully divine: of one essence with the Father, that he might restore our union with God, totally.

...

peddler2 answered on 10/11/07:

Prince

Christ is a title, not a last name. It refers to the expected one , the Messiah, God made flesh.
Try to remember that.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/09/07 - The Primitive Church believed and taught faithful Christians could become Gods

Father Chrysostom MacDonell:

"It is important here, though, to realise that, from the Orthodox perspective, the fall of man, as a biblical concept, is not a tumultuous plummeting into the depths of degradation; this is not the utter depravity of man found in Calvin. This idea is rooted in Augustine of Hippo, the prime mover of Western Theology, who perceived something called ‘Original Sin’ being passed on through the natural reproductive process; something with which we all become tainted in the course of nature.

"Eastern Theology, on the other hand, sees the Fall as a stumbling, an error, even if bearing tragic results. Yet this state is something that we now possess through being human by nature (essence), rather than a kind of guilt passed on in the course of nature, i.e. by the sexual act of our own progenitors.

"How, therefore, is man restored, becomes the theological problem that we face. In the Fall, man has not lost, in Orthodox thinking, the image of God; it has, rather, been covered up by the present human condition in this world. We have, however, certainly lost the second part of the biblical description: the likeness of God. It is precisely because we would become like God, knowing good and evil, that we lost paradise, lest we spoil that too. Banished, as St. Basil says, into this world, the aim of our life is to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, rediscovering the image, that is the icon of God within ourselves and one another and to restore the primal likeness of God.

"We are to be like God, not just as the persons – the individual consciousnesses that we are, but also to acquire by grace the nature, the essence of God. As St. Peter says: (II Peter 1:3-4)

"His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

"This brings us to the very heart of the Orthodox understanding of what it means to be human and what our calling is, in the mind of the philanthropic God.

"The purpose of our life is not merely the beatific vision of God, but to become God: deification, theosis. As St. Athanasius says:

"He (Christ) assumed a human body, that, having renewed it as its creator, he might deify it in himself…" (Contra Arianos)

"And again:

"The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine."
(De Incarnatione)

"The west has been very reticent in saying this. It is almost as if there has been a retreat here from the original vision. There has been, at the very least, a lowering of the sights. Is it rooted, yet again, in that love affair with Augustine of Hippo and his theology of guilt?
...

Is there a lingering Manichean horror at the thought of the divine nature sharing in the utter depravity of man’s fleshly life? (Once again, you might wish to blame Augustine…)

It is for this reason that the Fathers of the Church during the first four centuries had to battle so vehemently to preserve what they perceived as the apostolic vision in considering the nature, or rather, the natures of Christ. If we are to be fully saved the Redeemer had to become fully like us: of one essence with us in his humanity, but at the same time, had to be fully divine: of one essence with the Father, that he might restore our union with God, totally.

...

peddler2 answered on 10/11/07:

Prince

Christ is a title, not a last name. It refers to the expected one , the Messiah, God made flesh.
Try to remember that.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/09/07 - The Primitive Church believed and taught faithful Christians could become Gods

Father Chrysostom MacDonell:

"It is important here, though, to realise that, from the Orthodox perspective, the fall of man, as a biblical concept, is not a tumultuous plummeting into the depths of degradation; this is not the utter depravity of man found in Calvin. This idea is rooted in Augustine of Hippo, the prime mover of Western Theology, who perceived something called ‘Original Sin’ being passed on through the natural reproductive process; something with which we all become tainted in the course of nature.

"Eastern Theology, on the other hand, sees the Fall as a stumbling, an error, even if bearing tragic results. Yet this state is something that we now possess through being human by nature (essence), rather than a kind of guilt passed on in the course of nature, i.e. by the sexual act of our own progenitors.

"How, therefore, is man restored, becomes the theological problem that we face. In the Fall, man has not lost, in Orthodox thinking, the image of God; it has, rather, been covered up by the present human condition in this world. We have, however, certainly lost the second part of the biblical description: the likeness of God. It is precisely because we would become like God, knowing good and evil, that we lost paradise, lest we spoil that too. Banished, as St. Basil says, into this world, the aim of our life is to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, rediscovering the image, that is the icon of God within ourselves and one another and to restore the primal likeness of God.

"We are to be like God, not just as the persons – the individual consciousnesses that we are, but also to acquire by grace the nature, the essence of God. As St. Peter says: (II Peter 1:3-4)

"His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

"This brings us to the very heart of the Orthodox understanding of what it means to be human and what our calling is, in the mind of the philanthropic God.

"The purpose of our life is not merely the beatific vision of God, but to become God: deification, theosis. As St. Athanasius says:

"He (Christ) assumed a human body, that, having renewed it as its creator, he might deify it in himself…" (Contra Arianos)

"And again:

"The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine."
(De Incarnatione)

"The west has been very reticent in saying this. It is almost as if there has been a retreat here from the original vision. There has been, at the very least, a lowering of the sights. Is it rooted, yet again, in that love affair with Augustine of Hippo and his theology of guilt?
...

Is there a lingering Manichean horror at the thought of the divine nature sharing in the utter depravity of man’s fleshly life? (Once again, you might wish to blame Augustine…)

It is for this reason that the Fathers of the Church during the first four centuries had to battle so vehemently to preserve what they perceived as the apostolic vision in considering the nature, or rather, the natures of Christ. If we are to be fully saved the Redeemer had to become fully like us: of one essence with us in his humanity, but at the same time, had to be fully divine: of one essence with the Father, that he might restore our union with God, totally.

...

peddler2 answered on 10/11/07:

Prince

Christ is a title, not a last name. It refers to the expected one , the Messiah, God made flesh.
Try to remember that.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/08/07 - Astronomy Magazine reports that………………………………


Father Georges Henri Joseph Edouano Lamaitre is the father of the Big Bang theory.
He was a cosmologist and used telescopes to observe and verify his mathematical findings.
It was his math theory that presented the probability of the universe began from the rapid expansion of a primordial extremely dense source that cam to be known as the Big Bank.
It was the first I have heard or read about that man.
Is anyone here familiar with his work?

peddler2 answered on 10/10/07:

Fred
Did you ever go to school? You argue like a 6 year old. An agrument from ignorance is to say that something might or must be true because you don't have the evidence to prove otherwise.

Example:

The moon is full of green chese,can you prove it is not?

Or?
Where in the Bible did God say there was no BB?

Both of these are Appeal to Ignorance (a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam)

Some more examples:

There is no evidence that God exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
There is no evidence that God does not exist.
Therefore, God exists.

That and the Bandwagon Fallacy, Most scientist agree the BB is true therefore it is etc. are your favorite arguments.

As I stated if you do not refute the scripture or admit that you dismiss it as untrue then by your silence you are admitting you do not believe in the God of the Bible.

What is real recognized science Fred? Anything that atheists say? I know all about the BB. I understand both sides of the arguement. I know the history of it. I can debate it with anyone . No one here with the possible exception of Tom has come forward to defend it. All you have done is ignore the Biblical and scientific arguments against it. You claim it is a proven fact and that is a lie from hell.
Fred you don't know the slightestdetails of the science. You don't know the difference between the horizon problem and the anti-matter problem yet you boldly tell me I reject "real" science. You don't know anything abot the science all you know is the religious story that the universe created itself with no need for the creator God.

I love science and I study it all the time. You cannot answer 8th grade questions about the BB yet you call me anti-science?
Is science better grasped by those like you who don't know a damn thing about it?

If science is your source of truth then why do you claim to be what you are not, a Chritian who believes the Bible. If science is the source of truth then Christianity is a lie.
It is scientifically impossible for virgins to give birth and dead people to come back 3 days later and live forever. You have usurped the power of God. You claim to be able to decide when God told the truth and when He lied.

My God never lies.

The difference between you and me is I believe this verse.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.

You claim the very first verse of the Bible is a lie. God forgive you.


arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/09/07 - Three strikes for Ruth/Peddliar's idiocy ............................




Ruth's post in red, spelling, etc, as in her original text.
Ronnie's response in black

Atheists and Pagans Favorite Tool-The Loaded Question.

peddler2 10/09/07

Prince said:

"Now show me where God's Holy Word the Book of Mormon say such things."

To answer thi question would be to blaspheme the Holy Ghost who wrote the Bible.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is strange how Ronnie accusses me of not knowing ot believing the Bible when he promotes the BOM amd the anti-Christian philosophy of Mormonism.

As to his question as how smelly Jewsand elephants got on the wooden {possibly yellow?} submarines that is easy to dicern from the fantasy for idiots the BOM.

First the BOM teached the Jaredites were Jews that populated America. The people on those barges if they existed would have been Jews with severe body odor.
Secondly no Elephants existed in the Americas and they could not swim here from that far away so they had to be amoung the elephants on the majic {yellow?} submarines.

Ether 6: 4
4 And it came to pass that when they had prepared all manner of afood, that thereby they might subsist upon the water, and also food for their flocks and herds, and bwhatsoever beast or animal or fowl that they should carry with them—and it came to pass that when they had done all these things they got aboard of their vessels or barges, and set forth into the sea, commending themselves unto the Lord their God.


I thought you had read this drivel Ronnie?

It only becomes drivel when you type it!

it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being atight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the bark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.

I have read Genesis and I although pitch would have sealed the ark it would not have made it capable of staying dry underwater. It amazes me Smith could get a three year old to buy this nonsense.

19 And they also had ahorses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms

Elephants don't fly so we will assume they came on the magical {yellow?} submarines.



I hardly know where to begin to dissect this rotting carrion carcass of lies.

At least we have the answer to the question why Peddliar-Ruth Baker-Harridan-accuser of sound Christians, etc, does not answer questions. it is because, she says [see above] to answer questions is blasphemy! It is, apparently, according to her perverted concept of theology [talking about God] not blasphemous to lie. How illustrative of her value system. It certainly is nor biblical or Christian, so she must answer for its origin.


"To answer thi question would be to blaspheme the Holy Ghost who wrote the Bible."

Then we are treated to an insight into her vapid mind and its ability [!] to process information. Let us see what a mess she makes of this little task.


As to his question as how smelly Jewsand elephants got on the wooden {possibly yellow?} submarines that is easy to dicern from the fantasy for idiots the BOM.

First the BOM teached the Jaredites were Jews that populated America. The people on those barges if they existed would have been Jews with severe body odor.
Secondly no Elephants existed in the Americas and they could not swim here from that far away so they had to be amoung the elephants on the majic {yellow?} submarines.


It will be noted that immediately after denouncing attempts at explaining herself as blasphemy, she then launches into an explanation! That identifies her as 'double minded,' something that James insists makes her 'double minded in all her ways!' How right the apostle is.

First Idiocy:


First the BOM teached the Jaredites were Jews that populated America.

The people on those barges if they existed would have been Jews with severe body odor.


Ruth AKA Peddliar has frequently called me 'the worst Bible scholar in the world,' etc. I stand amazed at her statement that those aboard the Jaredite barges would have been Jews. Is she so completely ignorant of the Bible that she really does not know that there were NO JEWS at the time of the tower of Babel, and therefore they could not have been on the barges?

Genesis chapter 11

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.


Jews are descendants of Judah, son of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abram/Abraham. After the settlement in Israel and the division into the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah, the small tribe of Benjamin allied itself to Judah and became also known as Judahites, or Jews together with that portion of the tribe of Levi that ministered the priestly offices to the Jews. Thus, Paul called himself a Jew even though he was of the tribe of Benjamin.

However, all this was centuries later than the Babylonian ziggurat and even before the time the ‘habiru’ had emerged from the east, or Jacob’s descendants became known as the b’nei-yisreyel, or children of Israel [Jacob], or Israelites. Thus, we are safe in concluding that whatever cognomen one like to plant on the Jaredites, that of Jew is unqualified.

So, Ruth, NO JEWS, and the Book of Mormon does NOT say that they were! I invited you to show where it did, but you failed, drooped, got ratty, and then came up with your idiocies.

STRIKE ONE!


SECOND IDIOCY

It is an unsupported assumption to suppose that the inhabitants of Noye’s ark or Jared’s barges did not attend to their personal habits and thus were ‘smelly.’ That assumption is unwarranted, especially since what we do know of the inhabitants of the ANE show that personal hygiene was a high social and religious principle. Your assumption is symptomatic of a feeble mind tackling a subject for which it is ill-equipped.

STRIKE TWO!!


THIRD IDIOCY

Secondly no Elephants existed in the Americas and they could not swim here from that far away so they had to be amoung the elephants on the majic {yellow?} submarines.


Although elephants can swim – didn’t you even know that! – it is unlikely that an ocean journey would be possible for them.

However, your statement that there were no elephants is challenged. For example:



FOSSIL FIELD GUIDE

Mammut americanum
American Mastodon
Family: Mammutidae
Order: Proboscidea

Time
Pleistocene Epoch
The American Mastodon became extinct by 13,000 years ago. The mastodon family diverged from other elephant-like relatives in Miocene times, between 24 and 5 mya.

Place
The American Mastodon was wide-spread across all of North America from Alaska to central Mexico. Other mastodon species were widely distributed throughout the world, and mastodon fossil remains are locally common and well-preserved in Pliocene and Pleistocene age deposits. Complete or near complete skeletons have been recovered, some even with preserved hair.

In Our Region
Mastodon fossils have been found by our palaeontology staff in National City and Oceanside, California. Mastodon remains have also been recovered at the Rancho La Brea tar pits and at sites near Temecula and Hemet.
Mastodon molars.
SDSNH specimen no. 36000
Mastodon molars.

Mammoth mandible. SDSNH catalog no. 27226
SDSNH specimen no. 27226
Partial lower jaw (left mandible) of a mammoth with a molar and unerupted molar visible on the left.

The bottom specimen is from the Middle Pleistocene Bay Point Formation in Point Loma and is approximately 220,000 years old. The fossil measures approximately 15.5 inches (39 cm.)

Description
American mastodons are sometimes confused with their relatives- elephants and mammoths. All three, placed within the order Proboscidea, are large, heavy mammals with distinctive flexible trunks and tusks.

Mastodons were smaller than mammoths. Similar in size to modern-day elephants, with a height of 7 feet (2.1 meters) for females or 10 feet (3.1 meters) for males, adult mastodons weighed as much as 6 tons (5443 kg).

American mastodons had low-domed heads, unlike the higher-domed heads found in mammoths and modern-day Indian elephants. The tusks were less curved than those of mammoths but larger and longer than elephant tusks. Young male mastodons often displayed a short pair of secondary tusks in the lower jaw that were lost as they matured.

However, the most distinctive feature differentiating mastodons from mammoths is their cheek teeth. Unlike modern elephants and extinct mammoths, the mastodon had molars that featured distinctive, cone-like cusps. Mammoths had flat, ridged molars that look like washboards, totally different in appearance from mastodon teeth. These unusual cusped teeth give the mastodon its name, derived from the Greek ("mastos" for breast and odon(t) for tooth.)

As modern relatives, today only two genera of elephants exist: Loxodonta, the African elephant, and Elephas, the Asian elephant.

Within the proboscidean order, where there were once 7 genera of mastodons and mammoths, only these remaining 2 genera of elephants survive, and these also display diminishing populations, due to many factors. This is a disturbing trend over time, casting a shadow over the future for elephants on earth.

An Inside Look
In Oceanside, the palaeontology crew from San Diego Natural History Museum spent two weeks excavating fossil remains from sedimentary rocks of a large Pleistocene river and oxbow lake. One of the first exciting things to be uncovered were the tracks left in mud by either mastodons or mammoths as they made their ponderous way along the edge of the river. With such a massive body, these animals left deep prints in the mud.

Footprint trackways like this are an example of a trace fossil. Trace fossils, as opposed to actual fossils of mineralized bone or shell, include such things as impressions made by skin or armor, footprints, burrows, and nests with eggs. Trace fossils such as trackways are the closest things we have to a record of how extinct animals moved.

How can footprints last for millions of years? The substrate may have been muddy and wet when the animal walked over it, becoming dry later as the sun dries it out. Then preservation as fossil trackways might occur if there was rapid infilling of sediment over the prints.

Both mastodon and mammoth bones were also collected from these same river deposits near Oceanside.

Ecology
Mastodons were herbivores. Unlike mammoths, whose ridged molars were used for grazing on grasses, mastodons' teeth were used for clipping and crushing twigs, leaves and other parts of shrubs and trees. Most of the plants they ate were ones that grew near swamps and wet areas in woodlands.

What were those large tusks used for? Scientists believe that the tusks helped in feeding, such as when the animals stripped tree bark off trees, as well as in achieving dominance over other animals during competition for food.

Scientists believe that sexual dimorphism, as seen in these animals, occurred as a result of male competition for females. The male's larger size and larger tusks helped them compete more aggressively for females. Male mastodons also took longer to become sexually mature than females.

Because mammoths are more closely related to elephants, we assume that mammoth behavior and lifestyle might have been similar to that of present-day elephants. The same may be true to some extent for mastodons. Studies which have revealed a long growth period to reach maturity in these animals suggest that mastodons would have required the extensive parental care that is provided in modern elephant herds.

Elephants are very social animals. Although we obviously don't know about mastodon behavior, we can make educated guesses about their behavior, based on similarities between elephant and mastodon anatomy, stature, growth, and sexual dimorphism.

Where mastodons were most numerous, vegetation consisted mainly of coniferous forest with bogs, ponds and marshes. Their feeding habits could have been very destructive. We can easily imagine such large animals toppling over trees and trampling and killing plants, which may have required them to keep moving on. It is also possible that they moved to areas where there were salt licks or other minerals they needed.

Human predation may have hastened the extinction of mastodons, but this remains open to discussion. Climate change has also been suggested as a factor in their extinction.

Of Historical Interest
The first European reports of mastodon fossils occurred following the discovery in 1705 of a tooth and other fragments from the Hudson River Valley. An account of the discovery by the famous Puritan clergyman, Cotton Mather, attributed the fossils to a race of giants that had been destroyed in the Flood described in the Bible.

Then in 1808, President Thomas Jefferson paid to have mastodon fossils from the Big Bone Lick site near the Ohio River shipped to the White House. Jefferson was fascinated with the fossils and spread them out for study in what would later be designated as the East Room. Part of these mastodon fossils eventually ended up in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.

Further Investigation
Some day scientists may be able to determine more about the role humans played in the demise of the mastodons, if any.


Suggested Reading
Haynes, Gary. 1991. Mammoths, Mastodonts and Elephants: Biology, Behavior and the Fossil Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Although the Book of Mormon does say that there were elephants in the New World in their own time, it nowhere says or even suggests that they were taken there in a Jaredite barge. Such a scenario is simply the product of the fevered brain of the hate-queen, Ruth Baker, AKA Peddliar, etc.


In 1739, Baron Charles de Lougueuil commanded French troops and their Native American allies in a campaign against the Chickasaw in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Early in the campaign Lougueuil's party stopped by a marsh near the Ohio River that was probably the site later known as Big Bone Lick (1). Several fossils were collected at the site, including a tusk, a femur (upper leg bone) and at least three molar teeth. Following the completion of the campaign in 1740, Lougueuil sent these fossils to the Cabinet du Roi (Royal Cabinet of Curiosities) in Paris.

The Ohio specimens at the Cabinet du Roi laid in relative obscurity until Jean-Etienne Geuttard published an article in 1756 on North American geology. In it he presented an illustration of one of the molars and puzzled over its identity: "From what animal is this?"
thigh bones

Picture shows ---
1. Femurs from Indian Elephant (top),
2. Siberian Mammoth (bottom) and
3. "animal de l'Ohio" [USA] (middle).
(after Daubenton, 1765)

The first systematic examination of Lougueuil's fossils was published in 1762 by Louis-Jean-Marie Daubenton (2). Anatomical comparisons of the femur (upper rear leg bone) with that of an elephant and that of the Siberian mammoth (3) led Daubenton to conclude that, although they differed in size, the three femurs were nearly identical in form. The reasonable conclusion, therefore, was that these three animals were all elephants.


Whether the animal remains discovered here or at La Brea, LA, were what we are used to call elephants, I do not, now, but however these beats came to the American Continent, it was NOT in a barge!

STRIKE THREE!!!

YOU’RE OUT!

If that isn't enough, then you should also be aware that whilst the rough seas sometimes swept over the barges, it does not mean that they travelled submarinally as we understand submarine sub-oceanic travel.

Ronnie

BTW - I am curious to know what you will make of this:

On January 25, 1999, The Chicago Tribune published an article about a mysterious object found on the bottom of Lake Michigan. "If one set out with the preposterous goal of making an oak zeppelin 31 feet long, 10 feet in diameter, pointed at its ends, complete with an 18-inch hatch to crawl inside, this is pretty much what they'd get. Those who have strapped on air tanks and visited the thing say the craftsmanship used to build it is remarkable--four-inch-thick oak boards bent and fitted together and caulked watertight, like nothing built today."





peddler2 answered on 10/10/07:

Prince

You cannot foll all the people all of the time, and your time is up/

LOL


I guess if you say so of great and powerful Wizard of Odd.

If you read the BOM it implies they were. That is moronic but so are wooden submarines.
The BOM is a trash novel. It is so completely plagerized then whole chapters are word for word from the King James. It has 6th century BC Jews refering to Messiah as Jesus Christ. It amazes me anyone is lame brained enough to buy it.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/09/07 - My former tutor Dr John McGuckin writes of deification




http://books.google.com/books?id=u4i8jv0b7IkC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=deification+theosis+primitive+church&source=web&ots=FSIxeqXo8z&sig=-Lj5geC8vze7euQXGNaPFlpkONM#PPP1,M1


The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology - Google Books Result
by John Anthony McGuckin - 2004 - Religion - 416 pages
Church prayers were specially offered each year on the "death-day," which ... Deification Deification is the process of sanctification of Christians whereby ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0664223966...

peddler2 answered on 10/10/07:

And what evidence do you have that Adam could not write? Where you there?
Adam was never a child he was created with the knowledge God bestowed on him. You are making up stories.
It may be that the word of God was passed on verbally but I don't think so.
Maybe they used gold plates from their garden where they grew gold? LOL!!!!

Amos is a poorly written trash novel from the mind of a pervert who said the mormon god told him to rape babies.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/09/07 - Brigham Young: Christ's Blood is Not Sufficient

"There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their
God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never
wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it;
"
(Source: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:247)

peddler2 answered on 10/09/07:

It is amazing how those who claim to be Christian follow cults that deny the atonment. Either outright as the Blood Atonement was used by Bringum Young to order the slaughter of the pilgrims or like the the Pope who convinced entire nations he could send them to hell by with holding sacraments.

The Jesus Christ of the Bible,The God Man,The Incarnate Word died for all of my sins past present and future.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/09/07 - Brigham Young: Christ's Blood is Not Sufficient

"There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their
God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never
wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it;
"
(Source: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:247)

peddler2 answered on 10/09/07:

It is amazing how those who claim to be Christian follow cults that deny the atonment. Either outright as the Blood Atonement was used by Bringum Young to order the slaughter of the pilgrims or like the the Pope who convinced entire nations he could send them to hell by with holding sacraments.

The Jesus Christ of the Bible,The God Man,The Incarnate Word died for all of my sins past present and future.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/08/07 - PEDDLIAR - An important question for you




In a recent post you said that I believed a book that told of submarines full of:

1. Smelly Jews

2. Elephants.

Will you, for my benefit, show where it speaks of Jews being in the Jaredite barges.

Will you also show me where it tells that the Jaredites carried elephants with them in their barges?

A reminder for you, Ruth Baker, " ... wooden submarines full of elephants and smelly Jews .... "

Now show me where God's Holy Word the Book of Mormon say such things.

Perhaps you were thinking of Tom Sawyer?



One time Tom sent a boy to run about town with a blazing stick, which he called a slogan (which was the sign for the Gang to get together), and then he said he had got secret news by his spies that next day a whole parcel of Spanish merchants and rich A-rabs was going to camp in Cave Hollow with two hundred elephants, and six hundred camels, and over a thousand "sumter" mules, all loaded down with di'monds, and they didn't have only a guard of four hundred soldiers, and so we would lay in ambuscade, as he called it, and kill the lot and scoop the things. He said we must slick up our swords and guns, and get ready. He never could go after even a turnip-cart but he must have the swords and guns all scoured up for it, though they was only lath and broomsticks, and you might scour at them till you rotted, and then they warn't worth a mouthful of ashes more than what they was before. I didn't believe we could lick such a crowd of Spaniards and A-rabs, but I wanted to see the camels and elephants, so I was on hand next day, Saturday, in the ambuscade; and when we got the word we rushed out of the woods and down the hill. But there warn't no Spaniards and A-rabs, and there warn't no camels nor no elephants. It warn't anything but a Sunday-school picnic, and only a primer-class at that. We busted it up, and chased the children up the hollow; but we never got anything but some doughnuts and jam, though Ben Rogers got a rag doll, and Jo Harper got a hymn-book and a tract; and then the teacher charged in, and made us drop everything and cut. I didn't see no di'monds, and I told Tom Sawyer so. He said there was loads of them there, anyway; and he said there was A-rabs there, too, and elephants and things. I said, why couldn't we see them, then? He said if I warn't so ignorant, but had read a book called Don Quixote, I would know without asking. He said it was all done by enchantment. He said there was hundreds of soldiers there, and elephants and treasure, and so on, but we had enemies which he called magicians; and they had turned the whole thing into an infant Sunday school, just out of spite. I said, all right; then the thing for us to do was to go for the magicians. Tom Sawyer said I was a numskull.


Or perhaps you has the writings of Flavius Josephus in mind?


God gave a remarkable attestation to his righteous procedure; for when Ptolemy Physco had the presumption to fight against Onias's army, and had caught all the Jews that were in the city , with their children and wives, and exposed them naked and in bonds to his elephants, that they might be trodden upon and destroyed, and when he had made those elephants drunk for that purpose, the event proved contrary to his preparations; for these elephants left the Jews who were exposed to them, and fell violently upon Physco's friends, and slew a great number of them; nay, after this Ptolemy saw a terrible ghost, which prohibited his hurting those men; his very concubine, whom he loved so well, (some call her Ithaca, and others Irene,) making supplication to him, that he would not perpetrate so great a wickedness.

Or perhaps you have St Jerome, who believes in GRIFFINS, in mind:


Ancient, the fountain from which these streams flow, asserts that all rational creatures were created equal and started fairly, like charioteers, either to succumb halfway, or to pass on rapidly and reach the wished-for goal. Elephants, with their huge bulk, and griffins, might discuss their ponderous frames and ask why they must go on four feet, while flies, midges, and other creatures like them have six feet under their tiny wings, and there are some creeping things which have such an abundance of feet that the keenest vision cannot follow their countless and simultaneous movements.


Or could you have had Charles Dickens in mind?


The House of Correction which has led to these remarks, is not walled, like other prisons, but is palisaded round about with tall rough stakes, something after the manner of an enclosure for keeping elephants in, as we see it represented in Eastern prints and pictures. The prisoners wear a parti-coloured dress; and those who are sentenced to hard labour, work at nail-making, or stone- cutting. When I was there, the latter class of labourers were employed upon the stone for a new custom-house in course of erection at Boston. They appeared to shape it skilfully and with expedition, though there were very few among them (if any) who had not acquired the art within the prison gates.


Or Jules Verne?


"A curious place, this India?""Oh, very curious. Mosques, minarets, temples, fakirs, pagodas, tigers, snakes, elephants! I hope you will have ample time to see the sights.""I hope so, Monsieur Fix. You see, a man of sound sense ought not to spend his life jumping from a steamer upon a railway train, and from a railway train upon a steamer again, pretending to make the tour of the world in eighty days! No; all these gymnastics, you may be sure, will cease at Bombay."


But maybe you are confusing Noah with jared:


We talk about "forty days and forty nights" as though they had to live in the ark with all those animals for a month and a half. Well, forty days and forty nights was only a fraction of their endurance. For instance, do you remember that after they went into the ark and closed the door, they were inside the ark for seven days before the Flood began? (Genesis 7:10.)

Now, would that be a test of faith or what? Would you decide, about the fifth day, that it would be awfully nice to spend the weekend picking buttercups in the meadow rather than cleaning the elephants' stalls and that maybe Noah had made a big mistake?


Could it be that you have misunderstood your favourite saint, Augustine?


They so deceive men as to make them think that during the birth of a man the births of all other beings are suspended, so that not even a fly comes to life at the same time that he is being born, under the same region of the heavens. And if this be admitted with respect to the fly, the reasoning cannot stop there, but must ascend from flies till it lead them up to camels and elephants. Nor are they willing to attend to this, that when a day has been chosen whereon to sow a field, so many grains fall into the ground simultaneously, germinate simultaneously, spring up, come to perfection, and ripen simultaneously; and yet, of all the ears which are coeval, and, so to speak, congerminal, some are destroyed by mildew, some are devoured by the birds, and some are pulled by men. How can they say that all these had their different constellations, which they see coming to so different ends ? Will they confess that it is folly to choose days for such things, and to affirm that they do not come within the sphere of the celestial decree, whilst they subject men alone to the stars, on whom alone in the world God has bestowed free wills ? All these things being considered, we have good reason to believe that, when the astrologers give very many wonderful answers, it is to be attributed to the occult inspiration of spirits not o the best kind, whose care it is to insinuate into the minds of men, and to confirm in them, those false and noxious opinions concerning the fatal influence of the stars, and not to their marking and inspecting of horoscopes, according to some kind of art which in reality has no existence.


Julius Caesar?


Juba, being informed by Sabura of the battle in the night, sent to his relief two thousand Spanish and Gallic horse, which he was accustomed to keep near him to guard his person, and that part of his infantry on which he had the greatest dependence, and he himself followed slowly after with the rest of his forces and forty elephants, suspecting that as Curio had sent his horse before, he himself would follow them. Sabura drew up his army, both horse and foot, and commanded them to give way gradually and retreat through the pretense of fear; that when it was necessary he would give them the signal for battle, and such orders as he found circumstances required. Curio, as his idea of their present behavior was calculated to confirm his former hopes, imagined that the enemy were running away, and led his army from the rising grounds down to the plain.


Origen?


And here we may observe, that the gift of understanding has been bestowed upon us as a mighty aid, far superior to any weapon which wild beasts may seem to possess. We, indeed, who are far weaker in bodily strength than the beasts, and shorter in stature than some of them, yet by means of our understanding obtain the mastery, and capture the huge elephants.


Edward Gibbon?


The unpractised elephants, whose uncouth appearance, it was hoped, would strike terror into the army of the north, threw their unskilful riders; and the awkward evolutions of the marines, drawn from the fleet of Misenum, were an object of ridicule to the populace; whilst the senate enjoyed, with secret pleasure, the distress and weakness of the usurper.


Socratese Scholasticus?


The Romans besieging Nisibis, understanding that the king of Persia was bringing with him a great number of elephants, became alarmed in their turn, burnt all the machines they had used in carrying on the siege, and retired into their own country.



Sozomen?


About this period Milles suffered martyrdom. He originally served the Persians in a military capacity, but afterwards abandoned that vocation, in order to embrace the apostolical mode of life. It is related that he was ordained bishop over a Persian city, and he underwent a variety of sufferings, and endured wounds and drawings; and that, failing in his efforts to convert the inhabitants to Christianity, he uttered imprecations against the city, and departed. Not long after, some of the principal citizens offended the king, and an army with three hundred elephants was sent against them; the city was utterly demolished and its land was ploughed and sown.


John Locke?


This is something beyond philosophy; and it cannot be less than revelation, that discovers to another thoughts in my mind, when I can find none there myself, And they must needs have a penetrating sight who can certainly see that I think, when I cannot perceive it myself, and when I declare that I do not; and yet can see that dogs or elephants do not think, when they give all the demonstration of it imaginable, except only telling us that they do so.


Michel de Montaigne?


"Mille animas una necata dedit.""The failing of one life is the passage to a thousand other lives." Nature has imprinted in beasts the care of themselves and of their conservation; they proceed so far as to be timorous of being worse, of hitting or hurting themselves, of our haltering and beating them, accidents subject to their sense and experience; but that we should kill them, they cannot fear, nor have they the faculty to imagine and conclude such a thing as death; it is said, indeed, that we see them not only cheerfully undergo it, horses for the most part neighing and swans singing when they die, but, moreover, seek it at need, of which elephants have given many examples.


Sir Francis Bacon?


Walled towns, stored arsenals and armories, goodly races of horse, chariots of war, elephants, ordnance, artillery, and the like; all this is but a sheep in a lion's skin, except the breed and disposition of the people, be stout and warlike.



Vogel?


Vogel points up details of controversies such as tales of lost books on metal plates, elephants, comparisons of Mesoamerican script with Egyptian, and attempts to describe various native words and customs as Hebrew.


John Foxe?


The king and queen alone were unadorned, dressed in the simple garb of the country; they, hand in hand, entered the garden in which we had taken our seats, and where a banquet was prepared for their refreshment. All the riches and glory of the empire were on this day exhibited to view. The number and immense size of the elephants, the numerous horses, and great variety of vehicles of all descriptions, far surpassed anything I have ever seen or imagined. Soon after his majesty had taken possession of the new palace, an order was issued that no foreigner should be allowed to enter, excepting Lansago. We were a little alarmed at this, but concluded it was from political motives, and would not, perhaps, essentially affect us.


Nathaniel Hawthorne?


All the countries of the globe appeared to join hands for the mere purpose of adding heap after heap to the mountainous accumulation of this one man's wealth. The cold regions of the north, almost within the gloom and shadow of the Arctic Circle, sent him their tribute in the shape of furs; hot Africa sifted for him the golden sands of her rivers, and gathered up the ivory tusks of her great elephants out of the forests; the East came bringing him the rich shawls, and spices, and teas, and the effulgence of diamonds, and the gleaming purity of large pearls.


Jonathan Swift?


I had less apprehension concerning the dogs, whereof three or four came into the room, as it is usual in farmers' houses; one of which was a mastiff, equal in bulk to four elephants, and another a greyhound, somewhat taller than the mastiff, but not so large.


Herodotus?


There gold is obtained in great plenty, huge elephants abound, with wild trees of all sorts, and ebony; and the men are taller, handsomer, and longer lived than anywhere else.


The Bible [DR]?


For the king's navy, once in three years, went with the navy of Hiram by sea to Tharsis, and brought from thence gold, and silver, and elephants' teeth, and apes, and peacocks.


Iohannis Chrysostom?


To what purpose have I said all this? To show that, if by dint of study and practice we can throttle into submission (agkomen) even elephants and wild horses, much more the passions within us.


Mary C. Shaw?

AGAIN, we, who are scientific-minded, are stirred by more newly-discovered fossils. These relics of early ages were found on Santa Rosa Island, one of the Channel group thirty-five miles off the Santa Barbara coast, the outlines of which can be seen from the shore on clear days.

This island, the largest of the group, is high, rocky, and barren, affording but scant pasturage for sheep and goats.

The bones and fossils, so recently unearthed, are those of pigmy elephants,—little fellows eight feet in height, while full-grown ones are upwards of a dozen feet tall.

Scientists tell us that in the long ago a great cataclysm over Southern California caused earth movements which separated portions from the main land and formed these islands.

Large herds of elephants, then stranded on Santa Rosa Island, after years of inter-breeding and insufficient food, became dwarfed.

The pigmy elephants, however are supposed to have been extinct even long before the time of Indians.

These relics are now being arranged in the mammal wing of the Santa Barbara museum, which contains only specimens found in the near-by region.


Franklin S Harris?


EVIDENCE that elephants lingered on in America after the arrival of man here has been discovered at Folsom, New Mexico. The prehistoric elephants were trapped in a bog where the hunters killed them with pointed spears. One of the ancient hunter's weapons was under the spine, another in a shoulder blade, and another between the forelimbs of a beast.


Or perhaps you have been misled, as you are so eagerly willing to be, by the speculation of Orson Pratt?


There is something very remarkable in connection with the colonization of our Continent by people from that tower. I said they were a righteous people. Perhaps this may surprise some, especially if they have drawn the conclusion that all the people who engaged in building of that tower were wicked. But there were some few families among them who served the Lord their God, and when they learned the decree of Jehovah, that their language was to be confounded, and the people scattered to the four winds of heaven, they had considerable anxiety on the subject. They were anxious that they might be favored of the Lord and that He would lead them to a choice portion of the earth. They made it a subject of earnest prayer, and God heard them, and the language of the righteous portion of the people was not confounded. And God gave them a commandment to go down from the tower to a valley that was northward, called the valley of Nimrod, named after a mighty hunter who existed in those days. After they had come down into this valley by the command of the Lord they collected seeds and grain of every kind, and animals of almost every description, among which, no doubt, were the elephant and the curelom and the cumom, very huge animals that existed in those days, and after travelling and crossing, we suppose, the sea that was east of where the Tower of Babel stood, and travelling through the wilderness many days, with their flocks and herds, their grain and substance, they eventually came to the great Pacific ocean, on the eastern borders of China or somewhere in that region. They were commanded of the Lord to build vessels. They went to work and constructed eight barges. They did not understand the art of Navigation as we do in these days. They had no astronomical instruments by which they could ascertain the altitude of the sun, or the altitude of the moon and stars, by which they could determine their position on the great and mighty ocean. But the same God who had led them from the Tower of Babel and had gone before them in a bright cloud by day, and had hovered over their camp and had directed them in their journey through the wilderness, was their navigator in crossing the ocean. They entered these eight barges, about the construction of which it may be well to say a few words. A great many opposers of the Book of Mormon, in reading the account of these vessels, have really supposed that there was an insurmountable difficulty connected with the building of these barges because there happened to be a hole in the top, and another hole constructed in the bottom to enable the beings shut up in them to be watertight. These vessels were built, not in the form of a tea saucer as has been represented by some "anti Mormons" in their discussions; but the Book of Mormon informs us that they were peaked at the ends, and enlarged as they came to the middle, and they were tight like a dish on the water, and were very light, like to the lightness of a fowl. They were exceedingly strong, and the length of a tree. This is a phrase very similar to one used by Isaiah who says, "the age of His people shall be as the age of a tree." Isaiah does not say what kind of a tree. It was simply a way the ancients had of comparing a great many things. Now these vessels were so constructed that when furious winds should blow upon the face of the great deep, and the waves should roll mountains high they could without imminent danger plunge beneath the waves, and be brought up again to the surface of the water during tremendous hurricanes and storms. Now to prepare them against these contingencies, and that they might have fresh air for the benefit of the elephants, cureloms or mammoths and many other animals, that perhaps were in them, as well as the human beings they contained, the Lord told them how to construct them in order to receive air, that when they were on the top of the water, which-ever side up their vessels happened to be, it mattered not; they were so constructed that they could ride safely, though bottom upwards and they could open their air oles that happened to be uppermost. Now all our ships at the present day are constructed with holes in the bottom as well as in the top. I have crossed the ocean twelve times, but I never saw a ship yet that did not have a hole in the bottom for the convenience of the passengers, and it is one of the simplest things in the world to have holes in the bottom of a ship if you only have tubes running up sufficiently high above the general water mark. These were so constructed that when the waves were not running too high, air could be admitted through unstopping the holes which happened to be uppermost.


I do have hundreds more where poeple have mentioned elephants, but the Book of Mormon has nothing to say baout Elephants being in the Jaredite barges, and if you knew anything at all about Jews, you would not even raise the issue that nay were aboard the barges, apart from your natural racism and anti-Semitism forcing you to always refer to them as "SMELLY."

Your feet are well planted in the KKK racist position.

Well planted, and they lead to the conduits through which the manure in which you are planted is fed directly into to your brain and mind, only to pour from your gaping maw each time you speak or write. Little wonder you are so miserable.





How do you answer? If you dare and can manage to remain on the point of the issues I raise in my question!


Prince Hassim - emmet!



peddler2 answered on 10/09/07:

Sticks and stones.

BTW Oh great and powerful Wizard of Odd if you claim the elephants were not on the magic {yellow?} light weight submarines the size of oil tankers and the Jaredites were not Hebrew then bestow your infinite wisdom on the poor misinformed Christians and tell us how the Hebrews and elephants got here?

Did they Hie to Kolob? Swim? Did the fortune teller carry them over on his back?
Magic flying fish? Did Scotty beam them over?

Enquiring minds want to know!

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/08/07 - Brigham Young's View of Jews

"Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes into this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize."
(Source: Brigahm Young, Journal of Discourses, 2:142)

peddler2 answered on 10/09/07:

Ronnie

Young was either insane or he felt that Mormons were stupid enough to believe gold grows and people live on the sun. You lend credence to the latter theory.

He said what he said and adding a long cut and paste does not change that.
The LDS mocks the Jews by baptising dead holocaust victims.
They are enemies of God and the people of the Book.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/08/07 - Do you believe in ghosts?????????????????????


I just read an article in today’s paper about ghosts.
An old hotel in Butte, Montana that operated from 1890 to 1982 is over run with ghosts.
Some of them are from persons who died there and others of person who were beaten to death in the basement.
Many people have reported seeing the ghosts and researchers in the paranormal are now investigating it and are detecting the presence of ghosts.
I’m thinking of visiting the place to see for myself.
My question is, “Should I do so”?

peddler2 answered on 10/09/07:

Being a Christian I get my truth from the Bible which says you are wrong.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 10/08/07 - Brigham Young: Sin was Necessary

“Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve. Why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter into the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite; no one could ever receive an exaltation without being acquainted with its opposite."
(Source: Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, P.103 (Quoted in LDS Ensign Magazine, January 1998, in the Article "`In the Beginning': A Latter-day Perspective by Robert J. Woodford)

peddler2 answered on 10/09/07:

The logic of a man who said the moon and the sun were inhabited and gold grows like hair is facinating.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 10/07/07 - WWJD..................

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? IF HE CAME TO THIS SITE HE WOULD PROBABLY THROW UP!! NUFF SAID!!

peddler2 answered on 10/07/07:

If He decided to comment the first thing He would want to know is how can a person who claims to follow Him be pro-atheist and join the Godless in their attack on His people.
Then I believe He would have a word for the compromisers .

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/06/07 - Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text .....................................

By George A. Horton, Jr.Translator to Scribes

After completing the translation of the sacred Nephite history, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." fn He gave no other explanation of the process.

During the translation, as many as eight people may have served as scribes. fn Some of them, and others then and now, have tried to explain how the translation took place, but the question remains unresolved. In an interview with one of her sons, Emma Smith, who acted as scribe for brief periods, fn said:

"When [I was] acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do." fn

Regarding the translation, Oliver Cowdery wrote:Near the time of the setting of the Sun, Sabbath evening, April 5th, 1829, my natural eyes, for the first time beheld this brother. . . . On Monday the 6th, I assisted him in arranging some business of a temporal nature, and on Tuesday the 7th, commenced to write the book of Mormon. These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim . . . the history, or record, called "The Book of Mormon." fn

Oliver was the scribe for most of the Book of Mormon as we now have it, except for a few pages. fn To view the pages of the remaining original manuscript is to be convinced that it has been transcribed from dictation.

Typesetting

Upon completion of the translation, precautions were taken to protect the manuscript, and a "printer's" second copy was made by Oliver Cowdery. fn The typesetting started in August 1829, and the book was published in March 1830.

John H. Gilbert, the non-Mormon typesetter who worked for E. B. Grandin (a Palmyra, New York, printer), said:When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of manuscript, of 24 pages, closely written on common foolscap paper—he had it under his vest, and vest and coat closely buttoned over it. At night Smith came and got the manuscript, and with the same precaution carried it away.

The next morning with the same watchfulness, he brought it again, and at night took it away. This was kept up for several days. . . . On the second day—Harris and Smith being in the office—I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said:

"The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written."

After working a few days, I said to Smith on his handing me the manuscript in the morning: "Mr. Smith, if you would leave this manuscript with me, I would take it home with me at night and read and punctuate it."

His reply was, "We are commanded not to leave it." A few mornings after this, when Smith handed me the manuscript, he said to me:

"If you will give your word that this manuscript shall be returned to us when you get through with it, I will leave it with you."

I assured Smith that it should be returned all right when I got through with it. For two or three nights I took it home with me and read it, and punctuated it with a lead pencil. . . . Every Chapter, if I remember correctly, was one solid paragraph, without a punctuation mark, from beginning to end.

Names of persons and places were generally capitalized, but sentences had no end. The character or short & was used almost invariably where the word and occurred, except at the end of a chapter. I punctuated it to make it read as I supposed the Author intended, and but very little punctuation was altered in proofreading. fn

In review:

1. The text had been dictated by Joseph to eight different scribes—Oliver Cowdery being the main one.

2. The scribes seem to have written just what they heard, no more and no less.

3. There does not appear to have been any explanatory conversation between the translator and his scribes.

4. Capitalization, spelling, and punctuation were apparently not specified during the dictation process.

5. Whatever the process of translation, it allowed for human errors to appear in the grammar of the scribal copy.

6. Joseph had little to do with the supervision of the typesetting, proofreading, or printing of the first edition. fn

Printed Editions

A quick review of some of the more important recent editions of the Book of Mormon fn gives some insights as to why new editions were deemed necessary of what Joseph had called the "most correct of any book on earth." fn For example, as soon as the first edition was out, the readers could not avoid noticing many typographical, spelling, and grammatical errors.

On 25 June 1833, Joseph wrote to W. W. Phelps (a printer), "As soon as we get time, we will review the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, after which they will be forwarded to you." fn However, due to the pressure of other matters, the second edition did not appear until 1837, having been prepared by the Prophet with the assistance of Oliver Cowdery.

Over one thousand corrections were made, and some minor clarifications were added, the majority having to do with grammar. By 1837 the Prophet, who had had limited formal schooling, was reading Greek, learning Hebrew, and studying grammar. fn This edition was followed in 1840 by a third edition. fn Appearing on the title page of the third edition (1840) are the words "Carefully Revised by the Translator." It appears that improving the printed copy continued because on 15 January 1842, Joseph recorded in his journal,

"I commenced reading the Book of Mormon, at page 54, American stereotype edition [the third] (the previous pages having been corrected), for the purpose of correcting the stereotype plates of some errors which [had] escaped notice. . . ." fn

The first European edition in English (1841) followed the 1837 edition and consequently did not contain the changes Joseph had made in 1840.

Later American editions (beginning in 1871) were taken from the first European edition and consequently they continued the lack of corrections.

In 1879, President John Taylor assigned Orson Pratt to prepare a new edition which would include a redivision of chapters (increasing the number from 114 to 239), reversification, and scriptural cross-references. He was followed after the turn of the century by a committee, serving under the chairmanship of James E. Talmage, which prepared the 1920 edition with double-column pages, revised references, a pronunciation guide, an index, and many grammatical improvements. fn

This latter edition was the most commonly used edition in the Church for over half a century. As work was under way for the new LDS edition of the King James Version of the Bible, it was felt that additional work should be done on the Book of Mormon.

Consequently, with further corrections growing out of research over the last twenty-five years, fn the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was prepared under the supervision of the Scriptures Publication Committee by direction of the First Presidency

.Transmission Problems

In examining the process of transmission from the original translator to the printed text of later editions, let us briefly consider problems so common that the publishing world has identified most of them with technical names. They include orthography, haplography, dittography, homoeoteleuton, homoeoarchton, and other simple problems. Only one or two brief examples will be considered in each category.1. Orthography (spelling):

One of the first things a modern reader notices about the first edition of the Book of Mormon is some of its "unusual" spellings. The common assumption is that Oliver Cowdery was poorly educated even though he was a schoolteacher. However, an examination of this supposition raises questions about the historical development of the English in our English Bible and also the status of American English in 1829.a.

Spelling in the King James Version.

We have long been aware that the spelling of words in our English Bible has undergone many changes through the centuries. For example, the word "sins" was "synnes" in the 1611 King James Version and later became "sinnes" before the present spelling was adopted. Moreover, the word "majesty" was spelled "maiestie" then "majestie" before being spelled as it is now. fn

Further, a selection of words from the first nine verses of Hebrews 1 in the 1611 edition includes such spellings as "diuers," "sonne," "heire," "brightnesse," and "oyle." fnb. Status of American English in 1829.

Many changes were taking place in the English language used in the United States during the early 1800s. Many people were pressing for a variety of English that would be uniquely American. At the forefront of this movement was Noah Webster, publisher of the Compendious Dictionary of the English Language in 1806 and his famous American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828. The introduction to the latter indicated that there were five different English dictionaries on the market at the time. Some examples of spellings found in those dictionaries are as follows: fn

SHERIDAN WALKER JONES PERRY JAMESON(1784) (1794) (1798) (1805) (1827)

claushur
clauzhure
clauzhure
clauzhure
clauzhur
courtshus
courtsheous
courteous
curtcheous
courteous
creatshur
cretshure
creatshure
creature
creture
scriptshur
scriptshur
scriptshure
scripture
scriptyur
stattshur
stattshure
tattshure
stature
statyur

When Webster's dictionary was published in 1828, that made six dictionaries fn that were in use at the time though we don't know whether Oliver Cowdery had access to any of them during the translation of the Book of Mormon. We might well ask, "Did he use a dictionary?" And if he did, "Which one (or ones) did he use?"

Seven of Webster's proposed new American spellings were later adopted. For example, he changed the following in some contexts: "our" to "or," "l" to "ll," "x" to "ct," "re" to "er," "c" to "s," "dge" to "dg," and "ck" to "c." But Webster used and recommended many other spellings that were not adopted such as ake, beleeve, breth, hed, iland, iz, korus, lauf, mashine, munth, rong, thum, tung, wimmen, and yeer.

These last recommendations reveal a common tendency of the time: of relying heavily on phonetic or sound spellings. Some of this tendency can be detected in Oliver's spelling.c.

Spelling of Important Contemporaries.

Since the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon had so many "unusual" spellings, it could appropriately be asked whether Oliver's contemporaries were spelling words in the same manner—approximating sounds. Consider the following: Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-81) wrote ancles, cieling, sithe, choaked, chrystal, musquito, and canvass, etc. Washington Irving (1773-1859) used all of the following variations: smoak, smocke, schmoke, and smoke. He used received and recieved in the same sentence. He also used such short forms as tho, brot, and thro.

President Andrew Johnson (1808-75) used whent, som, allways, determin, yealding, desid, decission, rediculous, anxus, immaganable, propper, among others. fn

One author has said: "One immutable fact about a living, spoken language is that it inevitably changes. The written language changes more slowly than the spoken language, but even that changes. Therefore, no one can make an absolutely authoritative statement about the correctness of spelling, punctuation, or even, in some cases, grammar and idiom." fnd.

Oliver Cowdery's Spelling.

Considering Oliver's situation, we should remember that he had to write what he heard. Let us put ourselves in his place for a minute and imagine that we have just heard Joseph use the word straight. How would we spell it? There are two possibilities even with today's standardized spellings. From fragmentary evidence, it appears that Oliver spelled that spoken word s-t-r-a-i-t nineteen out of twenty-two times.

But for some reason most of these were changed, perhaps by John H. Gilbert, who offered to improve the manuscript and "correct it." So it was that straight dominates the 1830 through the 1879 editions, all following the 1837 edition. In 1920, six instances were changed to strait, and four additional places were corrected back to strait in the 1981 edition, which makes its usage in those instances harmonious with the King James Version and its underlying Greek.There were other words that Oliver may have been hearing for the first time, and in some of those instances it appears that Joseph Smith corrected them in later editions.

Many of the words that we thought Oliver had misspelled are actually legitimate English variants and can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. This means that they were used by other writers of the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. For example, the spellings adhear, adultry, ancles, babtized, befal, burthensome, condescention, devlish, fraid, journied, moulten, nought, phrensied, and writen—all indicate that Oliver was not really an unlearned schoolteacher as some have thought.e.

Middle English Inflections.

Another area of spelling that has received attention in later editions of the Book of Mormon is the use of Middle English inflections and related forms. These reflect the influence of the King James Version and Elizabethan English, both of which were popularized by early English versions of the scriptures. The endings have been dropped from many words such as the following: answereth, ascendeth, avengeth, beareth, becometh, causeth, dieth. Changes have also been made in the following: art, hath, shew, thee, thine, thou, ye, and so forth. fn Other spelling changes will be considered in the next category.2.

Typography (setting of the type):

There were numerous misspellings in the first edition from inaccuracies which are common to typesetting. Examples that seem to fall in this category might include the following: aaswer, acccording, amog, armss, because, beold, bgan, daghter, destoy, expdient, govereor, hia, irsael, khown, mekness, mnltitude, opon, plaees, prohesy, rufused, seeen, sould, theit, and utttered.Oliver's handwriting also presented a challenge.

His r (which looks like a "Palmer r") and his n are difficult to distinguish from each other, as are his and l. For example, in the 1830 edition Gadianton was once called "the nobler" rather than "the robber." In a similar way, the typesetter apparently elsewhere mistook Oliver's rm for un. In 1 Nephi 13 there are several instances in which the original manuscript read formation, but the typesetter apparently thought the printer's copy said founation and supplied what seemed to be a "missing" d to make it read foundation. This was finally corrected in the 1981 edition.3.

Simple Omissions (e.g., of letters, syllables, words, or lines):

Simple omissions of short words and accidental skipping of single letters are the most frequent unintentional errors made by scribes or typesetters such as John Gilbert. fn An example of this was the accidental omission of a single letter leaving three letters that just happen to form another word. This came at Alma 48:21, where the last r had been left off the word year, found in the original manuscript. fn

A rather vital letter was dropped from the word immortality (1830) so that it read immorality (1837). It was fortunately corrected in the 1840 edition.4.

Homoeoteleuton (accidental omission due to similar endings):An example of sentences being dropped due to similar endings is found in Alma 32:30. Note how much was in the original and printer's manuscripts fn and the commonalities in the first and last parts of the verse by comparing the original verse with that found in most other editions not including the 1981, where the omission is restored: fn

Original MS & 1981 Most Other Editions

But behold, as the seed But behold, as the seed swelleth,swelleth, and sprouteth, and sprouteth, and beginneth toand beginneth to grow, grow, then you must needs say thatthen you must needs say the seed is good; for behold itthat the seed is good; swelleth, and sprouteth, andfor behold it swelleth, sprouteth, and beginneth to grow.and sprouteth, andbeginneth to grow.

Andnow, behold, will not thisstrengthen your faith? Yea,it will strengthen your faith:for ye will say I know that thisis a good seed; for behold itsprouteth and beginneth to grow.

A second example is found at 3 Nephi 10:4 in the 1837 edition, where the printer skips from one occurrence of the phrase "of Israel" to a second occurrence, thereby unintentionally eliminating eight words. fn

1830 1837O ye people of these great cities O ye people of these great citieswhich have fallen, which are a which have fallen, which are adescendant of Jacob; yea which are descendant of Jacob; yea who areof the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, [of the house of Israel, how oft have ]I gathered you as a hen gathereth how oft have I gathered you as a henher chickens under her wings, gathereth her chickens under herand have nourished you. wings, and have nourished you.5.

Homoeoarchton (accidental omission due to similar beginnings):

In the first edition, the printers skipped from one "f" to another in the the same word, which shortened "genealogy of his forefathers" to read "genealogy of his fathers" in 1 Nephi 19:2. The longer word is supported by the original manuscript, the printer's copy, and the 1840 edition. fn6.

Haplography (omission of adjacent letters, syllables, words, or lines):

This is a case of accidentally dropping one of two adjacent t's at Alma 51:10, which changed "that this promise" in the original manuscript to "that his promise" in the printer's manuscript.

All the printed editions have followed the error.7.

Dittography (accidental addition of letters or words):

An instance of accidental repetition occurs at 3 Nephi 22:4 (the italicized words were those accidentally repeated): "for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." This is a quotation from Isaiah 54:4, and it has been pointed out that not only does the KJV Isaiah not have these added words, but those words appeared first in the 1837 edition, and that they were not in the corrected printer's copy.

Also, the added words do violence to the poetic parallelism found in Hebrew poetry. fn8.

Contextual Assimilation (mistakenly influenced by the context):

At 2 Nephi 4:26 in Nephi's Psalm, the 1830 printer's alteration of "me" (which is the reading in the printer's manuscript) to "men" may have been unconsciously influenced by the earlier occurrence of "men" on the same line.

However, Larson has said that "It should be pointed out that the presence of a printer's line under 'me' may indicate that he paused and pondered concerning the very closely written words 'me in' and then consciously decided that 'me in' was Oliver Cowdery's scribal error for 'men in.'

Whatever the reason for the change, the correct text is 'me,' with Nephi marveling at the Lord's love for him." fn9.

Mishearing of a Homophone (similar sound but different spelling):

Malachi 4:2 is quoted in 3 Nephi 25:2; however, in the latter case "Sun of righteousness" has been changed to read "Son of Righteousness". A question naturally arises as to whether this is a calculated change on the part of Joseph or Oliver. Whatever the case, if the extant Hebrew text for Malachi is correct, "the Hebrew word used is shemesh, meaning 'sun,' and not the quite different ben, which is the word for 'son.' Also, the Hebrew text says literally 'the sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in her wings,' so that the feminine pronoun 'her' agrees with the feminine gender of shemesh in this passage." fn

Unless we find an explanation that it was a calculated change, it appears that the variation constitutes a simple problem of homophones.Two other examples are interesting. Oliver wrote wrecked instead of racked, as it now appears (Mosiah 27: 29), and arrest instead of wrest (Alma 13:20).10.

Misreading of a Word (mistaking of similarly shaped letters):

Instances of this were already discussed in the section dealing with the typesetter's reading of Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. Consider another case in which Oliver apparently misread the original manuscript wording "he drove out the man" and copied it as "he drew out the man" (Alma 42:2). The latter rendering has remained in all the printed texts. Again, the typesetter apparently misread Oliver's final r of the word mediator in the printer's copy and set it as mediation (2 Nephi 2:27), fn which was corrected in 1981.

Now let's consider the changes that have been made to correct and improve the text in the various editions.

Textual Revision

As early as the second edition there were over a thousand changes made personally by the Prophet Joseph to improve the grammar. fn

The most frequent change, occurring 707 times, was a shift from which to who. Later editors, especially the committee chaired by James E. Talmage, also made similar improvements.

When all of the grammar changes found in each edition from the first edition to that of 1981 are totaled; the most frequent are the following: fn 891 which to who 45 were to was177 exceeding to 19 that to who exceedingly fn 11 mights to might162 was to were 11 them to those74 is to are 10 straight to strait66 which to whom 10 done to did 54 they to those

Similar changes have occurred in the King James Version of the Bible. fn

Turning to deletions, it is interesting that some readers have been critical of the repetitive use of the expression "and it came to pass," an authentic expression carried over from the Semitic. In Hebrew, the expression is a conjunction plus a form of the verb to be. fn Nevertheless, the entire expression except the "and" was eliminated in forty-six places for the 1837 edition, probably by Joseph Smith himself. Other deletions include the following:188 that 14 he 48 the 13 of 40 a/ and 11 to/ thereof 29 had 10 &c fn16 for

Some of the changes were additions which might be considered in three categories:

(1) Addition of words to improve grammar:12 of 4 had/ he/ in/ to 7 and/ is/ the 3 all/ be/ letter l with 6 that 5 not

(2) Replacing (adding back) words dropped through transmission errors: An example already mentioned consisted of the restoration of the sentences that were omitted from Alma 32:30 of the original manuscript.

(3) Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition.

Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader.Other intriguing clarifications can be found in 1 Nephi 8:4 (1837), where "in my dream" is added, and in 1 Nephi 20:1 (1840), with the addition of "or out of the waters of baptism."

One of the more interesting textual changes relates to the changing of "white" (1830, 1837) to "pure" (1840) in 2 Nephi 30:6.

Although this correction was made by Joseph Smith, it was not picked up in subsequent American editions, which followed the earlier Liverpool printings based on the 1837 edition.

This was corrected again in the 1981 edition.

Perhaps the most difficult change to understand occurs at both Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1. The first edition had "Benjamin" where "Mosiah" now appears. Since King Benjamin would not likely have still been living at the time of the text, the Prophet changed the 1837 edition reading of Mosiah 21:28. The change in Ether was made in the 1849 edition. We can only speculate about who made the original "error."

Dr. Sidney B. Sperry asked, "Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated his translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly enough an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon? The last of these suggestions is probably the correct one." fn

Some Conclusions

1. The Book of Mormon has been subject to problems in its printing, as have other books.

2. The English language in America was not standardized in 1829.

3. The original grammar was Joseph's; the spelling was Oliver's; the punctuation was John H. Gilbert's.

4. The Prophet-Translator initiated the majority of changes in the first few editions.

5. There is a difference between word changes and idea changes—the basic meaning of the text has not been changed.

Based on his letter to W. W. Phelps in 1833, his 1837 and 1840 editions, his statement in 1842, and his 1842 edition (all previously referred to), it is clear that had Joseph lived longer, he would likely have continued to correct the text of the Book of Mormon to produce a book without human errors. It has been in this same spirit that corrections have been made in succeeding editions.

Some of the sharpest detractors of the Book of Mormon translation have confessed that "as we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text." fn

This reminds us of a statement the Prophet Joseph made when he was criticized in 1834 for "glaring errors" in a published revelation. He replied that shades of meaning or literary mechanics were not as important as the general message: "We did not think so much of orthography [spelling], or the manner, as we did the subject matter, as the word of God means what it says." fn

"The Most Correct Book"

Even before the 1981 edition was published, a careful student of the original manuscript and printer's copy said, "A great value of these early manuscripts is that for the most part they substantiate the correctness of the present Book of Mormon text—fully 99.9% of the text is published correctly." fn

Notwithstanding the fact that this sacred Nephite witness of Jesus Christ already towers far above many of the other scriptures in the integrity of its text, still the Church has endeavored to make it even more correct, as is shown by the following statement about the 1981 edition:

"Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith." fn The changes and corrections are not only correct but appropriate. fn

When Joseph Smith said "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth," it seems evident that he was not talking about grammar, fn punctuation, or spelling. He was referring to the clarity and depth of doctrine, to the mission and message of the book, to the spirit of inspiration that it fosters, to the divine desire that it sparks in the soul to make the "mighty change," and to the abiding love of the Lord that it brings into our hearts.

All of these correct things help make the Book of Mormon just exactly what the Prophet said it was: "The most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." fn

The Lord himself has similarly testified with a solemn oath—"And he [Joseph] has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true" (D&C 17:6).

NOTES

George A. Horton, Jr., is department chairman of Ancient Scripture and associate professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU.

Footnotes1. Wentworth Letter, Times and Seasons 3 (1 March 1842): 707.2. Paul R. Cheesman, The Keystone of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973), pp. 55-56, lists Martin Harris, Emma Smith, Samuel Smith, Reuben Hale, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Christian Whitmer as one time or another scribes.3. By 14 June 1828, at least 116 manuscript pages had been completed with the help of Martin Harris, Emma Smith, and Reuben Hale as scribes. These pages were subsequently lost and never recovered. See Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed: B. H. Roberts, 2d ed., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1948-51), 4:461, 537; cited hereafter as HC.4. Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," The Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 290.5. Messenger and Advocate 1 (1834): 14.6. There are a total of 144 pages of original manuscript extant, plus eight readable sheets and about 50 fragments of pages; Oliver Cowdery's handwriting has been identified on 124 pages (Cheesman, p. 64).7. It was decided "First, that Oliver Cowdery should transcribe the whole manuscript. Second, that he should take but one copy at a time to the office, so that if one copy should get destroyed, there would still be a copy remaining. Third, that in going to and from the office, he should always have a guard to attend him, for the purpose of protecting the manuscript. Fourth, that a guard should be kept constantly on the watch, both night and day, about the house, to protect the manuscript from malicious persons." (Preston Nibley, Joseph Smith, the Prophet [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946], p. 93).8. Quoted in Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work (Salt Lake City: Wilford C. Wood, 1958), introductory pages.9. Ibid. According to Gilbert, Joseph was in Grandin's shop on only one occasion for fifteen to twenty minutes.10. Compare the following: Stanley R. Larson, "A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837 and the 1840 Editions" (Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1974); Jeffrey R. Holland, "An Analysis of Selected Changes in Major Editions of the Book of Mormon—1830-1920" (Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1966); The Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, vols. 1 and 2 [1 Nephi-Alma] (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1984, 1986).11. HC 4:461, 28 November 1941.12. HC 1:363.13. HC 2:390, 474, 3:26.14. By now, Oliver Cowdery had been excommunicated and had taken the printer's manuscript with him.15. HC 4:494.16. "Dr. Talmage was a stickler for good English. . . . He knew as well as anyone the imperfections of the literary dress of the First Edition of the Nephite record and took a prominent part in correcting many of them in a later edition of the work." Sidney B. Sperry, Problems of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), p. 190.17. Research before 1981 includes the following: Master's theses by Jeffrey R. Holland and Stanley R. Larson (see note 10); Richard P. Howard, Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development (Independence, Mo.: Herald Publishing House, 1969); Hugh G. Stocks, "The Book of Mormon, 1830-1879: A Publishing History" (Master's thesis, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, UCLA, 1979). Other studies and articles before and after the 1981 edition include: James Wardle, Selected Changes in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilms, 1963); Sperry, Problems of the Book of Mormon; Janet Jenson, "Variations between Copies of the First Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 13 (Winter 1973): 214-22; Stan Larson, "Changes in Early Texts of the Book of Mormon," Ensign, September 1976, pp. 77-82; "Early Book of Mormon Text: Textual Changes to the Book of Mormon in 1837 and 1840," Sunstone 1 (Fall 1976): 44-55; "Textual Variants in Book of Mormon Manuscripts," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 10 (Autumn 1977): 8-30; "Conjectural Emendation and the Text of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 18 (Summer 1978): 563-69; George A. Horton, Jr., "Changes in the Book of Mormon and How to Handle Them," A Symposium on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), pp. 36-39; "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon," Ensign, December 1983, 24-28; Hugh G. Stocks, "The Book of Mormon in English, 1870-1920: A Publishing History and Analytical Bibliography," (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles, 1986); F.A.R.M.S. staff, The Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, 3 vols. (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1984-87); Lamoni Call, 2000 Changes in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., n.d.); Jerald and Sandra Tanner, 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., n.d.).18. Sir Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), Appendix II.19. Ibid.20. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, 2 vols. (New York: S. Converse, 1828), vol. 1, introduction.21. There was at least one more available, with variant spellings: H. J. Todd's [Samuel] Johnson's and [John] Walker's English Dictionaries, Combined, ed. J. E. Worchester [Cambridge, 1927].22. Elinore Hughes Partridge, "Nineteenth-Century Spelling: The Rules and the Writers," Ensign, August 1975, pp. 79-80.23. Ibid., p. 76.24. Middle English has apparently been retained in the Book of Mormon in passages in which Deity or a heavenly messenger is speaking, or for the sake of euphony.25. Stanley R. Larson, "Scribal Scars on the Sacred Scriptures," A Symposium on the Gospels, Brigham Young University, 22 February 1985, p. 5; F.A.R.M.S. staff, The Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, 3 vols.26. The word yea instead of year appeared in the printer's copy and all editions until 1841. A "secondary conflation" of "year, yea" has continued from 1849 to the present, though this is clearly an error.27. Both of the manuscripts for this verse are extant. Larson, "A Study of Some Textual Variations," p. 155.28. An exception was the RLDS edition which followed the 1840 third edition; but since the missing words were not in that edition, it was evident that the RLDS made use of the printer's manuscript also. See "Modern Pedigree of the Book of Mormon" in The Book of Mormon Critical Text, p. viii.29. There were over two thousand revisions marked in the printer's copy in preparation for the 1837 edition, but this was not one of them. Howard, Restoration Scriptures, p. 41.30. The 1981 edition did not restore the original word.31. Larson, Master's thesis, p. 276.32. Ibid., p. 82.33. Ibid., pp. 229-30. However, there is always the remote possibility that the existing Malachi text could have been changed by biblical scribes in an attempt to make the genders agree.34. "Proposed Changes in the Book of Mormon," no author given, unpublished manuscript, 1980, p. 25. [Used by the Scriptures Publication Committee of the Church.]35. Howard, Restoration Scriptures, pp. 41-42.36. Counting was done without a calculator and is subject to error.37. Of the 225 acknowledged changes in the 1981 edition, 132 add ly to the word exceeding.38. A comparison of the current text of the King James Version with the 1828 text (e.g., the H. & E. Phinney edition, which the Prophet used in the work of the Joseph Smith Translation) reveals such word changes as of to from, which to where, am to is, be to are, to to unto, and aught to ought (the last, for example, is in Matthew 5:23 and Mark 11:25).39. Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 221-22.40. Refer to the last paragraph of John H. Gilbert's statement as in note 9.41. Sperry, Problems of the Book of Mormon, p. 203. See, however, Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah: The Book of Mormon in the Modern World (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967), p. 7.42. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), p. 131.43. Letter to William Edward, et al., 30 March 1834, from Oliver Cowdery's letter book, pp. 30-36, quoted in Dean Jessee, Journal of Mormon History 3 (1976): 28-29.44. Stanley R. Larson, "Textual Variants in Book of Mormon Manuscripts," Dialogue, 10 (August 1977): 8.45. The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), introductory pages.46. Horton, "Changes in the Book of Mormon and How to Handle Them," pp. 36-39.47. Part of the definition for the word correct from Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language is as follows: "Literally, set right; conformable to truth, rectitude or propriety, or conformable to a just standard; not faulty; free from error. . . . Correct manners correspond with the rules of morality and received notions of decorum. Correct principles coincide with the truth.൸. HC 4:461.

"A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent!"


AMEN!


peddler2 answered on 10/06/07:

We have the historical record from his wife Emma , his mother and others that he did not bother to look at the magic plates all te time but only the rocks in his head, I mean his hat.

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/01/07 - The Plurality of Gods ............................................................

Actually the real objection in modern Christian churches to the doctrine of deification is often that it implies the existence of more than one God. If human beings can become gods and yet remain distinct beings separate from God, it makes for a universe with many gods. Surely C. S. Lewis realized this implication; so did the early Christian saints. Yet like the Latter-day Saints they did not understand this implication to constitute genuine polytheism.

For both the doctrine of deification and the implied doctrine of plurality of gods, an understanding of the definitions involved is essential. So let's be clear on what Latter-day Saints do not believe.

They do not believe that humans will ever be equal to or independent of God.

His status in relation to us is not in any way compromised.

There is only one source of light, knowledge, and power in the universe.

If through the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God we receive the fulness of God (Eph. 3:19) so that we also can be called gods, humans will never become "ultimate" beings in the abstract, philosophical sense. That is, even as they sit on thrones exercising the powers of gods, those who have become gods by grace remain eternally subordinate to the source of that grace; they are extensions of their Father's power and agents of his will.

They will continue to worship and serve the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost forever, and will worship and serve no one and nothing else.

If the Latter-day Saints had chosen to refer to such glorified beings as "angels" instead of "gods," it is unlikely anyone outside the LDS church would have objected to the doctrine per se. It seems that it is only the term that is objectionable.

And yet the scriptures themselves often use the word god in this limited sense to refer to nonultimate beings.For example, in Ps. 8 the word gods (Hebrew elohim) is used in reference to the angels: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [elohim = the gods], and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (Vv. 4-5.)

Though the Hebrew reads "gods" (elohim), translators and commentators from the Septuagint on, including the author of Hebrews in the New Testament, have understood the expression to refer to the angels (see Heb. 2:7). The term gods is here applied to beings other than God. Deuteronomy 10: 17, Josh. 22:22, and Ps. 136:2 all insist that God is a "God of gods." Clearly this doesn't mean that there are divine competitors out in the cosmos somewhere; rather, these passages probably also refer to the angels in their divinely appointed roles.

If the angels can, in some sense, be considered divine beings because they exercise the powers of God and act as his agents, then the one God they serve is correctly considered a "God of gods."

Scholars have long known, and the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature of the period have now proven, that the Jews in Jesus' day commonly referred to the angels [malak - angel;, messenger] as "gods" (Hebrew elim or elohim, god, or gods) in this nonultimate sense.fn

This is not because the Jews were polytheists, but because they used the term god in a limited sense to refer to other beings associated with God whom he allowed the privilege of exercising divine powers.

But human beings are also called "gods" in scripture, probably for the same reasons that the angels are-they, as well as the angels, can exercise the powers of God and act as his agents. Thus Moses is designated a "god to Pharaoh" (Ex. 7:1). This doesn't mean that Moses had become an exalted or ultimate being, but only that he had been given divine powers and was authorized to represent God to Pharaoh, even to the point of speaking God's word in the first person.

If the scriptures can refer to a mortal human being like Moses as a "god" in this sense, then surely immortal human beings who inherit the fulness of God's powers and authority in the resurrection can be understood to be "gods" in the same sense.

In Ex. 21:6 and 22:8-9 human judges are referred to in the Hebrew text as elohim ("gods"). In Ps. 45:6 the king is referred to as an elohim. Human leaders and judges are also referred to as "gods" in the following passage from the book of Psalms:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods ....

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." (Ps. 82:1,6-7) Jewish and Christian biblical scholars alike have understood this passage as applying the term gods to human beings.

According to James S. Ackerman, who is not a Mormon,

"the overwhelming majority of commentators have interpreted this passage as referring to Israelite judges who were called 'gods' because they had the high responsibility of dispensing justice according to God's Law."fn

In the New Testament, at John 10:34-36, we read that Jesus himself quoted Ps. 82:6 and interpreted the term gods as referring to human beings who had received the word of God:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

In other words,

'If the scriptures [Ps. 82] can refer to mortals who receive the word of God as "gods," then why get upset with me for merely saying I am the Son of God?'

The Savior's argument was effective precisely because the scripture does use the term gods in this limited way to refer to human beings.

According to J. A. Emerton, who is also not a Mormon,

"most exegetes are agreed that the argument is intended to prove that men can, in certain circumstances, be called gods .... [Jesus] goes back to fundamental principles and argues, more generally, that the word 'god' can, in certain circumstances, be applied to beings other than God himself, to whom he has committed authority."fn

And that, in a nutshell, is the LDS view. Whether in this life or the next, through Christ human beings can be given the powers of God and the authority of God. Those who receive this great inheritance can properly be called gods. They are not gods in the Greek philosophic sense of "ultimate beings," nor do they compete with God, the source of their inheritance, as objects of worship. They remain eternally his begotten sons and daughters -therefore, never equal to him nor independent of him.

Orthodox theologians may argue that Latter-day Saints shouldn't use the term gods for nonultimate beings, but this is because the Latter-day Saints' use of the term violates Platonic rather than biblical definitions.

Both in the scriptures and in earliest Christianity those who received the word of God were called gods.I don't need to repeat here the views of Christian saints and theologians already cited on the doctrine of deification. But it should be noted that for them, as for the Latter-day Saints, the doctrine of deification implied a plurality of "gods" but not a plurality of Gods.

That is, it did not imply polytheism. Saint Clement of Alexandria was surely both a monotheist and a Christian, and yet he believed that those who are perfected through the gospel of Christ

"are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first installed in their places by the Savior."fn

This is good LDS doctrine. If Clement, the Christian saint and theologian, could teach that human beings will be called gods and will sit on thrones with others who have been made gods by Jesus Christ, how in all fairness can Joseph Smith be declared a polytheist and a non-Christian for teaching the same thing?

In harmony with widely recognized scriptural and historical precedents, Latter-day Saints use the term gods to describe those who will, through the grace of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, receive of God's fulness - of his divine powers and pre-rogatives-in the resurrection. Thus, for Latter-day Saints the question "Is there more than one god?" is not the same as "Is there more than one source of power or object of worship in the universe?"

For Latter-day Saints, as for Saint Clement, the answer to the former is yes, but the answer to the latter is no. For Latter-day Saints the term god is a title which can be extended to those who receive the power and authority of God as promised to the faithful in the scriptures; but such an extension of that title does not challenge, limit, or infringe upon the ultimate and absolute position and authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

When anti-Mormon critics interpret Exodus ?: 1, Deut. 10:1 ?, Ps. 8:5 (in Hebrew), Ps. 45:6, Ps. 82:6, or John 10:34-36, they go to great lengths to clarify that these scriptures use the term god in a limited sense and that therefore they do not involve any polytheism-there may be more than one "god," but there is only one God.

When they discuss Latter-day Saint writings that use the term god in the same sense, however, the critics seldom offer the same courtesy. Instead they disallow any limited sense in which the term gods can be used when that term occurs in LDS sources, thereby distorting and misinterpreting our doctrine, and then accuse us of being "polytheists" for speaking of "gods" in a sense for which there are valid scriptural and historical precedents. Mark it Tom!

Other Christian saints, theologians, and writers-both ancient and modern-have believed human beings can become "gods" but have not been accused of polytheism, because the "gods" in this sense were viewed as remaining forever subordinate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since this is also the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, they also ought to enjoy the same defense against the charge of polytheism.

Since these other Christians and the Latter-day Saints share the same doctrine, they should share the same fate; either make polytheist heretics of the saints, theologians, and writers in question, or allow the Latter-day Saints to be considered worshippers of the one true God.

The doctrinal exclusion is invalid often on general principles because it demands doctrinal conformity to a standard that does not really exist, to a "pure" Christianity which cannot be agreed upon by all Christians. Therefore it is a moving target which changes from denomination to denomination; all parties demand that Latter-day Saints be more "orthodox," but each defines "orthodoxy" differently. The doctrinal exclusion assumes that Christianity is one monolithic point of view when in fact the multiplicity of Christian denominations witnesses that it is not.

Those who employ the doctrinal exclusion often recognise only two categories: those whose doctrine agrees with their own and those who are "not Christians." But without a third category-that is, Christians whose doctrine is different than one's own but who are still Christians-the very idea of a family of independent Christian denominations is impossible.

Still, the claim is made that certain LDS doctrines are so bizarre, so totally foreign to biblical or historical Christianity, that they simply cannot be tolerated. In terms of the LDS doctrines most often criticized on these grounds, however-the doctrine of deification and its corollary, the plurality of gods-this claim does not hold up to historical scrutiny.

Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S. Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of deification. The scriptures themselves talk of many "gods" and use the term god in a limited sense for beings other than the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost.

If this language is to be tolerated in scripture and in ancient and modern orthodox Christians without cries of "polytheism!" then it must be similarly tolerated in the Latter-day Saints.

If scripture can use the term gods for nonultimate beings, if the early Church could, if Christ himself could, then Latter-day Saints cannot conceivably be accused of being outside the Christian tradition for using the same term in the same way.

Again, I am not arguing that the doctrine is true, although I certainly believe it is. I am only arguing that other Christians of unimpeachable orthodoxy have believed in deification long before the Latter-day Saints came along, and that it has been accepted and tolerated in them as part of their genuine Christianity.

Fair play demands the same treatment for the Latter-day Saints. President Snow often referred to this couplet as having been revealed to him by inspiration during the Nauvoo period of the Church.

See, for example,

Deseret Weekly 49 (3 November 1894): 610;
Deseret Weekly 57 (8 October 1898): 513;
Deseret News 52 (15 June 1901): 177; and Journal History of the Church, 20 July 1901, p. 4.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, pref.Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.38. Cp. 4.11 (2):

"But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress towards God."

Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1.Clement of Alexandria,

The Instructor, 3.1.

See also Clement, Stromateis, 23.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124.

Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.34.

Athanasius, De Inc., 54.

Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2. Augustine insists that such individuals are gods by grace rather than by nature, but they are gods nevertheless.

Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 1:146, 156;

Symeon Lash, "Deification," in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson and John Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), pp. 147-48.

For a longer treatment of this subject, see Jules Gross, La divinisation du chrétien d'aprè les pères grecs (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938).

Paul Crouch, "Praise the Lord," Trinity Broadcasting Network, 7 July 1986.

Robert Tilton, God's Laws of Success (Dallas: Word of Faith, 1983), pp. 170-71.

Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Love (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), tape BCC-56.

Kenneth Copeland, The Power of the Tongue (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), p. 6. I am not arguing that these evangelists are mainline evangelicals (though they would insist that they are), only that they are Protestants with large Christian followings.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), p. 18.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952; Collier Books, 1960), p. 153. Cp. p. 164, where Lewis describes Christ as "finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity." See also C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1982), p. 38, where the tempter Screwtape complains that God intends to fill heaven with "little replicas of Himself."Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 154.Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 174-75.

For a more recent example of the doctrine of deification in modern, non-LDS Christianity, see

M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) pp. 269-70: "For no matter how much we may like to pussyfoot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it eventually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood."Most critics are surprised to know how highly the thinking of C. S. Lewis is respected by Latter-day Saint readers.

John Strugnell, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran -4 Q Serek Sirot 'Olat Hassabat in Supplements to Vetus Testamenturn VII [Congress Volume, Oxford 1959], (Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 336-38,

A. S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neuge-fundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI," Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 ( 1965): 354-73.

James S. Ackerman, "The Rabbinic Interpretation of Ps. 82 and the Gospel of John," Harvard Theological Review 59 (April 1966): 186.

J. A. Emerton, "The Interpretation of Ps. 82 in John 10," Journal of Theological Studies 11 (April 1960): 329, 332. This was also the view of Saint Augustine in writing of this passage in On the Psalms, 50.2: "It is evident, then, that he has called men 'gods,' who are deified by his grace" (cf. also 97.12).

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 7.10.

It is an undeniable fact that deification is not only Biblical but powerfully Christian. that the doctrine has fallen into disuse by those who became frightened of it and so ran from it as they would from the plague, they must ask themselves whether it is now time to return to a pristine doctrine of the Christian Church and stop troubling Latter-day Saints for accepting and believing the Bible, and living Christianity as the apostles and sub apostolic fathers taught, believed,. and practiced it.

.

peddler2 answered on 10/04/07:

Good thing I was wearing chest waders!
Ronnie Mormons believe if they are good little Mormons they will become god and created their own planet.
They believe man came before god, that god was once a man.
You are full of poop.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/03/07 - Is this true? I just received this via e-mail.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

IN MEMORIAM -- This week the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended"
the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it. Why should we care if we "offend" the Muslims? They cetainly don't care if they offend or kill us!!!!!!

It is now more than 60 years since the Second World War in Europe ended. Now more than ever, with Iran among others claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the..........

6 million Jews
20 million Russians
10 million Christians
and 1,900 Catholic priests

who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated whle the German and Russian people looking the other way!

Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute the TRUTH around the world. WE MUST NOT FORGET THE HOLOCAUST OR IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN!!!!!!

peddler2 answered on 10/04/07:

Pervert

Shame on you for being mean to your fellow atheist Fred!

I find it so brainless of you to think this could never happen in Europe. There is no question if it will happen, only question is when.
People who grew up in Saudi Arabia , Iran, Syria etc. are taught from childhood the holocaust was a hoax. When their numbers swell enough they will write the laws and you will kowtow or die. You are selling out your children's future with your hatred of Christianity which causes you to support the Muslim's

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/04/07 - Holly - Is the Book of Mormon True?

Is the Book of Mormon True?

Notes on the Debate

Daniel C. PetersonDaniel C. Peterson is associate professor of Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University.

Since its publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been an object of intense controversy and has been subjected to virtually unparalleled critical attacks. Indeed, the opposition began even before the book came from the press. Thus, perhaps the greatest secular argument for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the sheer fact that millions of people around the world, including a considerable number of highly educated and well-informed people, continue to find the Book of Mormon believable 165 years after its appearance.

A simple yarn spun by an uneducated frontier con artist should have-would have!-collapsed years ago. How many books published in 1830 continue to be read today?

Nevertheless, it is useful from time to time to examine the details of the arguments, pro and con, about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Within the limited space afforded by this article, we shall do just that with a representative sample of the criticisms.

Textual Changes

Critics of the Book of Mormon, particularly those of the conservative Protestant variety, like to point to thousands of changes made in the text of the Book of Mormon since its first printing, changes the critics allege have been kept secret by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1

Have Changes Been Hidden?

There seems, however, to be no evidence whatever that the Church is suppressing early texts of the Book of Mormon or trying to cover up the changes that have in fact been made in it; indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Consider the following:

(1) Wilford Woods's reprint of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon has been widely available for many years and is frequently sold in Latter-day Saint bookstores.

(2) Between 1984 and 1987, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) produced and published a critical edition of the Book of Mormon that attempted to list all of the textual variants.

(3) In 1980 Deseret Book, the Church's publishing house, produced and marketed a reprint of the 1830 edition to commemorate the sesquicentennial of Mormonism.

(4) Professor George Horton of Brigham Young University published a 1983 article on the subject in the Church's official magazine. 2

(5) Professor Royal Skousen of Brigham Young University has been working for several years to prepare a definitive critical edition of the Book of Mormon, complete with a textual apparatus listing all variant readings. He has had the full cooperation of the Church leadership in his efforts and intends a major volume on the textual history of the Book of Mormon to accompany the actual critical edition when it is published.

(6) In conjunction with his work, Dr. Skousen has taught several classes on Book of Mormon textual criticism at Brigham Young University.

(7) Dr. Skousen's work has hardly been kept a secret, but has been reported widely in various publications. 3

Are the Changes Important?

Furthermore, when one examines the changes exhibited by critics of the Book of Mormon-and presumably they choose the very "best" out of the alleged several thousand when they are trying to establish their case-it is difficult not to be disappointed by the trivial character of virtually all of the examples.

For instance, Ed Decker offers up Mosiah 27:29 as an illustration:

In current English versions of the Book of Mormon, that verse reads: "My soul was racked with eternal torment," whereas the 1830 edition has "wrecked" for "racked."

And, Decker reveals, whereas today the English version of Alma 13:20 reads: "Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction," the 1830 printing has "arrest" instead of "wrest."

But these are simply obvious cases of the scribe having misheard a spoken word, and therefore mistakenly writing a word that had a similar sound. It is the very thing that a tired scribe would tend to do, and, as such, it tends to verify the traditional account of Joseph's having dictated the Book of Mormon to a scribe.

Decker and others seem, at first glance, to have a more substantial case when they cite the few textual changes in the Book of Mormon that appear to have theological import. Thus, for instance, where in the 1830 edition Jesus Christ is identified as "the Eternal Father" at 1 Ne. 11:21 and 13:40, the modern English printing of those two verses calls him "the Son of the Eternal Father".

Likewise, 1 Ne. 11:32 calls him "the Everlasting God" in 1830 but "the Son of the Everlasting God" in current editions, while 1 Ne. 11:18 termed Mary "the mother of God" before it was altered to read "the mother of the Son of God" in more recent printings. But are these changes really doctrinally significant?

Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is God, and in fact, they affirm that he was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. And they assert that, in very real and important ways, Christ is and will be the Father of those who accept his atoning sacrifice. 4

Viewed in this light, the 1830 renderings of the verses just mentioned were not at all incorrect, although subsequent modifications (made by the very prophet through whom the Book of Mormon was revealed in the first place) do obviously clarify the passages and make them more precise.

Do the Changes Actually Point to the Book's Authenticity?

Decker also notes Alma 46:19, which in modern English editions of the Book of Mormon, says that Moroni "went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part". Quite correctly, Decker observes that the 1830 printing of this verse had Moroni "waving the rent of his garment in the air," and speaks of writing "upon the rent". This, of course, is bad English. "It is impossible," declares Decker, "to write on a a rent,' since a rent is an absence of cloth. It is also hard to wave a rent' in the air." 5

Decker is evidently unaware that the verse as rendered in the 1830 edition represents perfectly acceptable Hebrew usage-which, since the Book of Mormon claims to have been written originally by ancient Hebrews, is very interesting indeed.

"Thus, the error' [Decker sees] as evidence of fraud [is] really a Hebraism that [is] evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon." 6

Implausibilities and Anachronisms

Critics of the Book of Mormon have traditionally sought elements in the text that would prove it to be a product of the nineteenth century. They have hoped, for example, to find anachronisms, items wrongly inserted into a purportedly ancient story by an ignorant or careless modern author. 7

They have looked for implausible stories that would indicate that the Book of Mormon cannot really be reporting eyewitness accounts of real events.

A Man Named Alma?

The presence of the name Alma in the Book of Mormon, attached to an important prophet and his equally important son, has occasioned considerable merriment among certain critics of the book. Alma , they gleefully point out, is a woman's name and is not of Hebrew but of Latin origin. 8

Many people are likely to be familiar with it in the phrase alma mater, which means something like "foster mother" or "bounteous mother" and refers to a benevolent or protective institution (most often, nowadays, a college or university). However, during the archaeological season of 1960-61, while he was excavating in the Judean caves on the western shore of the Dead Sea near En-Gedi, the eminent Israeli scholar Yigael Yadin found an interesting document from the early second century a.d. that not only destroys the objection of the critics, but furnishes striking support for the Book of Mormon.

During the second Jewish revolt against Rome, the leader of that revolt, Shimeon Bar-Kokhba (or Bar-Kosiba), had nationalized some of the real estate around the northwestern shores of the Dead Sea. Professor Yadin discovered a land deed bearing the names of four people who had leased nationalized property under Bar-Kokhba and wanted to set down with more precision the perimeters of each of their holdings. One of those four was "Alma, son of Yehudah." 9

What this find means is that, although Joseph Smith, if he had known the word Alma at all, would have known it as a Latinate woman's name, recently unearthed evidence that he could never have encountered demonstrates Alma to be an authentically ancient Semitic masculine personal name, just as the Book of Mormon presents it. 10

Was There (Chuckle) French on the Plates?

Another popular claim among critics of the Book of Mormon has alleged that the occurrence of the word adieu at Jacob 7:27 is anachronistic, that it does not belong in the period where Joseph Smith seems to place it. French didn't exist in the sixth century b.c., they point out. So why does French show up in the Book of Mormon? 11

But, of course, what this argument fails to notice is that the Book of Mormon, as we have it today, purports to be a translation. Therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which the Book of Mormon has been rendered is not that from which, according to its own claims, it was translated. The language of the Book of Mormon is, necessarily, the language of its translator, Joseph Smith. There is nothing mysterious about this. The presence of adieu in the modern English Book of Mormon no more implies the existence of French on the plates than the occurrence of the words in the beginning indicates the existence of English in the original Hebrew text of Gen. 1.

And it is doubtful, by the way, that the extremely unsophisticated Joseph Smith of 1829-30 was even aware that adieu was French. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word had been a common one in English since at least 1374. It is included in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford American Dictionary, as well as, most importantly, in Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. It was simply a word that Joseph knew; he could just as easily and justifiably have used ciao, auf Wiedersehen, or sayonara if those words had formed part of the functioning vocabulary he shared with his audience.

The Beheading of Shiz

Another apparent blunder in the Book of Mormon appears at Ether 15:29-32. At the end of the bloody and violent last Jaredite battle, the exhausted Coriantumr, propping himself up with his own sword and gathering his last bit of strength, "smote off the head of Shiz," his archrival, who had fallen unconscious beside him from loss of blood. Fatally wounded, Shiz then "raised [himself] up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died." Recent critics have found this too laughable for words, much less for analysis. It is, they say, an "absurdity," "impossible." 12

But Dr. M. Gary Hadfield, M.D., professor of pathology (neuro-pathology) at the Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, concludes otherwise, contending, on the basis of precedents in the medical literature, that the story of the last moments of Shiz is, in fact, entirely believable. 13

Archaeology and History

Critics frequently charge that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Many critics point to a supposed contrast between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, claiming that, while the former has been devastated by archaeological research, the latter has been vindicated or even proven by recent scholarly work. 14

Such assertions are typically made in virtual or entire ignorance of recent work on the archaeology and geography of the Book of Mormon. Yet the seminal studies done by John L. Sorenson and others have established a highly plausible ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon, 15and the research of Warren and Michaela Aston appears to have identified believable Lehite locations on the Arabian peninsula. 16

Furthermore, conservative Protestant critics of the Book of Mormon have invariably tended both to exaggerate its archaeological weakness and to overstate, often grossly, the extent to which archaeological research supports the biblical narrative. 17

Warfare

Military history is one area where recent research has clearly tended to support the Book of Mormon. Yet this was not always the case. For many years, scholars argued that, essentially, no warfare existed in Mesoamerica, that no fortifications and certainly no armor existed as described in the Book of Mormon. The Maya, announces one Book of Mormon critic, "were on the whole a peaceful people. Their ceremonial centres had no fortifications, and were for the most part located in places incapable of defense." 18

Accordingly, he says, the Book of Mormon simply does not fit ancient America. But this rosy picture of an idyllic ancient Mesoamerica can no longer be seriously maintained. Still, some critics seem unaware of the overwhelming evidence now available for "the state of war that existed constantly among many Maya cities. The modern myth that the Maya were a peace-loving, gentle people who only tended their milpas and followed the stars has fallen with a thunderous crash." 19

As the Yale Mayanist Michael D. Coe puts it, "The Maya were obsessed with war. The Annals of the Cakchiquels and the Popol Vuh speak of little but intertribal conflict among the highlanders, while the sixteen states of Yucatan were constantly battling with each other over boundaries and lineage honour. To this sanguinary record we must add the testimony of the Classic monuments and their inscriptions." 20Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller's important book The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art shows beyond dispute that the Maya must be ranked among the most bloodthirsty people in world history. 21

Plants and Animals

The Book of Mormon has likewise been criticized on the grounds that its portrayal of the flora and fauna, the plants and animals, of the New World is inaccurate. 22

As one vocal critic exclaims, "barley never grew in the New World before the white man brought it here!" 23 (The existence of pre-Columbian American barley, incidentally, was revealed by archaeologists in 1983.) 24

Another, in a memorable formulation, points to the Book of Mormon's "botanically unverifiable animals." 25

However, such critics appear to have been left behind by current research, as surveyed, for instance, in John L. Sorenson's work on animals and the Book of Mormon. 26

Professor Sorenson demonstrates that naming conventions for animals and plants are far more varied from culture to culture-and are far more complex-than Book of Mormon skeptics assume, and that simplistic readings of the Nephite record are, thus, deeply misleading. He even shows that the horse and the elephant may well have survived into historic times in the Americas, contrary to common opinion. Though questions and problems remain, as they do in connection with every subject in antiquity, believers in the Book of Mormon have solid reasons for regarding the book as biologically reasonable. 27

Metals

Similarly, critics of the Book of Mormon have alleged that the metals it mentions have not been found in Mesoamerica, and presumably did not exist there in pre-Columbian times. 28But their criticisms typically manifest an oversimple reading of both the Book of Mormon and ancient America, as well as a too-simple ("common sense") way of looking at the anthropology and onomasticon of historical metallurgy. 29

Fortunately, the important studies of John L. Sorenson have again greatly deepened our understanding of the issues, demonstrating in the process that there is plenty of room in Mesoamerica for the claims of the Book of Mormon. Metal use among pre-Columbian Americans appears to be much earlier than conventional wisdom has believed. 30

What is more, the "golden plates" from which Joseph Smith declared he had translated the Book of Mormon can be persuasively argued to represent an authentically ancient American alloy known as tumbaga. 31

Reformed Egyptian

Many skeptics have declared that, contrary to the claims of the Book of Mormon, there is no such language as "reformed Egyptian." And besides, some add, real Jews wouldn't have used it anyway, since Jews believe Hebrew to be a sacred language, and ancient Jews held Egyptian, the language of their hereditary enemies, to be evil and corrupt. 32

The last contention, however, is not true. Not only were ancient Jews capable of using other languages and scripts to write their scriptures, but there is clear evidence that they did precisely that. Specifically, we now know of ancient instances of the writing of Old Testament scriptural passages in Egyptian. 33

Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that anything called "reformed Egyptian" would necessarily show up anywhere else, nor that the name "reformed Egyptian" would be familiar to secular scholars, for the Book of Mormon clearly states that "reformed Egyptian" was the Nephites' own term for a complex of script and language that, at least at the end of nearly a millennium of independent linguistic evolution, was unique to them:

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. (Morm. 9:32-34; emphasis mine)

The Book of Mormon never claims that "reformed Egyptian" existed in Egypt; on the contrary, it expressly says "reformed Egyptian" did not exist in Egypt. Therefore, testimony from Egyptologists (or, more frequently, from Egyptological amateurs) about the absence of "reformed Egyptian" from the Nile Valley or the failure of the precise phrase "reformed Egyptian" to show up in their grammar books is fundamentally irrelevant. Besides, "reformed Egyptian" is not necessarily the proper name of a specific language. Languages and scripts are constantly evolving, constantly being modified or "reformed," as anybody who has ever sat down to read the great Old English poem Beowulf or the English poems of Chaucer in the original can surely attest. "Reformed Egyptian" describes, simply, a linguistic system that had changed in an idiosyncratic direction over a thousand years of isolation.

Nephite Money

On a more tangible topic, many critics of the Book of Mormon have decided that the book describes "a complex system of coinage" 34 among the Nephites, and these critics have derided it because no such coins have been found by archaeologists. It is quite true that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Book of Mormon coins-not even in the Book of Mormon itself. The text of the Book of Mormon never mentions the word coin, nor any variant of it. The reference to "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text and is almost certainly mistaken. (It represents the same unexamined modern assumption-that money equals coins or currency or both-that misleads the critics.)

Alma 11 probably refers to standardized weights of metal-a historical step toward coinage, but not yet the real thing. 35

So Latter-day Saint scholars would be as surprised as anybody if we were someday to find a cache of "Book of Mormon coins."But the instance of "coinage" brings up a very important point. Time after time, critics of the Book of Mormon have punished the Book of Mormon on the basis of straw men of their own invention. They have imposed upon it claims it does not itself make and have then professed to have disproved it because it fails to deliver things it never pretended to deliver. However, it is not only critics of the Book of Mormon who have frequently misread the Nephite record; believers too have often carelessly construed its statements on geography and other issues, thereby setting themselves up for attacks from anti-Mormons. We must be perpetually vigilant against entrapping ourselves within pseudoproblems of our own devising.

The Temple of Nephi

Another issue of history and archaeology appears to further illustrate this point. Nephi's construction of a temple, recorded in 2 Ne. 5, has drawn a great deal of attention from critics of the Book of Mormon. Nephi states:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. (2 Ne. 5:16) But how, the skeptics demand, could a small family of refugees possibly build such a structure when Solomon's own temple required years of construction and the efforts of many thousands of workers? 36Seeming problems in the Book of Mormon often dissolve when we attempt to find out what the text actually says, which is not always what we initially imagine it to say. What does it mean to be built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon"? I submit that it means to be patterned after, to have the same general layout as Solomon's temple, without necessarily being on the same scale. And since we know that smaller temples did in fact exist in ancient Israel, there seems no real reason to assume, without evidence, that one could not have existed among the Nephites. "Biblical evidence," notes the Israeli archaeologist Avraham Negev, "points to the existence of numerous other cult places all over Palestine, in addition to the main Temple of Jerusalem, and such shrines have now been found at Arad and Lachish, both of a very similar plan." 37

Indeed, says Negev, "No actual remains of the First Temple [Solomon's] have come to light, and it is therefore only by the study of the Bible Scriptures and by comparison with other contemporary temples that we can reconstruct the plan." 38 Negev tells of one such temple, built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon," as follows: "The most remarkable discovery at Arad is the temple which occupied the north-western corner of the citadel. . . . Its orientation, general plan and contents, especially the tabernacle, are similar to the Temple of Solomon. . . . Flanking the entrance to the hekal were two stone slabs, probably bases of pillars, similar to the pillars of Jachin and Boaz in the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kgs. 7:21; 2 Chr. 4:17)." 39

Yet the Arad temple was only a fraction of the size of Solomon's temple. Significantly, it survived, in use, until approximately the time of Lehi.Jerusalem or Bethlehem?One attack on the Book of Mormon has actually, to my personal knowledge, made its way onto bumper stickers in California, which must surely be a measure of something. Alma 7:10 predicts that the Savior "shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." Yet the Bible unmistakably informs us that Jesus was born in the small town of Bethlehem, close to but quite distinct from the much larger city of Jerusalem. This, say many critics, is a major historical error. 40

I confess I have never seen the point of their argument. To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus' baptism by John ("in Bethabara, beyond Jordan" [1 Ne. 10:9] but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous. Do the skeptics seriously mean to suggest that the Book of Mormon's Bible-drenched author (or authors) missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible-something known to every child and Christmas caroler? 41

Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtly authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem? As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem." 42 Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. "The land of Jerusalem" is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.

Why did Alma not give a more precise location for the birth of Jesus? Perhaps because he was talking to people five centuries and many thousands of miles removed from any direct knowledge of the geography of Judea. A prophetic reference to a small, unfamiliar village near Jerusalem would, therefore, likely have been meaningless to Alma's audience. Jerusalem, by contrast, was well-known and frequently mentioned. Furthermore, from across the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean, the five-mile distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem would hardly have seemed significant to a Nephite.Much more importantly, though, the Book of Mormon's prophecy that Christ would be born "at Jerusalem which is the land of our fathers" accords remarkably well with what we now know to have been ancient usage. 43Far from casting doubt upon the authenticity of the book, the statement in Alma 7:10 represents a striking bull's-eye-and a bull's-eye, it must be remembered, on a target at which Joseph Smith surely did not even know he was aiming.In order to understand this, we need to grasp clearly what the passage says.

No Latter-day Saint has ever, to my knowledge, claimed or believed because of Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem and not in Bethlehem. And this is right, for Alma 7:10 does not even mention the "city" of Jerusalem. It refers, rather, to a "land" of Jerusalem, and in this it is consistent both internally and with ancient Near Eastern usage. "City and state often have the same name in the Ancient Orient, although distinct entities." 44 Likewise-and exactly as one would expect from a text that claims an ancient Near Eastern cultural background-the Book of Mormon routinely refers to "lands" that both surround and bear the names of their chief cities.Strikingly,

Bethlehem itself seems to have been regarded anciently as lying within Jerusalem's "land," just as the Book of Mormon describes it. The so-called Amarna letters, which date to approximately 1400 b.c., allude to "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name," which the illustrious American archaeologist W. F. Albright regarded as "an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem." 45And, at the beginning of Book of Mormon history in 597 b.c., Jerusalem could indeed be considered nothing more than a city-state. The former kingdom of Judah had been completely conquered by the Babylonians on 16 March 597, after which Zedekiah (Mattaniah) had been placed on the Jewish throne as a Babylonian puppet. Thus, the "first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Ne. 1:4), when the story of Lehi opens, was precisely the year of the collapse of the kingdom of Judah and of its reduction to a vassal city-state under Babylonian domination. Although technically still called the "kingdom of Judah," the area of Zedekiah's rule had in fact been limited to the region directly surrounding Jerusalem, which could accurately be called the "land of Jerusalem."

As John Bright describes it, "Certain of [Judah's] chief cities, such as Lachish and Debir, had been taken by storm and severely damaged. Her territory was probably restricted by the removal of the Negeb from her control, her economy crippled and her population drastically reduced." 46This is the political situation with which Nephi was familiar when he left Jerusalem. Judah had been reduced from a kingdom controlling all of Israel and much of Syria in the days of Solomon to a much more humble status under Babylonian hegemony. Thus, the very recently published Dead Sea Scrolls document called Pseudo-Jeremiah (4Q385), which purports to come from the exact time of Nephi, can quite accurately say that the Jews whom Lehi and his family left behind were "taken captive from the land of Jerusalem." 47In Nephi's personal experience-and therefore, in subsequent Nephite tradition-Judah was not an independent kingdom, but a tributary city-state, tenuously ruling only the "land of Jerusalem.

"The prophecy of Alma 7:10 thus fits into antiquity very well. As two prominent scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls observe of the reference in the Pseudo-Jeremiah fragment to "the land of Jerusalem," it "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or ÔYehud' [the name of the area on coins from the Persian period] by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." 48Isn't it, therefore, reasonable to say that the similar reference in Alma 7:10 "enhances the sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon? Far from being a serious liability, Alma's prophetic comment about the birth of the Messiah is plausible evidence that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be.

No Mormon Doctrine

One currently popular anti-Mormon line of attack points out that the Book of Mormon fails to teach a number of distinctively Latter-day Saint doctrines, even though the Doctrine and Covenants declares it to contain the "fulness" of the gospel (D&C 20:9; 27:5; 42:12; 135:3; compare 18:4). This is supposed to show that Mormonism cannot be true if the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Book of Mormon must be false if Mormonism is true. Of course, it is one thing to demonstrate that a given principle is not taught in a particular passage or book, and it is quite another to show that that principle has been directly contradicted. But it is entirely true that no explicit discussion exists in the Book of Mormon of the plurality of gods, eternal progression, celestial marriage, baptism for the dead, the corporeality of God, the denial of ex nihilo creation, and three degrees of glory. 49

What, then, do we mean to say when we speak of the Book of Mormon as containing "the fulness of the gospel"? When the Doctrine and Covenants describes the Book of Mormon as containing the "fulness" of the gospel, does it mean the Book of Mormon contains the "totality" of Mormon doctrine? 50

Does it intend the "totality" of doctrinal propositions, ritual observances, administrative practices and patterns, and cultural distinctives that make up Mormonism? 51First of all, we need not admit that no allusion to such doctrines exists at all. Thus, for instance, the command to "be perfect" (an essential component of the principle of eternal progression) occurs not only in Matt. 5:48 but in 3 Ne. 12:48, and it can certainly be argued that 3 Ne. 28:10 contains a subtle but unmistakable allusion to a doctrine of human deification. And, just a few verses later, at 3 Ne. 28:13-16, we find what might well be an analogy to Latter-day Saint temple ritual, which takes the form of an ascension rite and which likewise involves the communication of matters that are not to be publicly taught or discussed.

More importantly, Noel B. Reynolds has shown in several carefully reasoned articles that the word gospel, as the term is used in the Book of Mormon, refers to the means by which a person comes unto Christ and is saved. In its most basic sense, the word does not refer to all of the ordinances and all of the specific doctrines held by the Latter-day Saints, but represents a six-point formula including repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, faith, endurance to the end, and eternal life. These teachings are clearly-one might well say "fully"-set out in the Book of Mormon. 52Furthermore, there is no need for these doctrines to be explicitly discussed in the Book of Mormon, for the Nephite record itself repeatedly teaches that after the believer has come to Christ and received the Holy Ghost, important further revelations will follow. 53

The Book of Mormon consistently points beyond itself to things that were not "lawful" for its authors to write or to utter, thus teaching us that there are other doctrines not contained within its pages but implicitly embraced within a life lived according to the gospel. 54

Joseph Smith as the Supposed Author

From the start, critics have denounced Joseph Smith's claims as those of a conscious and deliberate fraud. They have disagreed, however, about whether he wrote the Book of Mormon himself or simply stole it from someone else. In regard to this question, it is important to note that Emma Smith, who knew her husband as well as anybody on earth could have known him, insisted to the end of her life that the writing of the Book of Mormon was utterly beyond his unaided capacities.I wrote for Joseph Smith during the work of translation. . . . The larger part of this labor was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. . . . During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any mss. [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had.Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. . . . [F]or one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.55

Rival Candidates: Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith

At first, critics were nonetheless inclined to see Joseph Smith as sole author. But when that became obviously implausible, they found themselves obliged to hypothesize one or more co-conspirators. A bad novel by an Episcopalian minister named Solomon Spaulding, for instance, has long been held by many opponents of the Church to have served as a principal source for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. Even the actual rediscovery of Spaulding's Manuscript Found in 1884 and the obvious fact that it bears little, if any, resemblance to the Book of Mormon have failed to prevent new generations of anti-Mormons from resurrecting the theory. 56Nevertheless, as Dr. Lester E. Bush Jr. illustrated in detail in an important 1977 article, though the Spaulding yarn has been "disinterred," it very desperately needs "reburial." 57

Some critics, perhaps jumping from an obviously sinking ship, have alleged that Joseph plagiarized from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, 58but John W. Welch has supplied nearly a hundred significant disagreements-he calls them "unparallels"-between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith's work, in comparison to which the relatively few and profoundly superficial similarities adduced by critics are entirely unconvincing. 59

The Gadianton Robbers

One assumption favored by many skeptics who want to place the writing of the Book of Mormon in the Jacksonian United States is that the book's notorious Gadianton robbers are really only thinly disguised early nineteenth-century Masons. 60 Recent research, however, indicates that this long-cherished notion has little or no basis in fact. 61Moreover, the account of the Gadianton robbers given in the Book of Mormon turns out to be a highly realistic story of what sounds very much like a genuine series of military events, narrated in a style quite foreign to the uniform-and-parade patriotism favored by Joseph Smith and other Jacksonian Americans, some of whom had served in the Revolutionary War. 62

Joseph Smith: A Highly Unlikely Candidate

As I write, though, the pendulum among skeptics seems to be swinging back to the notion-rejected by those who knew him best-that Joseph Smith composed the book on his own. Yet I would contend that the publication over the past several years of Joseph Smith's authenticated personal writings-writings mostly not designed for printing, and hence, unlikely to be part of a public pose-reveals an honest, humble, and sincere man who simply cannot have been the conscious fraud depicted in conventional anti-Mormon writing. 63

Similarly, newly gathered evidence about Joseph Smith and his family has effectively demolished the early anti-Mormon affidavits that the Prophet's enemies have treasured for more than a century and a half as evidence that he was a dishonest schemer. 64And recent statistical studies of Book of Mormon prose seem to offer striking scientific evidence that Joseph Smith could not have been the book's author. 65

The Witnesses

In any case, advocates of Joseph Smith's authorship of the Book of Mormon have been no more successful than other critics in dealing with the eleven witnesses to the plates. Some have alleged, without real proof, that certain of the witnesses eventually denied their testimonies 66or that they admitted they thought they had seen "only" a vision, nothing real. 67

Many skeptics, perhaps realizing that such arguments were going nowhere, have also attempted to dismiss the witnesses as unreliable men of bad character 68Unfortunately for such attempts, though, they run head-on into an impressive body of recent scholarship that strongly supports the consistency and dependability of the witnesses' testimonies. 69

As Professor Richard Lloyd Anderson noted in 1981:The first anti-Mormon book was written in 1834 . . . and set the precedent . . . devoting most space to show them to be either superstitious or dishonest. This became a formula: ignore the testimony and attack the witness. . . . That method is sure to caricature its victims: lead off with the worst names anyone ever called them, take all charges as presented without investigating, solidify mistakes as lifelong characteristics, and ignore all positive accomplishments or favorable judgments on their lives. Such bad methods will inevitably produce bad men on paper. The only problem with this treatment is that it cheats the consumer-it appears to investigate personality without really doing so.70Those, therefore, who wish to dismiss the Book of Mormon as merely a piece of nineteenth-century frontierfiction must explain where the gold plates came from, or how Joseph Smith managed to make eleven serious, honest, sane men (and a number of others not listed among the formal witnesses) think they had seen them if they did not really exist.

No serious try has been made at this. Almost without exception, critics have dealt with the witnesses by simply ignoring them.Nonetheless, Fawn Brodie can speak glibly of Joseph Smith's "marvelously fecund imagination," his "extraordinary capacity for fantasy," which "spilled over like a spring freshet" in the production of the Book of Mormon. 71

One recent book has received a great deal of acclaim for contending that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon merely reflects his supposedly hermetic and occult background. 72But such judgments have come largely from scholars who know little of Mormonism, let alone of the ancient milieu from which the Book of Mormon claims to derive, and the revisionist accounts seem to rest upon little or no evidence. 73

And it all seems rather irrelevant anyway, since, as Hugh Nibley has observed, "There is no point at all to the question: Who wrote the Book of Mormon? It would have been quite as impossible for the most learned man alive in 1830 to have written the book as it was for Joseph Smith." 74

A Side Issue

A popular argument against the Book of Mormon in some circles rests upon the claim that B. H. Roberts, a long-time General Authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and one of its premier writers and intellectuals, lost his own faith in the book during the last years of his life. 75

Exactly how this would constitute evidence against the Book of Mormon, even if the sad tale were true, is not entirely clear. Surely there have been cases of lost religious faith throughout the whole history of Christianity and beyond. But unquestionably, the claim has a certain shock value when used against faithful Latter-day Saints. Fortunately, the evidence strongly indicates that Elder Roberts retained his faith in the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel until his death. 76

In fact, the long-delayed recent publication of B. H. Roberts's last work, the one he considered his masterpiece, should settle this question permanently. In it, Elder Roberts consistently refers to the Book of Mormon as a historically authentic account of ancient peoples. 77

Temporary Conclusion

Some critics of the Book of Mormon, demonstrably unaware of (or at least unwilling to acknowledge) competent Latter-day Saint scholarship, actually seem to believe that such scholarship does not exist. Therefore, they say Mormons are obliged to take refuge from objective fact-which is invariably hostile to them-in subjective testimony, or feelings. 78

"The 'Anti-Mormon' label releases Mormons from feeling obligated to respond to the challenges of such literature on the basis that it is persecution." 79I hope the examples I have sketched here have shown such a portrait to be misleading. I do not, however, mean to suggest by this brief and necessarily cursory survey that no problems remain unsolved for Book of Mormon researchers.

Probably no significant book-certainly no ancient one, emphatically including the Bible-poses no difficulties to those who study it carefully. Quite as one would expect, therefore, interesting questions continue to arise in connection with the Book of Mormon. But they are not paralyzing questions. Were the Book of Mormon merely what its critics have claimed it to be over the years (i.e., a simple excrescence of shallow fraud), it would not, today, continue to draw respectful attention and even veneration from those who study it most intensely. And as their studies grow ever deeper and more sophisticated, many continue to be astonished by both the richness and the toughness of the Book of Mormon. These studies reinforce their spiritual conviction that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be: a testimony to the divinely appointed mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith and, more significant still, another witness to the deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning Savior of the world.

For Further Reading:

Those wishing to look in greater detail at the state of the arguments about the Book of Mormon will find good starting points in

John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), and

John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992).

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, which commenced publication in 1992, features original articles on the subject. The Review of Books on the Book of Mormon began in 1989 (its name was changed to the FARMS Review of Books in 1996) and evaluates all books published in the field, both pro and con (including several of the anti-Mormon books cited here). Both periodicals are available from the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), as well as in many LDS bookstores.

Notes1. The examples below are taken from Ed Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1995), 109-14. Compare John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1992), 277, 292, 295, 305-11; Peter Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book and the Cult (Dublin, Ireland: Veritas, 1989), 62-4; Mark J. Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1993), 212; John R. Farkas and David A. Reed, Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), 119-29; Floyd C. McElveen, The Mormon Illusion (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1985), 43-8; Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 128-33; James R. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1993), 149-53.2. George Horton, "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon," Ensign (December 1983): 24-8.3. Royal Skousen, "Piecing Together the Original Manuscript," BYU Today 46/3 (May 1992): 18-24; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 30/1 (Winter 1990): 41-69; Royal Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon," review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations of Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 121-44; and Royal Skousen, The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon, 60 min., 1995, FARMS, video and audiotape (transcript available).4. See, for instance, "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve" (June 1916), conveniently available in Encyclopedia of Mormonism 4:1670-7.5. Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 112-3.6. John A. Tvedtnes, "The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon," in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon , ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 78. The same is also true in Arabic, a language closely related to Hebrew. See, for instance, Michael A. Sells, trans., Desert Tracings: Six Classic Arabian Odes by ÔAlqama, Sh‡nfara, Lab'd, ÔAntara, Al-AÔsha, and Dhu al-Rœmma (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1989), 5, with some related examples from ancient Arabian poetry on pp. 11, 15, 31-5, 37-9, 45, 47, 50, 68, 75-6.7. A famous example of literary anachronism can be found in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar 2.1.192-3, where, although clocks were unknown in ancient Rome, a clock strikes three. The Bible itself is not free of items that certain scholars have branded anachronistic. Some, for instance, have argued that the domestication of camels in the ancient Near East occurred relatively late, and consequently, that the passages in the patriarchal narratives of the Bible that mention them prominently (e.g., Gen. 12:16; 24:10; 30:43; 31:17; 32:15) are simply the mistaken retrojections of later authors. See J. A. Thompson, "Camel," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, et al. (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1962-76), 1:491; Richard W. Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 35-6.8. From the Latin adjective almus/-a/-um ("nourishing," "kind," "bountiful"), where alma is the feminine form.9. Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (New York: Random House, 1971), 176.10. I might incidentally mention that at least one Oklahoma-based set of anti-Mormons knows this, because I personally sent the evidence to them. Nonetheless, and despite their written promise that they would correct their inaccurate statements on the matter, they have continued to ridicule the name Alma in the Book of Mormon.11. See, for example, Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 322; White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 145; Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 113.12. Farkas and Reed, Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors, 152; compare Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 114; Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980), 90.13. M. Gary Hadfield, "Neuropathology and the Scriptures," BYU Studies 33/2 (1993): 313-28. The results of Dr. Hadfield's study were summarized, with some additional points supplied by John W. Welch, in "The ÔDecapitation' of Shiz," Insights (November 1994): 2.14. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 275, 282-90, 295; Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, the Cult, 33-55; Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, 213; McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 61-3, 66; Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., 1969), reprinted with second appendix in 1972; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 133-41, 145-6; Kurt Van Gorden, Mormonism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 9 n. 9; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 77-85; Wesley P. Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today" (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Gospel Truths Ministries, 1992); White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 134-40. Compare Edward H. Ashment, "Historiography of the Canon," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 284.15. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985); John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992). Compare David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1981). John Clark, "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies," review of F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon , in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (1989): 20-70, corroborates Sorenson's important claim that the Book of Mormon contains an involved and internally consistent implicit geography.16. Warren P. Aston and Michaela Knoth Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi: New Evidence for Lehi's Journey across Arabia to Bountiful (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994). The Astons have extended and corrected the valuable earlier work of Lynn M. Hilton and Hope Hilton, In Search of Lehi's Trail (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976).17. This has been pointed out in a fine article by William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 161-97. See also William J. Hamblin, review of Tanner and Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon , in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5 (1993): 250-72.18. Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, the Cult, 53. Compare Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 83-4.19. Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller, "The Blood of Kings: A New Interpretation of Maya Art," Archaeology 39 (May/June 1986): 61.20. Michael D. Coe, The Maya, 3rd ed. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1984), 148. The Maya should not be simplistically identified with Book of Mormon peoples. Still, in this context, one can hardly fail to recall the somber words of Moroni, recorded at Morm. 8:2, 8, or the depressing prophecy of 1 Ne. 12:20-21. 21. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1986.22. McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 63; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 81-2; Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today.ൟ. Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 82 (italics in the original); cf. 84; also White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 139.24. See the discussion, with references, by John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130-2.25. Ashment, "Historiography of the Canon," 284.26. John L. Sorenson, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992). See also Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 288-99.27. See the discussion, with references, by John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130-2.28. Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 83.29. See Michio Kaku, Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension (New York: Anchor Books, 1994), vii: "Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense. If all our common-sense notions about the universe were correct, then science would have solved the secrets of the universe thousands of years ago. The purpose of science is to peel back the layer of the appearance of objects to reveal their underlying nature. In fact, if appearance and essence were the same thing, there would be no need for science.൦. John L. Sorenson, "Metals and Metallurgy relating to the Book of Mormon Text" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992). See also Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 278-88.31. See "The ÔGolden' Plates," in Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon , 275-7.32. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 294-5; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 63-4; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 141-5; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 8 n. 7.33. For a good, brief summary of the evidence, with references, see William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995).34. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 139. Compare Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 285-6; Farkas and Reed, Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors, 155; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 81-2; Tanner and Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon , 11-2, 91; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 9 n. 9.35. See Hugh Nibley's discussion in The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989), 245-6, in an article entitled "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" reprinted from the Millennial Star 125 (February 1963): 28-34; also Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 232-3, and Hamblin, review of Tanner and Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon , 259.36. For examples of this kind of attack, see Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 322, and Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 83.37. Avraham Negev, ed., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1972), 311. See also Amihay Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 492-502. Negev says that Solomon's temple followed a general "Canaanite plan," common to both Hebrew and pagan shrines of the Bronze Age.38. Negev, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 312. In correspondence, one critic of the Book of Mormon demanded to know why, if Nephites really once existed, we have not found any ruins of Nephi's temple. I would suggest that it is for the same reason that we have found "no actual remains" of Solomon's temple.39. Ibid., 28 (emphasis added).40. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 353, 364; Weldon Langfield, The Truth about Mormonism: A Former Adherent Analyzes the LDS Faith (Bakersfield, Calif.: Weldon Langfield Publications, 1991), 53; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 86; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 25 n. 52.41. See Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990), for a recent assault on the Book of Mormon, the argument of which rests heavily upon the debatable assumption that Joseph Smith knew the Bible extremely well and in extraordinary detail. It is absolutely impossible to reconcile such alleged mastery of biblical detail with the "dumb mistake" that the Prophet is supposed to have committed with respect to Christ's birthplace. Critics of the Book of Mormon really cannot have it both ways.42. Langfield, The Truth about Mormonism, 53.43. For a much more detailed examination of this issue, see Daniel C. Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin, "On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995). Earlier Latter-day Saint treatments of this issue include B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Part 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909), 481-2; Sidney B. Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions [formerly Problems of the Book of Mormon ] (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 131-6, 207-8; D. Kelly Ogden, "Why Does the Book of Mormon Say That Jesus Would Be Born at Jerusalem?" I Have a Question, Ensign (August 1984): 51-2; Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 6-7; Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 100-2; Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon , 170-2.44. Kenneth Anderson Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 1966), 68 n. 43.45. See James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 1:274; also Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, eds., The Macmillan Bible Atlas, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1977), map 39. For the dating of the Amarna Letters, see Walter Harrelson, "Shechem in Extra-Biblical References," The Biblical Archaeologist 20 (1957): 4, 6-7. Hugh Nibley drew our attention to the letters years ago. See Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 100-2. Nibley's references are to the Amarna letters, tablets 287:25 = "the land of the city of Jerusalem ([a-]mur mat u-ru-sa-lim[an-n[i-]ta)" 46, 61, 63 = "lands [matat] of Jerusalem" 290:15-6, discusses "a city of the land of Jerusalem, whose name is bit-ninib." Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Tell el-Amarna Tablets (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan, 1939), 722 n. L16, speculated that it might be possible to read this as "Bethlehem." Transliteration and translation can be found on 710-1, 722 of Mercer's book. The preferred translation is now William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).46. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 328.47. The Hebrew text and English translation are conveniently available in Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1992), 57-8.48. Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 57.49. See, for example, Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 292-4; Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, 96, 212, 243-4; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 91; Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today.ൺ. This is the claim made, and the word used, by Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 294.51. It is interesting to note that Webster's 1828 dictionary offers as its second meaning for fullness: "the state of abounding or being in great plenty; abundance." Only afterwards, as the third meaning, does it speak of "completeness; the state of a thing in which nothing is wanted; perfection.ർ. See Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets," BYU Studies 31/3 (Summer 1991): 31-50; Noel B. Reynolds, "Gospel of Jesus Christ," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:556-60; Noel B. Reynolds, "How to ÔCome unto Christ,'" Ensign (September 1992): 7-13; Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel As Taught by the Nephites" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994).53. See 2 Ne. 28:26-30; Alma 12:9-11; 3 Ne. 26:9-10; Morm. 8:12; Ether 4:4-10, 13. 54. See 2 Ne. 27:7-11, 21; 3 Ne. 26:11, 16, 18; 27:23; 28:13; Ether 13:13. 55. Milton V. Backman Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1983; republished in 1986 by Deseret Book), 126-7. Original quotation from Emma Smith's testimony as reported by Joseph Smith III to James T. Cobb, 14 February 1879, Letterbook 2:85-8, RLDS Archives, and in Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. See also Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 52.56. See, for example, Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis, and Donald R. Scales, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? (Santa Ana, Calif.: Vision House, 1977); Vernal Holley, Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look (Ogden, Utah: Zenos Publications, 1983); Charles A. Crane and Steven A. Crane, Ashamed of Joseph: Mormon Foundations Crumble (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1993), 121-6.57. Lester E. Bush Jr., "The Spalding Theory Then and Now," Dialogue 10/4 (1977): 40-69. Compare Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), 68, 143, 442-56. Brodie was no friend of Joseph Smith or of Mormonism, but she could see that the Spaulding theory was dead. See also Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding Manuscript" by Solomon Spaulding, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).58. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 279-80, 301-2; Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, the Cult, 28-9; Crane and Crane, Ashamed of Joseph , 123-5; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 126-8; Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today.ඃ. John W. Welch, "An Unparallel" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985); see also Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht, "View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?" BYU Studies 5 (1964): 105-13 and View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith, ed. Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).60. See, for example, Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 63-6; John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 168-71, 174-7, 226, 230, 233; Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 210-1, 280; Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism: Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon (St. Louis, Mo.: Clayton, 1980), 100-19, republished as Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 99-120; David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1985), 173-80; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 75; Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's ÔAnti-Masonick Bible,' " John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17-30.61. Daniel C. Peterson, "Notes on ÔGadianton Masonry,' " in Warfare in the Book of Mormon , ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 174-224.62. Daniel C. Peterson, "The Gadianton Robbers As Guerrilla Warriors," in Warfare in the Book of Mormon , 146-73.63. See, for instance, Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984); Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989); Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989).64. Donald L. Enders, "The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee," in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, the Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 1993), 213-25. See my summary "Can the 1834 Affidavits Attacking the Smith Family Be Trusted?" Insights (September 1993): 2.65. For a clear and accessible account of recent statistical research, see John L. Hilton, "On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship," BYU Studies 30/3 (1990): 89-108, reprinted in this volume.66. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 297-8; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 94; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 9 n. 12.67. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 296-8; Crane and Crane, Ashamed of Joseph , 211-2; McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 48; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 107-10; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 9 n. 12. Dan Vogel, "Book of Mormon Witnesses and the Nature of Religious Testimony," unpublished paper presented in Salt Lake City at the Sunstone Symposium (August 1995).68. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 297-9; Crane and Crane, Ashamed of Joseph , 211-2; Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 400-4; McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 48-9; Tanner

peddler2 answered on 10/04/07:

In the 18th century Emmanuel Swdedenborg head voices at a seance telling him the Nebular Hypothesis. It is still believed by millions,including you.

I can fill the pages with 19th century cults like the JW's etc. that are still believed by millions.

If your best argument is the bandwagon fallacy you have no argument . You have no case.

My Mom asked me if the other kids were jumping of a bridge would I ? I said no. Apparently you missed the point.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/04/07 - Holly - Is the Book of Mormon True?

Is the Book of Mormon True?

Notes on the Debate

Daniel C. PetersonDaniel C. Peterson is associate professor of Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University.

Since its publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been an object of intense controversy and has been subjected to virtually unparalleled critical attacks. Indeed, the opposition began even before the book came from the press. Thus, perhaps the greatest secular argument for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the sheer fact that millions of people around the world, including a considerable number of highly educated and well-informed people, continue to find the Book of Mormon believable 165 years after its appearance.

A simple yarn spun by an uneducated frontier con artist should have-would have!-collapsed years ago. How many books published in 1830 continue to be read today?

Nevertheless, it is useful from time to time to examine the details of the arguments, pro and con, about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Within the limited space afforded by this article, we shall do just that with a representative sample of the criticisms.

Textual Changes

Critics of the Book of Mormon, particularly those of the conservative Protestant variety, like to point to thousands of changes made in the text of the Book of Mormon since its first printing, changes the critics allege have been kept secret by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1

Have Changes Been Hidden?

There seems, however, to be no evidence whatever that the Church is suppressing early texts of the Book of Mormon or trying to cover up the changes that have in fact been made in it; indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Consider the following:

(1) Wilford Woods's reprint of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon has been widely available for many years and is frequently sold in Latter-day Saint bookstores.

(2) Between 1984 and 1987, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) produced and published a critical edition of the Book of Mormon that attempted to list all of the textual variants.

(3) In 1980 Deseret Book, the Church's publishing house, produced and marketed a reprint of the 1830 edition to commemorate the sesquicentennial of Mormonism.

(4) Professor George Horton of Brigham Young University published a 1983 article on the subject in the Church's official magazine. 2

(5) Professor Royal Skousen of Brigham Young University has been working for several years to prepare a definitive critical edition of the Book of Mormon, complete with a textual apparatus listing all variant readings. He has had the full cooperation of the Church leadership in his efforts and intends a major volume on the textual history of the Book of Mormon to accompany the actual critical edition when it is published.

(6) In conjunction with his work, Dr. Skousen has taught several classes on Book of Mormon textual criticism at Brigham Young University.

(7) Dr. Skousen's work has hardly been kept a secret, but has been reported widely in various publications. 3

Are the Changes Important?

Furthermore, when one examines the changes exhibited by critics of the Book of Mormon-and presumably they choose the very "best" out of the alleged several thousand when they are trying to establish their case-it is difficult not to be disappointed by the trivial character of virtually all of the examples.

For instance, Ed Decker offers up Mosiah 27:29 as an illustration:

In current English versions of the Book of Mormon, that verse reads: "My soul was racked with eternal torment," whereas the 1830 edition has "wrecked" for "racked."

And, Decker reveals, whereas today the English version of Alma 13:20 reads: "Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction," the 1830 printing has "arrest" instead of "wrest."

But these are simply obvious cases of the scribe having misheard a spoken word, and therefore mistakenly writing a word that had a similar sound. It is the very thing that a tired scribe would tend to do, and, as such, it tends to verify the traditional account of Joseph's having dictated the Book of Mormon to a scribe.

Decker and others seem, at first glance, to have a more substantial case when they cite the few textual changes in the Book of Mormon that appear to have theological import. Thus, for instance, where in the 1830 edition Jesus Christ is identified as "the Eternal Father" at 1 Ne. 11:21 and 13:40, the modern English printing of those two verses calls him "the Son of the Eternal Father".

Likewise, 1 Ne. 11:32 calls him "the Everlasting God" in 1830 but "the Son of the Everlasting God" in current editions, while 1 Ne. 11:18 termed Mary "the mother of God" before it was altered to read "the mother of the Son of God" in more recent printings. But are these changes really doctrinally significant?

Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is God, and in fact, they affirm that he was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. And they assert that, in very real and important ways, Christ is and will be the Father of those who accept his atoning sacrifice. 4

Viewed in this light, the 1830 renderings of the verses just mentioned were not at all incorrect, although subsequent modifications (made by the very prophet through whom the Book of Mormon was revealed in the first place) do obviously clarify the passages and make them more precise.

Do the Changes Actually Point to the Book's Authenticity?

Decker also notes Alma 46:19, which in modern English editions of the Book of Mormon, says that Moroni "went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part". Quite correctly, Decker observes that the 1830 printing of this verse had Moroni "waving the rent of his garment in the air," and speaks of writing "upon the rent". This, of course, is bad English. "It is impossible," declares Decker, "to write on a a rent,' since a rent is an absence of cloth. It is also hard to wave a rent' in the air." 5

Decker is evidently unaware that the verse as rendered in the 1830 edition represents perfectly acceptable Hebrew usage-which, since the Book of Mormon claims to have been written originally by ancient Hebrews, is very interesting indeed.

"Thus, the error' [Decker sees] as evidence of fraud [is] really a Hebraism that [is] evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon." 6

Implausibilities and Anachronisms

Critics of the Book of Mormon have traditionally sought elements in the text that would prove it to be a product of the nineteenth century. They have hoped, for example, to find anachronisms, items wrongly inserted into a purportedly ancient story by an ignorant or careless modern author. 7

They have looked for implausible stories that would indicate that the Book of Mormon cannot really be reporting eyewitness accounts of real events.

A Man Named Alma?

The presence of the name Alma in the Book of Mormon, attached to an important prophet and his equally important son, has occasioned considerable merriment among certain critics of the book. Alma , they gleefully point out, is a woman's name and is not of Hebrew but of Latin origin. 8

Many people are likely to be familiar with it in the phrase alma mater, which means something like "foster mother" or "bounteous mother" and refers to a benevolent or protective institution (most often, nowadays, a college or university). However, during the archaeological season of 1960-61, while he was excavating in the Judean caves on the western shore of the Dead Sea near En-Gedi, the eminent Israeli scholar Yigael Yadin found an interesting document from the early second century a.d. that not only destroys the objection of the critics, but furnishes striking support for the Book of Mormon.

During the second Jewish revolt against Rome, the leader of that revolt, Shimeon Bar-Kokhba (or Bar-Kosiba), had nationalized some of the real estate around the northwestern shores of the Dead Sea. Professor Yadin discovered a land deed bearing the names of four people who had leased nationalized property under Bar-Kokhba and wanted to set down with more precision the perimeters of each of their holdings. One of those four was "Alma, son of Yehudah." 9

What this find means is that, although Joseph Smith, if he had known the word Alma at all, would have known it as a Latinate woman's name, recently unearthed evidence that he could never have encountered demonstrates Alma to be an authentically ancient Semitic masculine personal name, just as the Book of Mormon presents it. 10

Was There (Chuckle) French on the Plates?

Another popular claim among critics of the Book of Mormon has alleged that the occurrence of the word adieu at Jacob 7:27 is anachronistic, that it does not belong in the period where Joseph Smith seems to place it. French didn't exist in the sixth century b.c., they point out. So why does French show up in the Book of Mormon? 11

But, of course, what this argument fails to notice is that the Book of Mormon, as we have it today, purports to be a translation. Therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which the Book of Mormon has been rendered is not that from which, according to its own claims, it was translated. The language of the Book of Mormon is, necessarily, the language of its translator, Joseph Smith. There is nothing mysterious about this. The presence of adieu in the modern English Book of Mormon no more implies the existence of French on the plates than the occurrence of the words in the beginning indicates the existence of English in the original Hebrew text of Gen. 1.

And it is doubtful, by the way, that the extremely unsophisticated Joseph Smith of 1829-30 was even aware that adieu was French. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word had been a common one in English since at least 1374. It is included in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford American Dictionary, as well as, most importantly, in Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. It was simply a word that Joseph knew; he could just as easily and justifiably have used ciao, auf Wiedersehen, or sayonara if those words had formed part of the functioning vocabulary he shared with his audience.

The Beheading of Shiz

Another apparent blunder in the Book of Mormon appears at Ether 15:29-32. At the end of the bloody and violent last Jaredite battle, the exhausted Coriantumr, propping himself up with his own sword and gathering his last bit of strength, "smote off the head of Shiz," his archrival, who had fallen unconscious beside him from loss of blood. Fatally wounded, Shiz then "raised [himself] up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died." Recent critics have found this too laughable for words, much less for analysis. It is, they say, an "absurdity," "impossible." 12

But Dr. M. Gary Hadfield, M.D., professor of pathology (neuro-pathology) at the Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, concludes otherwise, contending, on the basis of precedents in the medical literature, that the story of the last moments of Shiz is, in fact, entirely believable. 13

Archaeology and History

Critics frequently charge that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Many critics point to a supposed contrast between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, claiming that, while the former has been devastated by archaeological research, the latter has been vindicated or even proven by recent scholarly work. 14

Such assertions are typically made in virtual or entire ignorance of recent work on the archaeology and geography of the Book of Mormon. Yet the seminal studies done by John L. Sorenson and others have established a highly plausible ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon, 15and the research of Warren and Michaela Aston appears to have identified believable Lehite locations on the Arabian peninsula. 16

Furthermore, conservative Protestant critics of the Book of Mormon have invariably tended both to exaggerate its archaeological weakness and to overstate, often grossly, the extent to which archaeological research supports the biblical narrative. 17

Warfare

Military history is one area where recent research has clearly tended to support the Book of Mormon. Yet this was not always the case. For many years, scholars argued that, essentially, no warfare existed in Mesoamerica, that no fortifications and certainly no armor existed as described in the Book of Mormon. The Maya, announces one Book of Mormon critic, "were on the whole a peaceful people. Their ceremonial centres had no fortifications, and were for the most part located in places incapable of defense." 18

Accordingly, he says, the Book of Mormon simply does not fit ancient America. But this rosy picture of an idyllic ancient Mesoamerica can no longer be seriously maintained. Still, some critics seem unaware of the overwhelming evidence now available for "the state of war that existed constantly among many Maya cities. The modern myth that the Maya were a peace-loving, gentle people who only tended their milpas and followed the stars has fallen with a thunderous crash." 19

As the Yale Mayanist Michael D. Coe puts it, "The Maya were obsessed with war. The Annals of the Cakchiquels and the Popol Vuh speak of little but intertribal conflict among the highlanders, while the sixteen states of Yucatan were constantly battling with each other over boundaries and lineage honour. To this sanguinary record we must add the testimony of the Classic monuments and their inscriptions." 20Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller's important book The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art shows beyond dispute that the Maya must be ranked among the most bloodthirsty people in world history. 21

Plants and Animals

The Book of Mormon has likewise been criticized on the grounds that its portrayal of the flora and fauna, the plants and animals, of the New World is inaccurate. 22

As one vocal critic exclaims, "barley never grew in the New World before the white man brought it here!" 23 (The existence of pre-Columbian American barley, incidentally, was revealed by archaeologists in 1983.) 24

Another, in a memorable formulation, points to the Book of Mormon's "botanically unverifiable animals." 25

However, such critics appear to have been left behind by current research, as surveyed, for instance, in John L. Sorenson's work on animals and the Book of Mormon. 26

Professor Sorenson demonstrates that naming conventions for animals and plants are far more varied from culture to culture-and are far more complex-than Book of Mormon skeptics assume, and that simplistic readings of the Nephite record are, thus, deeply misleading. He even shows that the horse and the elephant may well have survived into historic times in the Americas, contrary to common opinion. Though questions and problems remain, as they do in connection with every subject in antiquity, believers in the Book of Mormon have solid reasons for regarding the book as biologically reasonable. 27

Metals

Similarly, critics of the Book of Mormon have alleged that the metals it mentions have not been found in Mesoamerica, and presumably did not exist there in pre-Columbian times. 28But their criticisms typically manifest an oversimple reading of both the Book of Mormon and ancient America, as well as a too-simple ("common sense") way of looking at the anthropology and onomasticon of historical metallurgy. 29

Fortunately, the important studies of John L. Sorenson have again greatly deepened our understanding of the issues, demonstrating in the process that there is plenty of room in Mesoamerica for the claims of the Book of Mormon. Metal use among pre-Columbian Americans appears to be much earlier than conventional wisdom has believed. 30

What is more, the "golden plates" from which Joseph Smith declared he had translated the Book of Mormon can be persuasively argued to represent an authentically ancient American alloy known as tumbaga. 31

Reformed Egyptian

Many skeptics have declared that, contrary to the claims of the Book of Mormon, there is no such language as "reformed Egyptian." And besides, some add, real Jews wouldn't have used it anyway, since Jews believe Hebrew to be a sacred language, and ancient Jews held Egyptian, the language of their hereditary enemies, to be evil and corrupt. 32

The last contention, however, is not true. Not only were ancient Jews capable of using other languages and scripts to write their scriptures, but there is clear evidence that they did precisely that. Specifically, we now know of ancient instances of the writing of Old Testament scriptural passages in Egyptian. 33

Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that anything called "reformed Egyptian" would necessarily show up anywhere else, nor that the name "reformed Egyptian" would be familiar to secular scholars, for the Book of Mormon clearly states that "reformed Egyptian" was the Nephites' own term for a complex of script and language that, at least at the end of nearly a millennium of independent linguistic evolution, was unique to them:

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. (Morm. 9:32-34; emphasis mine)

The Book of Mormon never claims that "reformed Egyptian" existed in Egypt; on the contrary, it expressly says "reformed Egyptian" did not exist in Egypt. Therefore, testimony from Egyptologists (or, more frequently, from Egyptological amateurs) about the absence of "reformed Egyptian" from the Nile Valley or the failure of the precise phrase "reformed Egyptian" to show up in their grammar books is fundamentally irrelevant. Besides, "reformed Egyptian" is not necessarily the proper name of a specific language. Languages and scripts are constantly evolving, constantly being modified or "reformed," as anybody who has ever sat down to read the great Old English poem Beowulf or the English poems of Chaucer in the original can surely attest. "Reformed Egyptian" describes, simply, a linguistic system that had changed in an idiosyncratic direction over a thousand years of isolation.

Nephite Money

On a more tangible topic, many critics of the Book of Mormon have decided that the book describes "a complex system of coinage" 34 among the Nephites, and these critics have derided it because no such coins have been found by archaeologists. It is quite true that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Book of Mormon coins-not even in the Book of Mormon itself. The text of the Book of Mormon never mentions the word coin, nor any variant of it. The reference to "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text and is almost certainly mistaken. (It represents the same unexamined modern assumption-that money equals coins or currency or both-that misleads the critics.)

Alma 11 probably refers to standardized weights of metal-a historical step toward coinage, but not yet the real thing. 35

So Latter-day Saint scholars would be as surprised as anybody if we were someday to find a cache of "Book of Mormon coins."But the instance of "coinage" brings up a very important point. Time after time, critics of the Book of Mormon have punished the Book of Mormon on the basis of straw men of their own invention. They have imposed upon it claims it does not itself make and have then professed to have disproved it because it fails to deliver things it never pretended to deliver. However, it is not only critics of the Book of Mormon who have frequently misread the Nephite record; believers too have often carelessly construed its statements on geography and other issues, thereby setting themselves up for attacks from anti-Mormons. We must be perpetually vigilant against entrapping ourselves within pseudoproblems of our own devising.

The Temple of Nephi

Another issue of history and archaeology appears to further illustrate this point. Nephi's construction of a temple, recorded in 2 Ne. 5, has drawn a great deal of attention from critics of the Book of Mormon. Nephi states:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. (2 Ne. 5:16) But how, the skeptics demand, could a small family of refugees possibly build such a structure when Solomon's own temple required years of construction and the efforts of many thousands of workers? 36Seeming problems in the Book of Mormon often dissolve when we attempt to find out what the text actually says, which is not always what we initially imagine it to say. What does it mean to be built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon"? I submit that it means to be patterned after, to have the same general layout as Solomon's temple, without necessarily being on the same scale. And since we know that smaller temples did in fact exist in ancient Israel, there seems no real reason to assume, without evidence, that one could not have existed among the Nephites. "Biblical evidence," notes the Israeli archaeologist Avraham Negev, "points to the existence of numerous other cult places all over Palestine, in addition to the main Temple of Jerusalem, and such shrines have now been found at Arad and Lachish, both of a very similar plan." 37

Indeed, says Negev, "No actual remains of the First Temple [Solomon's] have come to light, and it is therefore only by the study of the Bible Scriptures and by comparison with other contemporary temples that we can reconstruct the plan." 38 Negev tells of one such temple, built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon," as follows: "The most remarkable discovery at Arad is the temple which occupied the north-western corner of the citadel. . . . Its orientation, general plan and contents, especially the tabernacle, are similar to the Temple of Solomon. . . . Flanking the entrance to the hekal were two stone slabs, probably bases of pillars, similar to the pillars of Jachin and Boaz in the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kgs. 7:21; 2 Chr. 4:17)." 39

Yet the Arad temple was only a fraction of the size of Solomon's temple. Significantly, it survived, in use, until approximately the time of Lehi.Jerusalem or Bethlehem?One attack on the Book of Mormon has actually, to my personal knowledge, made its way onto bumper stickers in California, which must surely be a measure of something. Alma 7:10 predicts that the Savior "shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." Yet the Bible unmistakably informs us that Jesus was born in the small town of Bethlehem, close to but quite distinct from the much larger city of Jerusalem. This, say many critics, is a major historical error. 40

I confess I have never seen the point of their argument. To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus' baptism by John ("in Bethabara, beyond Jordan" [1 Ne. 10:9] but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous. Do the skeptics seriously mean to suggest that the Book of Mormon's Bible-drenched author (or authors) missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible-something known to every child and Christmas caroler? 41

Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtly authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem? As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem." 42 Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. "The land of Jerusalem" is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.

Why did Alma not give a more precise location for the birth of Jesus? Perhaps because he was talking to people five centuries and many thousands of miles removed from any direct knowledge of the geography of Judea. A prophetic reference to a small, unfamiliar village near Jerusalem would, therefore, likely have been meaningless to Alma's audience. Jerusalem, by contrast, was well-known and frequently mentioned. Furthermore, from across the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean, the five-mile distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem would hardly have seemed significant to a Nephite.Much more importantly, though, the Book of Mormon's prophecy that Christ would be born "at Jerusalem which is the land of our fathers" accords remarkably well with what we now know to have been ancient usage. 43Far from casting doubt upon the authenticity of the book, the statement in Alma 7:10 represents a striking bull's-eye-and a bull's-eye, it must be remembered, on a target at which Joseph Smith surely did not even know he was aiming.In order to understand this, we need to grasp clearly what the passage says.

No Latter-day Saint has ever, to my knowledge, claimed or believed because of Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem and not in Bethlehem. And this is right, for Alma 7:10 does not even mention the "city" of Jerusalem. It refers, rather, to a "land" of Jerusalem, and in this it is consistent both internally and with ancient Near Eastern usage. "City and state often have the same name in the Ancient Orient, although distinct entities." 44 Likewise-and exactly as one would expect from a text that claims an ancient Near Eastern cultural background-the Book of Mormon routinely refers to "lands" that both surround and bear the names of their chief cities.Strikingly,

Bethlehem itself seems to have been regarded anciently as lying within Jerusalem's "land," just as the Book of Mormon describes it. The so-called Amarna letters, which date to approximately 1400 b.c., allude to "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name," which the illustrious American archaeologist W. F. Albright regarded as "an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem." 45And, at the beginning of Book of Mormon history in 597 b.c., Jerusalem could indeed be considered nothing more than a city-state. The former kingdom of Judah had been completely conquered by the Babylonians on 16 March 597, after which Zedekiah (Mattaniah) had been placed on the Jewish throne as a Babylonian puppet. Thus, the "first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Ne. 1:4), when the story of Lehi opens, was precisely the year of the collapse of the kingdom of Judah and of its reduction to a vassal city-state under Babylonian domination. Although technically still called the "kingdom of Judah," the area of Zedekiah's rule had in fact been limited to the region directly surrounding Jerusalem, which could accurately be called the "land of Jerusalem."

As John Bright describes it, "Certain of [Judah's] chief cities, such as Lachish and Debir, had been taken by storm and severely damaged. Her territory was probably restricted by the removal of the Negeb from her control, her economy crippled and her population drastically reduced." 46This is the political situation with which Nephi was familiar when he left Jerusalem. Judah had been reduced from a kingdom controlling all of Israel and much of Syria in the days of Solomon to a much more humble status under Babylonian hegemony. Thus, the very recently published Dead Sea Scrolls document called Pseudo-Jeremiah (4Q385), which purports to come from the exact time of Nephi, can quite accurately say that the Jews whom Lehi and his family left behind were "taken captive from the land of Jerusalem." 47In Nephi's personal experience-and therefore, in subsequent Nephite tradition-Judah was not an independent kingdom, but a tributary city-state, tenuously ruling only the "land of Jerusalem.

"The prophecy of Alma 7:10 thus fits into antiquity very well. As two prominent scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls observe of the reference in the Pseudo-Jeremiah fragment to "the land of Jerusalem," it "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or ÔYehud' [the name of the area on coins from the Persian period] by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." 48Isn't it, therefore, reasonable to say that the similar reference in Alma 7:10 "enhances the sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon? Far from being a serious liability, Alma's prophetic comment about the birth of the Messiah is plausible evidence that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be.

No Mormon Doctrine

One currently popular anti-Mormon line of attack points out that the Book of Mormon fails to teach a number of distinctively Latter-day Saint doctrines, even though the Doctrine and Covenants declares it to contain the "fulness" of the gospel (D&C 20:9; 27:5; 42:12; 135:3; compare 18:4). This is supposed to show that Mormonism cannot be true if the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Book of Mormon must be false if Mormonism is true. Of course, it is one thing to demonstrate that a given principle is not taught in a particular passage or book, and it is quite another to show that that principle has been directly contradicted. But it is entirely true that no explicit discussion exists in the Book of Mormon of the plurality of gods, eternal progression, celestial marriage, baptism for the dead, the corporeality of God, the denial of ex nihilo creation, and three degrees of glory. 49

What, then, do we mean to say when we speak of the Book of Mormon as containing "the fulness of the gospel"? When the Doctrine and Covenants describes the Book of Mormon as containing the "fulness" of the gospel, does it mean the Book of Mormon contains the "totality" of Mormon doctrine? 50

Does it intend the "totality" of doctrinal propositions, ritual observances, administrative practices and patterns, and cultural distinctives that make up Mormonism? 51First of all, we need not admit that no allusion to such doctrines exists at all. Thus, for instance, the command to "be perfect" (an essential component of the principle of eternal progression) occurs not only in Matt. 5:48 but in 3 Ne. 12:48, and it can certainly be argued that 3 Ne. 28:10 contains a subtle but unmistakable allusion to a doctrine of human deification. And, just a few verses later, at 3 Ne. 28:13-16, we find what might well be an analogy to Latter-day Saint temple ritual, which takes the form of an ascension rite and which likewise involves the communication of matters that are not to be publicly taught or discussed.

More importantly, Noel B. Reynolds has shown in several carefully reasoned articles that the word gospel, as the term is used in the Book of Mormon, refers to the means by which a person comes unto Christ and is saved. In its most basic sense, the word does not refer to all of the ordinances and all of the specific doctrines held by the Latter-day Saints, but represents a six-point formula including repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, faith, endurance to the end, and eternal life. These teachings are clearly-one might well say "fully"-set out in the Book of Mormon. 52Furthermore, there is no need for these doctrines to be explicitly discussed in the Book of Mormon, for the Nephite record itself repeatedly teaches that after the believer has come to Christ and received the Holy Ghost, important further revelations will follow. 53

The Book of Mormon consistently points beyond itself to things that were not "lawful" for its authors to write or to utter, thus teaching us that there are other doctrines not contained within its pages but implicitly embraced within a life lived according to the gospel. 54

Joseph Smith as the Supposed Author

From the start, critics have denounced Joseph Smith's claims as those of a conscious and deliberate fraud. They have disagreed, however, about whether he wrote the Book of Mormon himself or simply stole it from someone else. In regard to this question, it is important to note that Emma Smith, who knew her husband as well as anybody on earth could have known him, insisted to the end of her life that the writing of the Book of Mormon was utterly beyond his unaided capacities.I wrote for Joseph Smith during the work of translation. . . . The larger part of this labor was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. . . . During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any mss. [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had.Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. . . . [F]or one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.55

Rival Candidates: Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith

At first, critics were nonetheless inclined to see Joseph Smith as sole author. But when that became obviously implausible, they found themselves obliged to hypothesize one or more co-conspirators. A bad novel by an Episcopalian minister named Solomon Spaulding, for instance, has long been held by many opponents of the Church to have served as a principal source for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. Even the actual rediscovery of Spaulding's Manuscript Found in 1884 and the obvious fact that it bears little, if any, resemblance to the Book of Mormon have failed to prevent new generations of anti-Mormons from resurrecting the theory. 56Nevertheless, as Dr. Lester E. Bush Jr. illustrated in detail in an important 1977 article, though the Spaulding yarn has been "disinterred," it very desperately needs "reburial." 57

Some critics, perhaps jumping from an obviously sinking ship, have alleged that Joseph plagiarized from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, 58but John W. Welch has supplied nearly a hundred significant disagreements-he calls them "unparallels"-between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith's work, in comparison to which the relatively few and profoundly superficial similarities adduced by critics are entirely unconvincing. 59

The Gadianton Robbers

One assumption favored by many skeptics who want to place the writing of the Book of Mormon in the Jacksonian United States is that the book's notorious Gadianton robbers are really only thinly disguised early nineteenth-century Masons. 60 Recent research, however, indicates that this long-cherished notion has little or no basis in fact. 61Moreover, the account of the Gadianton robbers given in the Book of Mormon turns out to be a highly realistic story of what sounds very much like a genuine series of military events, narrated in a style quite foreign to the uniform-and-parade patriotism favored by Joseph Smith and other Jacksonian Americans, some of whom had served in the Revolutionary War. 62

Joseph Smith: A Highly Unlikely Candidate

As I write, though, the pendulum among skeptics seems to be swinging back to the notion-rejected by those who knew him best-that Joseph Smith composed the book on his own. Yet I would contend that the publication over the past several years of Joseph Smith's authenticated personal writings-writings mostly not designed for printing, and hence, unlikely to be part of a public pose-reveals an honest, humble, and sincere man who simply cannot have been the conscious fraud depicted in conventional anti-Mormon writing. 63

Similarly, newly gathered evidence about Joseph Smith and his family has effectively demolished the early anti-Mormon affidavits that the Prophet's enemies have treasured for more than a century and a half as evidence that he was a dishonest schemer. 64And recent statistical studies of Book of Mormon prose seem to offer striking scientific evidence that Joseph Smith could not have been the book's author. 65

The Witnesses

In any case, advocates of Joseph Smith's authorship of the Book of Mormon have been no more successful than other critics in dealing with the eleven witnesses to the plates. Some have alleged, without real proof, that certain of the witnesses eventually denied their testimonies 66or that they admitted they thought they had seen "only" a vision, nothing real. 67

Many skeptics, perhaps realizing that such arguments were going nowhere, have also attempted to dismiss the witnesses as unreliable men of bad character 68Unfortunately for such attempts, though, they run head-on into an impressive body of recent scholarship that strongly supports the consistency and dependability of the witnesses' testimonies. 69

As Professor Richard Lloyd Anderson noted in 1981:The first anti-Mormon book was written in 1834 . . . and set the precedent . . . devoting most space to show them to be either superstitious or dishonest. This became a formula: ignore the testimony and attack the witness. . . . That method is sure to caricature its victims: lead off with the worst names anyone ever called them, take all charges as presented without investigating, solidify mistakes as lifelong characteristics, and ignore all positive accomplishments or favorable judgments on their lives. Such bad methods will inevitably produce bad men on paper. The only problem with this treatment is that it cheats the consumer-it appears to investigate personality without really doing so.70Those, therefore, who wish to dismiss the Book of Mormon as merely a piece of nineteenth-century frontierfiction must explain where the gold plates came from, or how Joseph Smith managed to make eleven serious, honest, sane men (and a number of others not listed among the formal witnesses) think they had seen them if they did not really exist.

No serious try has been made at this. Almost without exception, critics have dealt with the witnesses by simply ignoring them.Nonetheless, Fawn Brodie can speak glibly of Joseph Smith's "marvelously fecund imagination," his "extraordinary capacity for fantasy," which "spilled over like a spring freshet" in the production of the Book of Mormon. 71

One recent book has received a great deal of acclaim for contending that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon merely reflects his supposedly hermetic and occult background. 72But such judgments have come largely from scholars who know little of Mormonism, let alone of the ancient milieu from which the Book of Mormon claims to derive, and the revisionist accounts seem to rest upon little or no evidence. 73

And it all seems rather irrelevant anyway, since, as Hugh Nibley has observed, "There is no point at all to the question: Who wrote the Book of Mormon? It would have been quite as impossible for the most learned man alive in 1830 to have written the book as it was for Joseph Smith." 74

A Side Issue

A popular argument against the Book of Mormon in some circles rests upon the claim that B. H. Roberts, a long-time General Authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and one of its premier writers and intellectuals, lost his own faith in the book during the last years of his life. 75

Exactly how this would constitute evidence against the Book of Mormon, even if the sad tale were true, is not entirely clear. Surely there have been cases of lost religious faith throughout the whole history of Christianity and beyond. But unquestionably, the claim has a certain shock value when used against faithful Latter-day Saints. Fortunately, the evidence strongly indicates that Elder Roberts retained his faith in the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel until his death. 76

In fact, the long-delayed recent publication of B. H. Roberts's last work, the one he considered his masterpiece, should settle this question permanently. In it, Elder Roberts consistently refers to the Book of Mormon as a historically authentic account of ancient peoples. 77

Temporary Conclusion

Some critics of the Book of Mormon, demonstrably unaware of (or at least unwilling to acknowledge) competent Latter-day Saint scholarship, actually seem to believe that such scholarship does not exist. Therefore, they say Mormons are obliged to take refuge from objective fact-which is invariably hostile to them-in subjective testimony, or feelings. 78

"The 'Anti-Mormon' label releases Mormons from feeling obligated to respond to the challenges of such literature on the basis that it is persecution." 79I hope the examples I have sketched here have shown such a portrait to be misleading. I do not, however, mean to suggest by this brief and necessarily cursory survey that no problems remain unsolved for Book of Mormon researchers.

Probably no significant book-certainly no ancient one, emphatically including the Bible-poses no difficulties to those who study it carefully. Quite as one would expect, therefore, interesting questions continue to arise in connection with the Book of Mormon. But they are not paralyzing questions. Were the Book of Mormon merely what its critics have claimed it to be over the years (i.e., a simple excrescence of shallow fraud), it would not, today, continue to draw respectful attention and even veneration from those who study it most intensely. And as their studies grow ever deeper and more sophisticated, many continue to be astonished by both the richness and the toughness of the Book of Mormon. These studies reinforce their spiritual conviction that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be: a testimony to the divinely appointed mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith and, more significant still, another witness to the deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning Savior of the world.

For Further Reading:

Those wishing to look in greater detail at the state of the arguments about the Book of Mormon will find good starting points in

John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), and

John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992).

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, which commenced publication in 1992, features original articles on the subject. The Review of Books on the Book of Mormon began in 1989 (its name was changed to the FARMS Review of Books in 1996) and evaluates all books published in the field, both pro and con (including several of the anti-Mormon books cited here). Both periodicals are available from the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), as well as in many LDS bookstores.

Notes1. The examples below are taken from Ed Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1995), 109-14. Compare John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1992), 277, 292, 295, 305-11; Peter Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book and the Cult (Dublin, Ireland: Veritas, 1989), 62-4; Mark J. Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1993), 212; John R. Farkas and David A. Reed, Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), 119-29; Floyd C. McElveen, The Mormon Illusion (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1985), 43-8; Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 128-33; James R. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1993), 149-53.2. George Horton, "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon," Ensign (December 1983): 24-8.3. Royal Skousen, "Piecing Together the Original Manuscript," BYU Today 46/3 (May 1992): 18-24; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 30/1 (Winter 1990): 41-69; Royal Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon," review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations of Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 121-44; and Royal Skousen, The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon, 60 min., 1995, FARMS, video and audiotape (transcript available).4. See, for instance, "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve" (June 1916), conveniently available in Encyclopedia of Mormonism 4:1670-7.5. Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 112-3.6. John A. Tvedtnes, "The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon," in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon , ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 78. The same is also true in Arabic, a language closely related to Hebrew. See, for instance, Michael A. Sells, trans., Desert Tracings: Six Classic Arabian Odes by ÔAlqama, Sh‡nfara, Lab'd, ÔAntara, Al-AÔsha, and Dhu al-Rœmma (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1989), 5, with some related examples from ancient Arabian poetry on pp. 11, 15, 31-5, 37-9, 45, 47, 50, 68, 75-6.7. A famous example of literary anachronism can be found in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar 2.1.192-3, where, although clocks were unknown in ancient Rome, a clock strikes three. The Bible itself is not free of items that certain scholars have branded anachronistic. Some, for instance, have argued that the domestication of camels in the ancient Near East occurred relatively late, and consequently, that the passages in the patriarchal narratives of the Bible that mention them prominently (e.g., Gen. 12:16; 24:10; 30:43; 31:17; 32:15) are simply the mistaken retrojections of later authors. See J. A. Thompson, "Camel," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, et al. (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1962-76), 1:491; Richard W. Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 35-6.8. From the Latin adjective almus/-a/-um ("nourishing," "kind," "bountiful"), where alma is the feminine form.9. Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (New York: Random House, 1971), 176.10. I might incidentally mention that at least one Oklahoma-based set of anti-Mormons knows this, because I personally sent the evidence to them. Nonetheless, and despite their written promise that they would correct their inaccurate statements on the matter, they have continued to ridicule the name Alma in the Book of Mormon.11. See, for example, Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 322; White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 145; Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 113.12. Farkas and Reed, Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors, 152; compare Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 114; Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980), 90.13. M. Gary Hadfield, "Neuropathology and the Scriptures," BYU Studies 33/2 (1993): 313-28. The results of Dr. Hadfield's study were summarized, with some additional points supplied by John W. Welch, in "The ÔDecapitation' of Shiz," Insights (November 1994): 2.14. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 275, 282-90, 295; Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, the Cult, 33-55; Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, 213; McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 61-3, 66; Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., 1969), reprinted with second appendix in 1972; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 133-41, 145-6; Kurt Van Gorden, Mormonism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 9 n. 9; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 77-85; Wesley P. Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today" (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Gospel Truths Ministries, 1992); White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 134-40. Compare Edward H. Ashment, "Historiography of the Canon," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 284.15. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985); John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992). Compare David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1981). John Clark, "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies," review of F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon , in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (1989): 20-70, corroborates Sorenson's important claim that the Book of Mormon contains an involved and internally consistent implicit geography.16. Warren P. Aston and Michaela Knoth Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi: New Evidence for Lehi's Journey across Arabia to Bountiful (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994). The Astons have extended and corrected the valuable earlier work of Lynn M. Hilton and Hope Hilton, In Search of Lehi's Trail (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976).17. This has been pointed out in a fine article by William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 161-97. See also William J. Hamblin, review of Tanner and Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon , in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5 (1993): 250-72.18. Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, the Cult, 53. Compare Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 83-4.19. Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller, "The Blood of Kings: A New Interpretation of Maya Art," Archaeology 39 (May/June 1986): 61.20. Michael D. Coe, The Maya, 3rd ed. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1984), 148. The Maya should not be simplistically identified with Book of Mormon peoples. Still, in this context, one can hardly fail to recall the somber words of Moroni, recorded at Morm. 8:2, 8, or the depressing prophecy of 1 Ne. 12:20-21. 21. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1986.22. McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 63; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 81-2; Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today.ൟ. Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 82 (italics in the original); cf. 84; also White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 139.24. See the discussion, with references, by John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130-2.25. Ashment, "Historiography of the Canon," 284.26. John L. Sorenson, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992). See also Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 288-99.27. See the discussion, with references, by John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130-2.28. Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 83.29. See Michio Kaku, Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension (New York: Anchor Books, 1994), vii: "Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense. If all our common-sense notions about the universe were correct, then science would have solved the secrets of the universe thousands of years ago. The purpose of science is to peel back the layer of the appearance of objects to reveal their underlying nature. In fact, if appearance and essence were the same thing, there would be no need for science.൦. John L. Sorenson, "Metals and Metallurgy relating to the Book of Mormon Text" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992). See also Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 278-88.31. See "The ÔGolden' Plates," in Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon , 275-7.32. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 294-5; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 63-4; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 141-5; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 8 n. 7.33. For a good, brief summary of the evidence, with references, see William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995).34. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, 139. Compare Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 285-6; Farkas and Reed, Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors, 155; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 81-2; Tanner and Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon , 11-2, 91; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 9 n. 9.35. See Hugh Nibley's discussion in The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989), 245-6, in an article entitled "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" reprinted from the Millennial Star 125 (February 1963): 28-34; also Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 232-3, and Hamblin, review of Tanner and Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon , 259.36. For examples of this kind of attack, see Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 322, and Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 83.37. Avraham Negev, ed., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1972), 311. See also Amihay Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 492-502. Negev says that Solomon's temple followed a general "Canaanite plan," common to both Hebrew and pagan shrines of the Bronze Age.38. Negev, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 312. In correspondence, one critic of the Book of Mormon demanded to know why, if Nephites really once existed, we have not found any ruins of Nephi's temple. I would suggest that it is for the same reason that we have found "no actual remains" of Solomon's temple.39. Ibid., 28 (emphasis added).40. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 353, 364; Weldon Langfield, The Truth about Mormonism: A Former Adherent Analyzes the LDS Faith (Bakersfield, Calif.: Weldon Langfield Publications, 1991), 53; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 86; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 25 n. 52.41. See Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990), for a recent assault on the Book of Mormon, the argument of which rests heavily upon the debatable assumption that Joseph Smith knew the Bible extremely well and in extraordinary detail. It is absolutely impossible to reconcile such alleged mastery of biblical detail with the "dumb mistake" that the Prophet is supposed to have committed with respect to Christ's birthplace. Critics of the Book of Mormon really cannot have it both ways.42. Langfield, The Truth about Mormonism, 53.43. For a much more detailed examination of this issue, see Daniel C. Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin, "On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995). Earlier Latter-day Saint treatments of this issue include B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Part 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909), 481-2; Sidney B. Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions [formerly Problems of the Book of Mormon ] (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 131-6, 207-8; D. Kelly Ogden, "Why Does the Book of Mormon Say That Jesus Would Be Born at Jerusalem?" I Have a Question, Ensign (August 1984): 51-2; Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 6-7; Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 100-2; Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon , 170-2.44. Kenneth Anderson Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 1966), 68 n. 43.45. See James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 1:274; also Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, eds., The Macmillan Bible Atlas, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1977), map 39. For the dating of the Amarna Letters, see Walter Harrelson, "Shechem in Extra-Biblical References," The Biblical Archaeologist 20 (1957): 4, 6-7. Hugh Nibley drew our attention to the letters years ago. See Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 100-2. Nibley's references are to the Amarna letters, tablets 287:25 = "the land of the city of Jerusalem ([a-]mur mat u-ru-sa-lim[an-n[i-]ta)" 46, 61, 63 = "lands [matat] of Jerusalem" 290:15-6, discusses "a city of the land of Jerusalem, whose name is bit-ninib." Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Tell el-Amarna Tablets (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan, 1939), 722 n. L16, speculated that it might be possible to read this as "Bethlehem." Transliteration and translation can be found on 710-1, 722 of Mercer's book. The preferred translation is now William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).46. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 328.47. The Hebrew text and English translation are conveniently available in Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1992), 57-8.48. Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 57.49. See, for example, Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 292-4; Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, 96, 212, 243-4; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 91; Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today.ൺ. This is the claim made, and the word used, by Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 294.51. It is interesting to note that Webster's 1828 dictionary offers as its second meaning for fullness: "the state of abounding or being in great plenty; abundance." Only afterwards, as the third meaning, does it speak of "completeness; the state of a thing in which nothing is wanted; perfection.ർ. See Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets," BYU Studies 31/3 (Summer 1991): 31-50; Noel B. Reynolds, "Gospel of Jesus Christ," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:556-60; Noel B. Reynolds, "How to ÔCome unto Christ,'" Ensign (September 1992): 7-13; Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel As Taught by the Nephites" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994).53. See 2 Ne. 28:26-30; Alma 12:9-11; 3 Ne. 26:9-10; Morm. 8:12; Ether 4:4-10, 13. 54. See 2 Ne. 27:7-11, 21; 3 Ne. 26:11, 16, 18; 27:23; 28:13; Ether 13:13. 55. Milton V. Backman Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1983; republished in 1986 by Deseret Book), 126-7. Original quotation from Emma Smith's testimony as reported by Joseph Smith III to James T. Cobb, 14 February 1879, Letterbook 2:85-8, RLDS Archives, and in Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. See also Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 52.56. See, for example, Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis, and Donald R. Scales, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? (Santa Ana, Calif.: Vision House, 1977); Vernal Holley, Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look (Ogden, Utah: Zenos Publications, 1983); Charles A. Crane and Steven A. Crane, Ashamed of Joseph: Mormon Foundations Crumble (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1993), 121-6.57. Lester E. Bush Jr., "The Spalding Theory Then and Now," Dialogue 10/4 (1977): 40-69. Compare Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), 68, 143, 442-56. Brodie was no friend of Joseph Smith or of Mormonism, but she could see that the Spaulding theory was dead. See also Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding Manuscript" by Solomon Spaulding, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).58. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 279-80, 301-2; Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, the Cult, 28-9; Crane and Crane, Ashamed of Joseph , 123-5; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 126-8; Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today.ඃ. John W. Welch, "An Unparallel" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985); see also Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht, "View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?" BYU Studies 5 (1964): 105-13 and View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith, ed. Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).60. See, for example, Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 63-6; John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 168-71, 174-7, 226, 230, 233; Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 210-1, 280; Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism: Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon (St. Louis, Mo.: Clayton, 1980), 100-19, republished as Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 99-120; David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1985), 173-80; Scott, The Mormon Mirage, 75; Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's ÔAnti-Masonick Bible,' " John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17-30.61. Daniel C. Peterson, "Notes on ÔGadianton Masonry,' " in Warfare in the Book of Mormon , ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 174-224.62. Daniel C. Peterson, "The Gadianton Robbers As Guerrilla Warriors," in Warfare in the Book of Mormon , 146-73.63. See, for instance, Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984); Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989); Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989).64. Donald L. Enders, "The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee," in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, the Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 1993), 213-25. See my summary "Can the 1834 Affidavits Attacking the Smith Family Be Trusted?" Insights (September 1993): 2.65. For a clear and accessible account of recent statistical research, see John L. Hilton, "On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship," BYU Studies 30/3 (1990): 89-108, reprinted in this volume.66. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 297-8; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 94; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 9 n. 12.67. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 296-8; Crane and Crane, Ashamed of Joseph , 211-2; McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 48; Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 107-10; Van Gorden, Mormonism, 9 n. 12. Dan Vogel, "Book of Mormon Witnesses and the Nature of Religious Testimony," unpublished paper presented in Salt Lake City at the Sunstone Symposium (August 1995).68. Ankerberg and Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism, 297-9; Crane and Crane, Ashamed of Joseph , 211-2; Decker, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, 400-4; McElveen, The Mormon Illusion, 48-9; Tanner

peddler2 answered on 10/04/07:

How many people believe something has no effect on objective reality.
If your friends were jumping off of a bridge, would you?

Actually all that would do is kill you, following the Mormons will end up you up in hell, the second death.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 09/30/07 - Ronnie the fortunate

Ronnie after making this statement;
"As far as I am aware, the only person who has been exalted since their death is Jesus Christ. That is what the Bible says and it says that God exalted him."
you are extremely fortunate you live in this age. Were you a contemporary of Brigham Young, the prophet would have sent his angels to assassinate you as he did many dissidents
William Adams Hickman, also known as "Wild Bill" Hickman (April 16, 1815 - August 21, 1883), was a frontiersman. He also served as a representative to the Utah Territorial Legislature.

Hickman was baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1839 by John D. Lee. He later served as a personal bodyguard for Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young. Hickman was reputedly a member of the Danites.

In 1854 Hickman was elected to the Utah Territorial Legislature. He was an important figure in the Utah War. He torched Fort Bridger and numerous supply trains of the Federal Army.

Hickman was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in 1868. Shortly thereafter, 9 of his 10 wives left him.

Around Sept 1871, while under arrest for the murder of Richard Yates years earlier, Hickman wrote an autobiography/confession in which he confessed to numerous murders. Years later, his confession was given to J.H. Beadle, who published it under the sensational title Brigham's Destroying Angel. It's unclear how much of the account is factual and how much is exaggerated, but in his confession he implicated Brigham Young as being the one who order Yates' murder, as well as most of the other murders to which Hickman confessed. Federal law enforcement authorities at the time gave Hickman enough credence to hold off charging him with the murders so that he could be a material witness in a case they were attempting to build against Brigham Young. During this time, Hickman was held at Fort Douglas, guarded by the military, rather than in a local jail cell because federal authorities believed Hickman needed witness protection from a perceived threat by the Danites.

Nothing ever became of the case against Brigham Young, and Hickman, who had struck a deal with federal law enforcement to testify against Young if he were ever brought to trial over ordering these and other murders, was never convicted of the crimes to which he confessed, although he lived the remainder of his life as somewhat of a pariah.

Hickman was rumored to have been involved with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and was consequently excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should be noted that after his death, it was proven that he was in no way related to the incident, and was thereafter reinstated with his convenants as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

LDS online records show he fathered 36 children. He was the grandfather of Mormon metaphysical and inspirational author Annalee Skarin. He died in Wyoming in 1883.

peddler2 answered on 10/01/07:

Apostate is a Mormon who tells the "Gentiles" the truth .

Nowhere does it say God exalted Him. That is a Mormon expression linked to the evolutionary belief that man evolved into god.

It is paganism.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/30/07 - Latayne C Scott ................

.


I have read server's post about Scott carefully and with interest, and must say, much as I say with all other professional and amateur anti-Mormons, that she does not represent the truth about Mormonism one little whit!

If you want to know the truth about something, then ask someone who knows something about it, rather than someone who seems unable to tell the truth about it at any price.

I will be happy to field individual questions about each individual claim she makes,. falsely, about what she says Mormonism is.

If you want the truth about a politician, would you expect to hear if from one of his political opponents?


"There are two versions of “Mormonism.” The first is that religious belief as understood, practised and experienced by millions of Christians who exercise their Christianity in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church. Their religious experience is satisfying, uplifting, and inspiring. Mormonism provides Latter-day Saints with a God-centred model of human existence; a Father in Heaven who purposefully directs the broad sweep of human history; a Christ-centred system of universal salvation; an optimistic view of human nature coupled with a divine destiny for all humankind that includes the possibility of exaltation to Godhood. It is a practical, world-accepting, work-a-day religion that affirms a world-rejecting apocalyptic end of human history, in which God will finally usher in his kingdom to signal the end of this present age.

The second 'Mormonism' is a dark fiction: a series of images created by hostile forces that bears no resemblance to the Mormonism experienced by Latter-day Saints. These are generated to misinform and mislead and are images of hate whose creators endeavour to appear as Christian ministers but who are ministers of fear."

(C) Copyright 





.

peddler2 answered on 10/01/07:

Universal salvation? Which one of your gods offers that?

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/30/07 - Mormon Anthropology - Quote

“[There's not ] a whit of evidence that the Nephites ever existed. The whole enterprise is complete rot, root and branch. It's so racist it hurts. It fits right into the nineteenth-century American idea that only a white man could have built cities and temples, that American Indians didn't have the brains or the wherewithal to create their own civilization.”
(Source: Michael D. Coe, one of the world's preeminent scholars of the Olmec and the Maya, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University The author of the best-selling book Breaking the Maya Code, cited in “This Is Not the Place , For the last fifty years, Mormons have searched for proof of their church's mysterious origins but is it there? Doubletake Magazine/Spring 1999 , By Hampton Sides , at http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon33.html

peddler2 answered on 10/01/07:

Sadly New Age Christians like Fred also believe that ancient people were stupid to explain away Genesis.
The facts which New Agers ignore show an incredibly brilliant civilization.
Chronilogical snobbery is no different in principle than racism.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 09/28/07 - for all those who wondered

what happened to the Church?

The Four Stages of Church Decline

It's estimated that between 60 and 80 percent of American churches have either plateaued or are in decline. In his new book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev., Mark Driscoll has a section where he talks about the four stages of church decline. It's Monday morning, and a great time to sit back and really consider where your church is at. Read the following stages that Mark discusses and honestly ask yourself, "Which phase are we in?"

Phase 1 - Creative, the dream stage
The creative phase is the beginning of a new church or a new project within the church. This phase is marked by enthusiasm, hope, and numerous ideas that are considered for implementation, which causes momentum. The early days of our church plant were filled with this kind of creative energy, and the young and motivated people in our church were filled with ideas for all that we could do. Once we lost our building, we were thrust into another creative phase as we struggled to survive. And we returned to a creative phase when we acquired the two buildings and were able to again dream of ways to grow our ministry. I noticed that each time we were in a creative phase, our church attracted more entrepreneurial types of skilled leaders who were excited about the opportunity to try something new and make a difference in our city. This indicates that chaos and crisis can be leveraged to a church's benefit.

Phase 2 - Management, the reality stage
In the management phase, the ministry project becomes a reality and requires a great deal of organization, management, and problem solving to make it successful. This phase can be a lot of hard work and is not as enthusiastically pursued because it is tedious and difficult. But without managing the creative ideas, success is not possible. We spent a few years working through very difficult management issues, such as obtaining and renovating facilities, opening a concert venue, maintaining ministry homes, and starting new services. Each of these ministries succeeded, which required increasing management, such as funding, facilities, systems, leaders, theology, and technology. The hope for every church is that they work through their management issues, thereby enabling them to return to the creative phase, where they dream up a new project and enthusiastically undertake it and raise a whole new set of management issues to overcome. Therefore, the goal of the management phase is not to get the church organized or under control. Rather, the management phase is needed to eliminate the inefficiencies and barriers that are keeping the church from refocusing back on the creative phase and creating a whole new set of problems to manage.

Phase 3 - Defensive justification, the failure stage
In the defensive justification phase, something has gone terribly wrong and has failed at the management stage. Or the church succeeded at the management stage but never returned to the creative phase and got stuck with a bunch of well-organized managers running the church but no creative and visionary new ideas to move the church forward. When this phase sets in, the church begins to stall, plateau, and slowly decline. People are less motivated to serve, money is less generously given, and a cloud of lethargy and complaint begins to settle in. This is because some leaders in the church start to act defensively and justify their failures rather than finding creative or management ways to overcome them. In this phase, time, money, and energy are used to explain problems rather than to fix them, which is the primary clue that organizational death is on the horizon unless changes are made. Because the church is in a defensive posture, people start to leave the church, and the best and brightest people are no longer attracted to the church because it has lost sight of any risky mission that calls people to rise up in faith. The peculiar truth of the defensive justification phase is that many of the excuses provided in this season are in fact valid. But whether or not they are valid, the fact remains that they need to be overcome.

Phase 4 - Blaming, the death stage
An organization that remains stuck in the defensive justification phase for too long inevitably then declines to the blaming phase. In the blaming phase, it is obvious that the church or ministry is going to die, and excuses and explanations for the death have been devised. This does not necessarily mean that the church will be closing its doors; effectively dead churches have been known to keep the doors open on Sundays for many years to welcome a handful of people who have no mission. In this phase, the focus of the church is determining who will be blamed for the failure so that another group of people can escape responsibility for the failure. Some churches blame the pastor and fire him, others blame Satan and spiritualize everything, and still others blame the outside culture as being too hard for a church to thrive. Rarely does the leadership of a church in this phase rise up to repent of the things that are preventing the church from returning to the life-giving creative phase, and eventually the church dies. It was precisely this kind of church that gave us the free building after they died.


So... where is your church? Phase 1, 2, 3 or 4? If you're in phase 2, what needs to be done for you to re-enter into a creative phase? If you're in phase 3, what excuses need to be overcome? And if you're in phase 4, how can you stop the blame game and begin to get back to a place of health rather than death?

These are important questions to answer... where did you find yourself? Please take a few moments to share your thoughts.

peddler2 answered on 09/30/07:

In the early 19th century many in the church compromised the word of God to appease atheist interpretations in geology and started to unravel the reformaion and the return to the authority of te word of God.
All that will save the church is a new reformation.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/26/07 - Believing the unbelievable

Joseph Smith came across a poor man who had lost his axe in a deep pool of water and could not retrieve it. The Prophet prayed and the axe floated to the top of the pond and was restored to its owner.

Can you believe such a thing?

peddler2 answered on 09/27/07:

Why not? After all the Mormon god told Joe to force the wives and children of his followers to sleep with him and tols Young people live on the moon and smelly Jews spent a year crossing the Atlantic in wooden submarines with windows.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/25/07 - Have you been giving and living good examples of the light?

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Monday 25th in Ordinary Time

Today's Gospel (Lk 8:16-18): Jesus said to his disciples, «No one, after lighting a lamp covers it with a bowl or puts it under the bed; rather he puts it on a lamp-stand so that people coming in may see the light. In the same way, there is nothing hidden that shall not be uncovered; nothing kept secret that shall not be known clearly. Now, take care how well you listen, for whoever produces will be given more, but from those who do not produce, even what they seem to have will be taken away from them».

Commentary: Fr. Joaquim Font i Gassol (Piera-Barcelona, Catalonia)

«He puts it on a lamp-stand so that people coming in may see the light»

Today, a Gospel as brief as this one, is all the same rich in themes appealing to our attention. In the first place, “to give light”: everything is clear in God's eyes! Second great theme: Graces keep in line, if we are faithful to one we receive one blessing after another: «Gratia pro Gratia» (Jn 1:16). And last, human language for divine and imperishable things.

God's Light for those joining the Church! Christian mothers, whispering in their children's ear, have been teaching them for centuries, expressive words, but most of all, they have been doing it with the “light” of their good examples. They have also sown the typical popular and evangelic wisdom, compressed in many proverbs, as full of wisdom as of faith. One of these sayings is this: «Throw some light on, not smoke». St. Matthew tells us: «(...) and it gives light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven» (Mt 5:15-16).

Examining our conscience at dusk can be compared to the shopkeeper who cashes up to check the fruit of his work. He does not start by asking: —How much have I lost today? He rather wonders: —How much money did I make today? And immediately after, he may add: —How can I make more tomorrow, what can I do to improve? To finalize our working day we may end it up with a thanksgiving prayer and, in contrast, with an act of love and regret. —I regret not having loved more and hope with illusion, to start, tomorrow, a new day to please Our Lord, who always sees me, comes with me and loves me so much. —I want to give more light while diminishing the smoke of my love's fire.

In family evenings, parents and grandparents have forged —and still do— the personality and compassion of today's children and tomorrow's men. It is worth it! It is urgent!

peddler2 answered on 09/26/07:

What kind of example is it to an unsaved person to tell them you primarily believe in God but not totally?

That is worse than saying nothing at all, much worse. It is blasphemy.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/25/07 - Have you been giving and living good examples of the light?

Contemplating today's Gospel

© evangeli.net

Liturgical day: Monday 25th in Ordinary Time

Today's Gospel (Lk 8:16-18): Jesus said to his disciples, «No one, after lighting a lamp covers it with a bowl or puts it under the bed; rather he puts it on a lamp-stand so that people coming in may see the light. In the same way, there is nothing hidden that shall not be uncovered; nothing kept secret that shall not be known clearly. Now, take care how well you listen, for whoever produces will be given more, but from those who do not produce, even what they seem to have will be taken away from them».

Commentary: Fr. Joaquim Font i Gassol (Piera-Barcelona, Catalonia)

«He puts it on a lamp-stand so that people coming in may see the light»

Today, a Gospel as brief as this one, is all the same rich in themes appealing to our attention. In the first place, “to give light”: everything is clear in God's eyes! Second great theme: Graces keep in line, if we are faithful to one we receive one blessing after another: «Gratia pro Gratia» (Jn 1:16). And last, human language for divine and imperishable things.

God's Light for those joining the Church! Christian mothers, whispering in their children's ear, have been teaching them for centuries, expressive words, but most of all, they have been doing it with the “light” of their good examples. They have also sown the typical popular and evangelic wisdom, compressed in many proverbs, as full of wisdom as of faith. One of these sayings is this: «Throw some light on, not smoke». St. Matthew tells us: «(...) and it gives light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven» (Mt 5:15-16).

Examining our conscience at dusk can be compared to the shopkeeper who cashes up to check the fruit of his work. He does not start by asking: —How much have I lost today? He rather wonders: —How much money did I make today? And immediately after, he may add: —How can I make more tomorrow, what can I do to improve? To finalize our working day we may end it up with a thanksgiving prayer and, in contrast, with an act of love and regret. —I regret not having loved more and hope with illusion, to start, tomorrow, a new day to please Our Lord, who always sees me, comes with me and loves me so much. —I want to give more light while diminishing the smoke of my love's fire.

In family evenings, parents and grandparents have forged —and still do— the personality and compassion of today's children and tomorrow's men. It is worth it! It is urgent!

peddler2 answered on 09/26/07:

What kind of example is it to an unsaved person to tell them you primarily believe in God but not totally?

That is worse than saying nothing at all, much worse. It is blasphemy.

arcura rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 09/24/07 - Islamophobia USA Reactions

................................
You can post your reactions here.

---

To refresh your memory :

INDIANAPOLIS -- A proposal to install a foot-washing sink at Indianapolis International Airport is prompting debate over ethnicity, religion and the U.S. constitution.

Muslims use the sinks to wash their feet before praying but some say that allowing the sinks on public property violates the separation of church and state, 6News' Cheryl Jackson reported.

Airport officials said they are considering installing a sink because of safety and health issues, with no consideration of religion.

More than 100 Muslim taxi drivers currently use a traditional sink at the airport, leaving the floor wet and increasing the possibility of passing germs. Shariq Siddiqui said he thinks opposition to the plan is at the surface of a bigger issue.

"This is an issue of Islamophobia. This is not about sinks," Siddiqui said. "The only difference between me and my neighbor is that we may follow different faith traditions."

Siddiqui said he thinks many people connect Muslims to Islamic extremists and said the situation Muslims face in America is no different than those who blame all black people for crime or lump Hispanics into one stereotypical identity.

The Rev. Jerry Hillenburg, of Hope Baptist Church, outlined a biblical and constitutional campaign against the airport proposal in the church's newsletter.

"It is absolutely unconstitutional and positively discriminatory," Hillenburg said. "We're here to address the unconstitutional use of public property and use of taxpayer monies to support … and promote a single religion -- that religion in this case being Islam."

Hillenburg, whose son died while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, said he is personally offended by the idea of installing a foot-washing sink in the airport to accommodate one group of people.

"Some have tried to make this about the death of my son, Eric, that I am only a grieving father embittered because my son was killed in combat in this current war," Hillenburg said.

Some people support the idea of installing the sink because of the time it takes Muslims to complete that part of the prayer ritual.

"Whether we have a sink or not, we have to do it and people will do it," said Abdinisir Farah.

Airport officials said they are considering the proposal and will take all arguments into account before deciding whether to install the foot-washing sink.

---

I quickly checked for the situation in Europe :

The following National main airports in Europe providing foot washing facilities are :

London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Kopenhagen, Oslo, Madrid, Rome, and Brussels.

No Islamophobia here!

---

peddler2 answered on 09/24/07:

Perverticles

No Islamaphobia? I guess the fact that several members of the Dutch Government who are in hiding after Van Gough was brutally murdered are not Islamaphobic?

The stupidity of the atheists such as yourself will be rewarded by seeing your children decapitated and being blown to bits by homicide bombers. When , not if, the Muslims are ruling the Western Ummah and your loved ones are slaughtered I hope they kill you last so you will know whose hands the blood is on. You are pro anybody who murders Christians as you long to do in the Coliseum.

I have news for you. Muslims hate atheists even more than Jews and Christians ,look at the Egyptians. They threw the Russians out because they have no reason to keep their word. Like you they are amoral.
You are also less than sane. Spain which was more than half Muslim at one time kowtowed to the Muslims out of cowardice.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Fritzella rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
D0MIN0 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/22/07 - Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism



Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism

peddler2 answered on 09/23/07:

Prince Clueless

Obseessed? This is not the Baby Raping ,Glass Looking ,Wooden Submarine , Mass Murder Board. That would be Mormonism, please go there and stop being obsessed with what Christians believe.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/23/07 - For all here to see..................................

Tom Smith, this is what you said,
"The key, Fred, is that both of you are doing your best to chase away what few Christians are left on here, and in that regard, you share common ground with Ronnie and the spammer formerly known as Pericles"
<><><><>
This is what I answered:
Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 09/23/07 12:07 am:
Tom Bigot Twister Abuser Fraud LIAR Smith,
More lies from Tom the liar Smith.
Your and peddler's evil lying post here are and have chased away the Christian from this board and THAT IS A FACT.
I've been in contact with them via e-mail and that is what that say.
Once in awhile a few look in and some of them make a post, but most just stay away.
They want nothing to do with you and peddler.
Your lies, twisting, abuse, and hatred has succeeded in ruining a Christian board.
And DON"T try to blame anyone else because you can't do it we all know who and what you are.

peddler2 answered on 09/23/07:

seee what Fred?

You provide no names , no evidence. The words of a pathological nutcase such as yourself ring hollow.
You never provide evidence. Maybe you think being Catholic makes you superior and beyond question? It doesn't.
Put up or shut up!

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Fritzella asked on 09/18/07 - The Earth is Flat!

At least according to Sherry on "The View" television show this morning. A devout Christian, the new member of the View Crew would not deny that the earth was flat. I was listening live and couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Some religious people **believe** what they want to believe even if it is blatantly not true.

No more View for me! Idiots!!

peddler2 answered on 09/19/07:

I have trouble believing you remember to breathe unaided.

Fritzella rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat asked on 09/17/07 - Which books belong in the Bible - reactions

................................
To keep the original topic clean from JJD crap, I decided later to close it. For those who can no longer react there, please post your reactions here.

However : expect heavy JJD - holly. flack in this post!

John

peddler2 answered on 09/18/07:

Perv

You are only proving how blindly religious you are. All of your opinions are spoon fed to you by atheists and you never question them. Even when it is shown that you were deliberately lied to as in the case with the absurd lie about Darwin not saying we dexscended frim monkeys you still don't question.

You prefer to believe a lie that to admit you are not the highest form of life.

You are a religious nut.

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/17/07 - How strong is your Christian faith??????????????????

Liturgical day: Monday 24th in Ordinary Time

Today's Gospel (Lk 7:1-10): When Jesus had finished teaching to the people, He went to Capernaum. There was a captain whose servant was very sick and near to death, a man very dear to him. So when he heard about Jesus, he sent some elders of the Jews to persuade him to come and save his servant's life. The elders came to Jesus and begged him earnestly, saying, «He deserves this of you, for he loves our people and even built a synagogue for us».

Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the captain sent friends to give this message, «Sir, do not trouble yourself for I am not worthy to welcome you under my roof. You see I didn't approach you myself. Just give the order and my servant will be healed. For I myself, a junior officer, give orders to my soldiers and I say to this one: ‘Go’, and he goes; and to the other: ‘Come’, and he comes; and to my servant: ‘Do this’, and he does it».

On hearing these words, Jesus was filled with admiration. He turned and said to the people with him, «I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith». The people sent by the captain went back to his house; there they found that the servant was well.

Commentary: Fr. John A. Sistare (Cumberland-Rhode Island, USA)

«I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith»

Today, we are faced with an interesting question. Why did the captain in the Gospel not personally approach Jesus but rather, sent messengers ahead with the request to heal his servant? The captain answers this question for us in the Gospel passage. «You see I didn't approach you myself. Just give the order and my servant will be healed» (Lk 7:7). The captain possessed the virtue of faith to believe that Jesus could work this miracle if it was in accord with his divine will. Faith allowed the captain to believe that no matter where Jesus was located He could heal the ill servant. The captain believed that no distance could prevent or stop the Christ from carrying out his work of salvation.

We are called to have that same faith in our own lives. There are times when we are tempted to think that Jesus is far away and not listening to our prayers. However, faith illumines our minds and hearts to believe that Jesus is always there to help us. In fact, the healing presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a reminder that Jesus is always with us. St. Augustine, with eyes of faith, believed this reality: «What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice is the Blood of Christ». Faith illumines our minds to see that it is the very presence of Jesus in our midst. We like the captain say, «I am not worthy to welcome you under my roof» (Lk 7:6). Yet, we humble ourselves before our Lord and Savior and He still draws near to heal us. May we allow Jesus to enter our soul, under our roof, to heal and strengthen our faith so we may press on towards Eternal Life.
<><><><>
For those who question whether I have permission to post these daily Gospel messages.
I asked the owner of the copyright and web site.
Here is what he said.....
Dear Fred,

As a matter of fact, I think it is a very good idea and I would advise you to do it as often as you possibly can. You have, of course, our permission and our blessings for that.

We want to spread Jesus’ message to as many people as possible and it would be great if all those who receive the daily Gospel would encourage other relatives or friends to receive it too.
Our subscriptions in English are steadily increasing by 3 or 4 every day, for which we thank God! We have already reached the 1000 figure out of a grand total of 30.000 subscriptions. Which is fine, but it would be great if we could reach a similar figure in English. After all, there are many more English speaking people than Spanish.
But, despite the fact that it is entirely free and we carry no publicity in the web we have not yet found the adequate channels to distribute it in your Country.

So your contribution is more than welcome!

Thank you again
God bless,
Claude
<><><>
So, the question is............
How strong is your Christian faith?

peddler2 answered on 09/17/07:

Fred

The centurian knew that Jesus could heal his servant and sent messangers out of respect for His time.

My question is what faith do you have seeing as if the RCC says science has disproved the Bible you agree instead of believing the word of God?
Faith in the RCC is a DEAD faith. Faith without God is dead.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 09/17/07 - Are all the Christians on this page degenerates???

Gessssusss Henriettta Keerist!!! I've only been gone two weeks and this page has turned into a real cesspool. The two old maids, Jessica Jane Dupoop and Toms666 Anti Christ are mentally diddling each other with their little cutisms like two old ladies who have never been laid. Holly is outdoing herself with her pro-Nazi, and Hitler-loving icons. rev(?)dauphinee is back to spewing her Anti-Muslim bullshit and claiming she is NOT simply one more psycho-Christian bullshit artist. And peddler has proved that she has NO LIFE outside this board...despite her claim to spend all her bigoted Baptist time fishing for souls!!!! GET A LIFE PUDD, before you dry up TOTALLY and join the other two old maids Jessica Jane Dupoop and Toms666 Anti Christ....whose postings have become so feminine in nature that I believe his deranged daughter, the Rabid Bitch has taken over his computer.

Funny how the self proclaimed Christians, like the cowards they are, try to take advantage of domino's absence to post their puny little cow turds...tickling each other to death with with their third grade humor...Be warned...domino does not sleep..he sees all and knows all. And you are ALL in for some major ass kicking when I get back. You have four more weeks to vent your spleens..then WATCH OUT!!!

peddler2 answered on 09/17/07:

Did your boyfriend give you a tour?

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/16/07 - How many Christians here are repentant sinners?

Liturgical day: Sunday 24th (C) in Ordinary Time

Today's Gospel (Lk 15:1-32): Tax collectors and sinners were seeking the company of Jesus, all of them eager to hear what He had to say. But the Pharisees and the scribes frowned at this, muttering. «This man welcomes sinners and eats with them». So Jesus told them this parable: «Who among you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and seek out the lost one till he finds it? And finding it, will he not joyfully carry it home on his shoulders? Then he will call his friends and neighbors together and say: ‘Celebrate with me for I have found my lost sheep’. I tell you, just so, there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than over ninety-nine upright who do not need to repent.

»What woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one, will not light a lamp and sweep the house in a thorough search till she finds the lost coin? And finding it, she will call her friends and neighbors and say: ‘Celebrate with me for I have found the silver coin I lost!’. I tell you, in the same way there is rejoicing among the angels of God over one repentant sinner».

Jesus continued, «There was a man with two sons. The younger said to his father: ‘Give me my share of the estate’. So the father divided his property between them. Some days later, the younger son gathered all his belongings and started off for a distant land where he squandered his wealth in loose living. Having spent everything, he was hard pressed when a severe famine broke out in that land. So he hired himself out to a well-to-do citizen of that place and was sent to work on a pig farm. So famished was he that he longed to fill his stomach even with the food given to the pigs, but no one offered him anything. Finally coming to his senses, he said: ‘How many of my father's hired workers have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will get up and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against God and before you. I no longer deserve to be called your son. Treat me then as one of your hired servants’. With that thought in mind he set off for his father's house.

»He was still a long way off when his father caught sight of him. His father was so deeply moved with compassion that he ran out to meet him, threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. The son said: ‘Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you. I no longer deserve to be called your son…’. But the father turned to his servants: ‘Quick! Bring out the finest robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and kill it. We shall celebrate and have a feast, for this son of mine was dead and has come back to life. He was lost and is found’. And the celebration began.

»Meanwhile, the elder son had been working in the fields. As he returned and was near the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what it was all about. The servant answered: ‘Your brother has come home safe and sound, and your father is so happy about it that he has ordered this celebration and killed the fattened calf’. The elder son became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and pleaded with him. The indignant son said: ‘Look, I have slaved for you all these years. Never have I disobeyed your orders. Yet you have never given me even a young goat to celebrate with my friends. Then when this son of yours returns after squandering your property with loose women, you kill the fattened calf for him’. The father said: ‘My son, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But this brother of yours was dead, and has come back to life. He was lost and is found. And for that we had to rejoice and be glad’».

Commentary: Fr. Alfonso Riobó Serván (Madrid, Spain)

«There will be (...) rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner»

Today, we are to consider one of the most celebrated parables of the Gospel: the parable of the prodigal son, who, while realizing the gravity of his offense to his father, goes back to him and is received with immense joy.

To see the circumstances driving Jesus Christ to disclose this parable, we can move up to the beginning of this Gospel. According to the Scripture, «Tax collectors and sinners were seeking the company of Jesus, all of them eager to hear what He had to say» (Lk 15:1), and this made Pharisees and scribes frown and mutter: «This man welcomes sinners and eats with them» (Lk 15:2). They thought the Lord was not to share his time and his friendship with persons of such dubious lives. They could not care less about those who, far from God, needed to be converted.

But, while this parable proves that nobody is meant to be lost for God, and encourages sinners by fostering their self-assurance and by showing them his goodness, it also includes a very important lesson for those who, apparently, do not feel the need of a spiritual rebirth: so, let us not decide that someone is “wicked” or do away with anyone; rather, let us always behave generously as a father accepting his lost son. The elder son's distrust, pointed out at the end of the parable, coincides with the initial malicious gossip of the Pharisees.

In this parable, not only is invited he who most certainly needs conversion, but also who thinks he does not need it. Its beneficiaries are not only publicans and sinners, but also the Pharisees and scribes; not only those who decidedly live by turning their back to God, but, maybe, all of us, who, having been blessed by him, in spite of everything, conform ourselves to what little we give him in exchange, and skimp our generosity either with him or with our fellow men. At the Vatican Council II we are told that by presenting us to the mystery of God's love, we have been called to establish a personal relationship with him, to set out on a spiritual path that will change us from the old man we are into the new perfect man after Christ.

The conversion we may need could perhaps be less noisy, but more radical and deep, and more constant and preserved: God is asking us to convert ourselves to love.
<><><><>
How many Christians here are repentant sinners?

peddler2 answered on 09/16/07:

Fred

My Bible tells me:

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Why do you need a Priest ? Can a man forgive sins?

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/15/07 - The Terrible Massacre at Mountain Meadows .....




Expressing regret for 1857 massacre

Elder Eyring reads Church statement at Mountain Meadows memorial

September 15, 2007

By Greg Hill
Church News staff writer

MOUNTAIN MEADOW, Utah — A statement expressing regret for events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre was read by Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve during a memorial service at the site in southwestern Utah. An audience of several hundred gathered at the Church-owned property about 300 miles southwest of Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Sept. 11, the 150th anniversary of the tragedy.


Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve gazes at Mountain Meadows landscape before service where he read Church statement.

Photo by Jason Olson
The succinct statement from the Church, prepared by Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy and authorized by the First Presidency, was in contrast to other presentations. Descendants of the victims in the wagon train from Arkansas living in a modern era of instant communication, extensive record keeping and historical scholarship still struggle with the interpretation of events that occurred on the frontier of America in the mid-19th century.
At least 120 members of the Arkansas wagon train were killed during a siege that culminated on Sept. 11, 1857.
Elder Eyring told the gathering he was attending by assignment on behalf of the First Presidency.
The statement he read referred to a book being written on the massacre by Church historians Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr. — who attended the memorial service with Elder Eyring — and Glen M. Leonard that reaches two significant conclusions: "That the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late, and that the responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the Church acting under their direction."
The statement said: "What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.
"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.
"A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members."


Behind U.S. and Arkansas flags and in front of grave site memorial, banners display family names of victims
in Mountain Meadows Massacre. Descendants of families attended memorial service at Mountain Meadows.

Photo by Jason Olson
About the perpetrators of the massacre, the statement said: "No doubt Divine Justice will impose appropriate punishment upon those responsible for the massacre. Nevertheless, our continued prayer for their relatives is that knowledge of a God who is both just and merciful will bring a measure of peace to their souls."
It concluded: "Having reflected and commented on both the past and future of this hallowed meadow, we conclude by expressing our love and desire for reconciliation to all who have in any way been affected by what occurred at Mountain Meadows 150 years ago today. May the God of Heaven, whose sons and daughters we all are, bless us to honor those who died here by extending to one another the pure love and spirit of forgiveness which His Only Begotten Son personified."
Due to illness, Elder Jensen, who also serves as Church historian, was not able to travel to Mountain Meadow to read the Church statement.
Participants in the two-hour memorial service included members of Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants, Mountain Meadows Massacre Foundation and Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, as well as Lora Tom, chairwoman of the Utah Paiute tribe. Patty Norris, president of Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants, said she knew of people who traveled from both coasts and many states in between to participate in the memorial. People from the local area also attended.
Brother Turley said, "We came here today not only to express regret, but also to listen. What we heard here today was very significant to us. We hope that this was one step on the continued path of discussion and progress with the descendants' organizations."
The Church provided facilities — including a shelter, chairs, sound system, lunch and rest rooms — for the late-morning event on a grassy field adjacent to the Mountain Meadows Massacre monument.

E-mail: ghill@desnews.com


peddler2 answered on 09/16/07:

Prince

This is about as much an apology as the Pope's speech at an abondoned air strip for the murder of millions of Christians.

This massacre was ordered and caused by the Satanic so called "prophet" of god who preached that Adam was our father and our god.

The only way to ask for forgiveness from man is to admit that Young ordered it as he is the only one with the power to do so. No way would all those Mormons create such an incident without Young's blessing. They were terified of him as he had the power of life and death over them.
Of course they will never confess this as they are afraid it would be the end of Mormonism. Sadly it would not . Mormons are too sold on the eternity of carnal pleasure to go away.

Like the Mafia says, give 'em what they want.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/15/07 - A True Christian Forum

Peddler,

You might be interested in this site. Check out the rules - they enforce them. The abusers on here would not last 5 minutes unless they changed their behaviour.

http://www.christianforums.net/

Tom

peddler2 answered on 09/16/07:

Thanks

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/15/07 - A Way to Block

Peddler,

I just blocked Pericles. I went back through some of his recent posts, posts where he asked the question, and I found one within 2 or 3 tries which had a "Block user" button. So there do seem to be glitches in the system - good luck.

Tom

peddler2 answered on 09/16/07:

Thanks

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/04/07 - Good Material on Mormonism



See this link.

WhatMormonsDontTell.com

peddler2 answered on 09/12/07:

This question won't go away so I am answering it to get it out of my notifications

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/11/07 - One God

God says:

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Is there anyone who would be so arrogant as to dare say God is wrong and that there is more than one God?

peddler2 answered on 09/12/07:

fred and Prince.
Prince believes there are infinate numbers of gods and Fred believes Mormons are the true Christions.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/11/07 - I want to make this clear……………………………...............


I have not noticed any spamming by Pericles under that moniker. Years ago Freethinker did quite lot of it, but since than he has apologized for it and refrained from doing it.
He has also been an opponent of others spamming here in the last several months.
JDD has apologized for his spamming and stopped
We should be thankful that those two men have done so instead of continually accusing them of spamming when they have stopped doing so.
To accuse them of spamming now is unfair and a lie.
Since both peddlers and Toms are chronic liars we can expect them to continue to lie about that.
They seem to be not able to stop their false posting.
I feel sorry for them to be caught up in such anti-Christian activities and their failure to admit their evil ways, apologize, and quit as others here have admirably done so.

peddler2 answered on 09/11/07:

Fre
He closes my posts and Tom's! That is spamming. You approve of anyone spamming me or Tom because you are a hypocrite and hate people smarter than you who tell you the way the Bible says it is.
You don't like being told that if you consider pagans Christians you are yourself a pagan. The average ten year old could figure that out but you cannot.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 09/10/07 - Has anyone noticed that JDD has STOPPED

his spamming?
It has been quite some time since his last spamming post.
I think he Is keeping his promise.
Now it would be nice if all the other spammers here would promise not to spam any one and keep that promise.
Does anyone agree with that?

peddler2 answered on 09/11/07:

Funny that you notice that but encourage Perk and Prince to spam?

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 09/11/07 - what happens to an athiest

who looses his athiesm?

Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 09/10/07 11:31 pm:

"This type of UN-CHRISTIAN aggression has to stop."

Tell me, pericles, does this mean all anti-christian aggression must stop? a strange call from an athiest

peddler2 answered on 09/11/07:

Yes it is. Why would an atheist support certain "Christians" , and cults and then accuse others of anti-Christianity?
Why would an atheist who spams Christians complain about anti-Christianity?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 09/09/07 - For toms777 and pedliar2

................................
This is the Christianity board, and the topics here should be related to Christianity.

So why don't you two clowns start supporting your own Christian religion and your own specific views on that religion, instead of attacking and abusing other people and their personal religious and/or philosophical views?

It is the Christian's mission to spread the "word". Not to have people fleeing this board because of your aggression and intolerance.

Please explain yourself and your attitude , if you dare ...

John

peddler2 answered on 09/09/07:

Fred,you are always pro-atheist and anti-Christian. Except when you are pro-pagan and anti-Christian.

Jesus said you are with me or against me. If you are with the pagans and atheists you are against Jesus.

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/07/07 - What is missing - and why? ..............................................




A page devoted to prophecies of the last days has on it a partial (ex-pamphlet) quote, but something essential is missing from it. Readers are hereby invited to speculate why the missing part has been omitted.

The posted semi-quote, exactly as it appears, is:

‘For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.’


What is or are 'for the perfecting of the saints'?

What is or are 'for the edifying of the body of Christ'?

Why would the OBJECTS of that passage be signally and significantly omitted?

The OBJECTS that have been SLASHED from the WORD OF GOD by an editorial Eichman are:

Ephesians 4.11

"And [God] gave some, apostles and some, prophets and some, evangelists; and some,. pastors and teachers ...


For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.



This is a clear and unarguable apostolic declaration that any Church that has no apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers could not edify the Body of Christ, which is the Church of Christ, can not unify the Body of Christ, nor perfect the saints [members of the Church of Jesus Christ], can not do the work of the ministry, can not teach the true knowledge of and about Jesus Christ, can not teach true doctrine that will keep the saints safe from theological errors, can not keep them on the safe and true path to eternal life, can not plant their feet in the footsteps of the Saviour Jesus Christ, cannot love as Jesus loved, and cannot grow up in Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church of Jesus Christ.

These are not my words: they are the words of St Paul, an apostle and witness of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, and he places the existence of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers as the primary condition for the completion of all the ministerial goals contained in the disembowelled verses that the web page did have the courage to post.

My question is: "Why these startling omissions in this passage, and what led them to eviscerate it so badly?"

Sensible answers please. No abuse, as I am extremely sensitive to abuse.

Ronnie




peddler2 answered on 09/08/07:

Ronnie
It does not say some necromancers , or some perverts, or some Glass Lookers so I don't see how you can use this to explain Smith.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 09/06/07 - Are all Mormon Missionaries liars?

This makes very interesting reading

Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary
by Loren Franck

The Bible predicts a dreadful fate for liars. For instance, while banished on the island of Patmos, the Apostle John saw that "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). Similarly, the beloved disciple writes, liars are doomed to an eternity outside of God's presence (Revelation 22:15). Because Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), lying is extremely serious sin.

As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47).

I can't remember all of my missionary lies. Some were small, others grandiose, but all were false and misleading. Here are ten I'll never forget.

1. We're Not Trying to Convert You
Of all my lies, this was the most frequent. I learned it well while in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which was my first assignment. A standard door-to-door proselyting pitch began with, "We represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Interrupting, many people said they had their own religion. "Oh, we're not trying to convert you," I responded. "We're sharing a message for all faiths."

But Mormon missionaries have one overriding goal, and that's to bring converts into the church. Clearly, this was the purpose of my mission. I didn't trade the Southern California sunshine for the Dakota snow merely to build interfaith relations. My calling was to teach the church-approved missionary lessons and then baptize the people I taught.

2. The Bible is Insufficient
According to their eighth Article of Faith, Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God only when it's translated correctly. How convenient for a missionary. When a non-Mormon's interpretation of scripture differed from mine, I frequently blamed faulty Bible translation. And since I believed the Bible was missing "many plain and precious things," as the Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 13:28-29, I urged prospective converts not to trust it completely.

And yet, Mormon proof texts had few translation problems. Throughout my mission, I used only those Bible verses that steered prospects away from their church and toward Mormonism. But what kind of Christian believes that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God gave mankind an inadequate version of His word. Actually, the Bible is more than sufficient. With its 66 books, 1,189 chapters and nearly 740,000 words, it's the divine road map to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

3. We're the Only True Christians

For decades, the Mormon Church has tried to blend with mainstream Christianity. Accordingly, during my mission a quarter-century ago, I worked hard to convince prospects that Mormons believe in the biblical Jesus. But Paul warned of deceivers who would lure Christians away from "the simplicity that is in Christ." These false teachers preached "another Jesus" and "another gospel" (2 Corinthians 11: 3-4) and were accursed (see Galatians 1:8-9). How interesting that Paul also cautions against false apostles, such as those in the Mormon Church (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

So which Jesus and gospel do Mormons preach? While a missionary, I taught that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of the Father in a premortal life. (The remainder of humanity was born as spirits later in this "pre-existence.") But I didn't tell prospects this was a literal birth, the result of literal fathering, as Mormon prophets and apostles have claimed. If asked, I taught that the devil was born as one of God's noble spirit sons during the pre-existence, but had rebelled and started a war in heaven.

Consistent with Mormon doctrine, then, Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. But the Bible teaches that Christ is God (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1), that He has always been God (Psalm 90:2), and that He always will be God (Hebrews 13:8). Born into mortality some 2,000 years ago, Jesus is "God... manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). He is far grander and holier than "our Elder Brother," as Mormons dub Him. Jesus and Satan aren't spirit brothers, and true Christians don't believe such blasphemy.

4. We're the Only True Church

I usually told this lie during the first of seven 30-minute missionary lessons, which presented the Joseph Smith story. According to our script, Smith prayed in 1820 about which church to join. He claimed the Father and Son appeared and told him that all Christian churches of the day were wrong. Smith said he was forbidden to join any of them, that their creeds were abominable and their professors all corrupt. "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me," the Lord allegedly added. "They teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Joseph Smith — History, verse 19). In subsequent lessons, I told prospects that Mormonism is the true church God restored through Smith.

But the Bible says such a restoration was unnecessary. Admittedly, there was partial apostasy after Christ's resurrection, but never a complete falling away. In fact, shortly before His crucifixion, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). During my mission, however, I argued that the gates of hell did prevail against Christ's church.

Shortly after renouncing Mormonism, I learned a scriptural death blow to notions of universal apostasy. Addressing Ephesian believers 30 years after the Ascension, the Apostle Paul writes, "Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Ephesians 3:21). God received glory in the Christian church from the time of Paul's writing to the present day, and He will receive such glory throughout all succeeding generations. Therefore, the church must exist from Paul's day throughout eternity. This annihilates Mormon claims of complete apostasy and makes restoration of Christ's church impossible.

5. We Have a Living Prophet
Whether in wintry Winnipeg or the balmy Black Hills of Rapid City, I criticized Christians because their church lacked a living prophet. Mormons claim the true church must have one. My favorite Bible proof text to back this claim was Amos 3:7, which reads, "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

When prospective converts remained skeptical of living prophets, I quoted Ephesians 4:11-14, which apparently requires living apostles and prophets until believers unify in the faith and understand Christ completely. However, writing in the past tense, Paul is actually referring to apostles and prophets of Jesus' day. Otherwise, verse 11 would read that the Lord "is giving" or "will give" apostles and prophets. Of course, God did reveal His will through Old Testament prophets, as Amos 3:7 affirms. But for the last 2,000 years, He has spoken to believers through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The truth about Mormonism's living prophets is further illuminated in Deuteronomy 18:22. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord," the scripture reads, "if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Isaiah 8:20 contains a similar warning: "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

False prophets who led ancient Israel astray received the death penalty (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20), and all who profess to be living prophets should consider the consequences. Mormon prophets might appear grandfatherly and sincere, but they're not God's living oracles. Since the Mormon Church was founded in 1830, its prophets have uttered a striking number of false prophecies. (See chapter 14 of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's "The Changing World of Mormonism.")

6. The Book of Mormon is Scripture
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, adding that man would become closer to God by following its precepts than by obeying any other book ("History of the Church," Vol. 4, p. 461). Replace "Book of Mormon" with "the Bible" and Smith would have told the truth.

When teaching missionary lessons, I boldly maintained that the Book of Mormon is scripture. I spent myriad hours convincing prospects that it's a sacred record of Christ's activities in the western hemisphere. Yet many Christians I contacted realized the book "borrows" heavily from the Bible and other sources. And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it's fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible.

7. You're Saved By Works

More than any other Mormon lie, this undermines Christ's atonement, which is the most sacred doctrine of the Bible. Mormons usually equate salvation with resurrection. Likewise, they refer to eternal life as "exaltation." I did both while teaching prospective converts. I relished the church's third Article of Faith, which claims, "through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Trying to bridge the doctrinal divide between Mormons and Christians, I emphasized that salvation is by grace "after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). What classic Mormon double-talk. Unmistakably, the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 5:15; 6:23) to those who believe in Christ (John 6:47), call upon Him (Romans 10:13) and receive Him as Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Contrary to Mormon dogma, this gift cannot be awarded meritoriously.

Equally clear is that salvation results from God's grace through each believer's faith, not from obeying a checklist of laws and ordinances (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). All who confess Christ and believe in Him from the heart shall be saved (Romans 10:8-13).

Most Mormons know little about imputed righteousness — and neither did I during my mission. Essentially, as Christians know, the Lord credits believers with His perfect righteousness and charges their transgressions to His sinless spiritual "account." Paul explains this doctrine masterfully in Romans 4 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

When teaching the Mormon gospel, though, I emphatically denied imputed righteousness, which is the essence of the atonement. I stressed that eternal life is earned by perfect obedience to all gospel laws and ordinances. Yet the Bible says that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). As the Psalmist writes: "They are all gone aside. They are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3; compare Romans 3:10-18).

How many Mormons perfectly obey all gospel laws? None. As the Bible asserts, even the church's current prophet can't keep God's laws thoroughly enough to merit heaven (1 John 1:8). And if he can't, how can anyone else?

8. People Can Become Gods
Given its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually, and presenting the doctrine of plural gods is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most prospects.

"Our Father in heaven loves us so much," I often said, parroting our lesson script, "that He provided a plan [Mormonism] for us to become like him." I didn't mention that Mormon godhood includes spirit procreation throughout eternity. Neither did I hint that the Mormon God was formerly a mortal man, had lived on an earth like ours, and had earned salvation through good works. However, such polytheism strips God of glory and sovereignty. No wonder the Bible condemns it so strongly. When discussing plural gods on my mission, I sidestepped Isaiah 44:8 whenever possible. "Is there a God beside me?" the passage reads. "Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Other verses amply testify that only one God exists in the universe (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-23).

When confronted with these scriptures as a missionary, I usually countered with, "Those verses mean we worship only one God, that there's only one God to us." And if that failed, I lied further: "The Bible isn't clear on this subject. Fortunately, the Lord told Joseph Smith that mortals can become gods." Smith might have had a revelation, but not from God.

9. You're Born Again By Becoming a Mormon
One of my favorite missionary scriptures was John 3:5. "Verily, verily I say unto you," the Savior explains, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To Mormon missionaries everywhere, being born of water means baptism into the Mormon Church. Birth of the Spirit refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, allegedly bestowed after baptism.

Unfortunately, during my mission, I didn't know what it means to be born again. I completely misinterpreted Paul's declaration that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Galatians 6:15). According to the Bible, believers in Christ are reborn spiritually as sons and daughters of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2). They experience a complete Christian conversion of mind and heart. Membership in a church organization might foster social activity and fellowship, but it's not spiritual rebirth.

10. Temple Marriage is Required for Eternal Life
I participated in well over 100 Mormon temple ceremonies from 1975 to 1982, including my own marriage in 1977. Based heavily on freemasonry, temple rites are the church's most carefully guarded secrets. And "celestial marriage," which supposedly weds men and women eternally, is probably the most important temple ordinance. While a missionary, I frequently told prospects they needed temple marriage to gain eternal life.

Yet the Lord says marriage between men and women is irrelevant to the hereafter. "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage," He declares. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage… for they are equal unto the angels...." (Luke 20:34-36.)

The Bible does teach eternal marriage, but not the Mormon version. The union is between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His collective body of believers, who are the bride (Matthew 25:1-13; John 3:29; Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

False Testimony
I close with a few words about "testimony," which is a missionary's emergency cord. When I couldn't rebut an antagonistic statement scripturally, I fell back on my testimony. For instance, while proselyting in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I was once asked where the Bible mentions the secret undergarments Mormons wear. Caught off guard, I admitted that the Bible says nothing about them. I could merely testify that God revealed the need for these garments through living prophets. But my testimony wasn't based on scripture or other hard evidence. Rather, it was founded on personal revelation, which is extremely subjective. Essentially, my testimony was nothing more than a good feeling about the church and its teachings. In Mormon parlance, it was a "burning in the bosom." But burning or not, it wasn't from God.

If you're a Christian, I urge you to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). That faith, the pathway to heaven, is found only in the biblical Jesus (John 14:6). But if you're a Mormon, it's time to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs. Do you know you have everlasting life? No. Can you obey all the commandments perfectly and earn a place in heaven? You can't.

I regret the many lies I told during my Mormon mission. When I received Christ, though, I confessed them (and my other sins) and received His forgiveness (1 John 1:9; Colossians 1:13-14). "He that heareth my word," Christ assures us, "and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

Loren Franck lives in Los Angeles, California, with his wife, Verlette, and their young son.

contact@mrm.org

peddler2 answered on 09/07/07:

That begs several more questions.
Are all the Momons who stay long enough to recruit in any fashion liars?
Why is it you never here an ex-mormon say things like the LDS was a great organization but I believe differently now?
Why do ex-Christians never accuse the church of being a deceitful cult but all Morons do?
Why do so caled Christians support these pagans?


paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/03/07 - The repentant thief - is he saved or not? <>< <>< <>< <>< <><




Although Peddliar is unaware (not having a complete version of the Bible), the truth is that God and not Peddliar is the ultimate judge of who will or who will not get into heaven.

The thief asked Jesus to remember him when he went into his kingdom.

Jesus replied by telling the thief that he would be in Paradise with him that day. he did not promise that he would be in heaven.

Jesus did not ascend into heaven from the cross, instead, according to Peter, Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison.

That Jesus did not go to heaven on Good Friday is further attested to by Jesus himself saying to Mary on Easter Sunday, thereafter the Christian Sabbath, that she should not try to hold on to him because "I have not yet ascended to my Father which is in Heaven!"

If Jesus is to be believed, and he surely would know where he had been and where he had not been. From the words of the Bible it is apparent that the spirit prison and paradise are comparable places, but that neither of them are heaven.

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the thief did not enter heaven from the cross. His final disposition is, of course, a matter for God and for God alone, and is outside the provenance of Peddliar to pontificate on and issue his personal, unbiblical, dogmas.

If Peddliar asks very nicely, I will furnish the references from the complete version of the Bible as used by Latter-day Saints and assist him to rectify his erroneous version of these events.


"Ye shall know the truth! And when you do, you shall be free from error and sin." At present, he does "greatly err, not knowing the scriptures."









peddler2 answered on 09/05/07:

Prince Nit-Wit

You only see ,hear ,and know what you are told to.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/04/07 - New Movie Release - Looks Good!


Check out the website:

September Dawn

See trailer here:

September Dawn Trailer

peddler2 answered on 09/05/07:

Mary

I guess it's a bummer for those like you who love to hate Christians. The atheist and New Ager suppport for Mormonism is just further proof it is satanic.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 09/04/07 - QUESTION FOR MORMONS!

(1) It has been posted that Mormons believe that Jesus is a brother to Satan.

(2) It has been posted that Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God who was "made flesh and dwelt among us." (I helped the poster a wee bit with "made flesh...."

Ronnie, et al, please discuss both questions, giving book, chapter, and verse.

Thank you,
Bobbye
P.S. I ask this in sincerity. I require proof when statements as above are posted.

peddler2 answered on 09/05/07:

Bobbye
The official Mormon sites are amoung others.
mormon.org and lds.org and scriptures.lds.org
They try to deny them now but the Journal of Discourses is a record of the teachings of the 'prophets" and is or was believed at one time by th vast majority of Mormons.
journalofdiscourses.org

When you read from the Mormon sites lile mormon and lds.org you must be careful because they speak with forked tounges.
From Mormon.org

"Jesus Christ taught that you must know the only true God to have eternal life ( John 17:3). As His child, you must know who He is and what He is like to find greater peace and joy, both in this life and in the life to come. "

You will notice it does not say Jesus is God.

Also from Mormon.org

God is your Father in Heaven (Matthew 6:9). We call God Heavenly Father because He is the Father of our spirits and we are created in His image ( Genesis 1:27).

God has a body that looks like yours, though His body is immortal, perfected, and has a glory beyond description

My Bible says God is spirit.

You
From Mormon.org
Your life on Earth is part of His plan for you to gain a body, learn, grow, and find joy

A bit wierd?

At Mormon.org you can email or chat . I asked this question:
Do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. That He was the creator of the universe that became a man to die for our sins?
The answer was

The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.

Why don't you try it?

This is from lds.org

Godhead

The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven


That tells you right away they are not Christian but polytheists.

The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior's mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet's account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22).



It is hard to get a straight answer from mormons. All cults are like that.
Ex-mormons however are very open.
exmormon.org



Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/03/07 - The repentant thief - is he saved or not? <>< <>< <>< <>< <><




Although Peddliar is unaware (not having a complete version of the Bible), the truth is that God and not Peddliar is the ultimate judge of who will or who will not get into heaven.

The thief asked Jesus to remember him when he went into his kingdom.

Jesus replied by telling the thief that he would be in Paradise with him that day. he did not promise that he would be in heaven.

Jesus did not ascend into heaven from the cross, instead, according to Peter, Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison.

That Jesus did not go to heaven on Good Friday is further attested to by Jesus himself saying to Mary on Easter Sunday, thereafter the Christian Sabbath, that she should not try to hold on to him because "I have not yet ascended to my Father which is in Heaven!"

If Jesus is to be believed, and he surely would know where he had been and where he had not been. From the words of the Bible it is apparent that the spirit prison and paradise are comparable places, but that neither of them are heaven.

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the thief did not enter heaven from the cross. His final disposition is, of course, a matter for God and for God alone, and is outside the provenance of Peddliar to pontificate on and issue his personal, unbiblical, dogmas.

If Peddliar asks very nicely, I will furnish the references from the complete version of the Bible as used by Latter-day Saints and assist him to rectify his erroneous version of these events.


"Ye shall know the truth! And when you do, you shall be free from error and sin." At present, he does "greatly err, not knowing the scriptures."









peddler2 answered on 09/03/07:

My Bible is complete. No I do not have the pervert Smith version.

>Jesus replied by telling the thief that he would be in Paradise with him that day. he did not promise that he would be in heaven.

My hat is off to you Ronnie. I thought your statement about the RCC and salvation by Grace was the dumbest thing I ever heard. You have absolutely outdone yourself.

You are the worst student in answerway history, perhaps in history period. Your understanding of the Bible is below kindergarten level.

Before Jesus ascended and applied the blood all the saints were in paradise. After He applied the blood they were resurected to heaven. This included the thief.

I can't even imagine what it must be like to be as clueless as you are. Only you could come up with an argument so ludicrus and then proudly post it.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/03/07 - Dagon the fish God <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why does Peddliar believe that Dagon on the OT is a fish-god?



peddler2 answered on 09/03/07:

Princess

Why are you so dim witted that you have to make up straw men to burn?
Were you a victim of head trauma?

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 09/03/07 - Lesson One

A couple of people here cut and paste Bible lessons that are really tortuous.

Therefore, I'm going to give some simple, yet useful lessons based on a lifetime of experience, reading and whatever.

Lesson One.

Never argue with anyone in a public place(on the job, in a store, on a golf course, after a car accident...any public place). [This is a Board, a forum, if you will, for arguers, so it's ok]

Repeating...Lesson One

Never argue with anyone n a public place.


Kindest regards,
Mary Sue, Sage

peddler2 answered on 09/03/07:

Lesson 1

If you hate Christians and their God and don't want to exposed as an uneducated hate monger don't come to their forum to annoy them.

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 09/02/07 - The Sabbath

I see so often people refer to "keeping the sabbath" and I saw a reference today by Ronnie on the "Christian Sabbath". This an excellent topic because it is a topic that scripture does address directly, and one where there are different opinions commonly expressed.

My questions are:

1) Do you believe that Christians are required to keep the sabbath?

2) What do you believe that the sabbath is? Is it a day - if so which one? If not a day, then what is the "Christian Sabbath"?

3) Please provide backup from scripture for your answers.

I am interested in hearing various viewpoints. All who answer respectfully and provide a reasoned (validated from scripture) response, regardless of viewpoint get 5 stars.

Any abuse gets what it deserves - the black star.

peddler2 answered on 09/03/07:

The sabbath is Saturday. Sunday is the Lord's day. Jesus was a Jew so He worshipped Saturday. Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week so most Christian's worship sunday as the Lord's day.


Mar 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

I don't think it matters so I go to to church twice on Sunday ,and once on Wed and Friday.

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 09/02/07 - Peddles says

I figured as much. After all the Bible is just another book, no reason to take it seriously.

Peddles makes no sense. I thought he took the Bible seriously.
AND here I thought I was agreeing with Peddles
BUT then I am not sure what it was Peddles was saying
since what Peddles had to say about James 2 seemed to contradict itself!

IS Peddles saying that you are NOT to fed and cloth the hungry when James 2:16 & 17
specifically says what good is it to preach to them and walk away leaving them without food and clothing??


peddler2 answered on 09/03/07:

No
People who are hungry need to be fed. They also need to be fed spiritually. We are called to do both.

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 09/02/07 - Peddler's Church is the KKK at Prayer! Proof .......................







Landau, Elaine. The White Power Movement: America's Racist Hate Groups. Brookfield, CT: Milbrook Press (1993), pg. 28-29.

"The Klan also did not look kindly on divorce. In 1927, a group of Alabama Klansmen beat a divorced woman who had just remarried a divorced man.

When the intense flogging was over, the men took up a collection for the woman and left her with a salve for her wounds.

Before leaving, the Baptist minister who had led the group reminded her that the punishment had been administered 'in a spirit of kindness and correction to set your feet aright.' "


The truth about Peddliar's racist hatred out in the open at last! Remember, according to peddliar, "If one Baptist does it, then all Baptists do it!"

Jesus: "By their fruits ye shall know them."






peddler2 answered on 09/03/07:

Princess

I started to type that if I were a Mormon I would not be so stupid as to bring up the subject of racism. After all the Mormons claimed for 150 years that God was a racists and black people were black because God hates them.
Then I thought, why wouldn’t I be so stupid to bring up racism if I was stupid enough to be a Mormon in the first place? I would be likely to say anything ,not matter how bizarre. I mean being a Mormon means being stupid enough to believe that God told the so called prophets that hell awaits those with one wife and then changed his mind and that the Indians were really Jews who came here is wooden submarines with windows full of donkey and elephant poop and that people live on the sun. Can't get much dumber than that ,can you?

BTW one does not judge God by the actions of one man. I have no idea if what you say about that preacher is true or not but preachers are human beings. Christianity teaches all men are created equal. Mormonism is racist to the core. If any Christian advocates racial hatred he is acting against Christ teaching. If a Mormon does it he is following the prophets who speak for the Mormon god.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Mormonism teaches blacks are inferior from birth.

2 Nephi 5:21
21 And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

3 Nephi 2:14-15
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

Moses 7:22
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1:21-24,27
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Official LDS Church Publications Explain Racist LDS Scriptures

"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book."
- Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

“From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.”
- Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, page 635

"We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect man that exists on the earth; but to us such teachings are foolishness. We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race....every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun.”
- The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

“For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark;...”
- LDS Publication, The Millennial Star, vol. 14, page 418

"Their skin is quite black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.”
- The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

"Is or is it not apparent from reason and analogy as drawn from a careful reading of the Scriptures, that God causes the saints, or people that fall away from his church to be cursed in time, with a black skin? Was or was not Cain, being marked, obliged to inherit the curse, he and his children, forever? And if so, as Ham, like other sons of God, might break the rule of God, by marrying out of the church, did or did he not, have a Canaanite wife, whereby some of the black seed was preserved through the flood, and his son, Canaan, after he laughed at his grandfather's nakedness, heired three curses: one from Cain for killing Abel; one from Ham for marrying a black wife, and one from Noah for ridiculing what God had respect for? Are or are not the Indians a sample of marking with blackness for rebellion against God's holy word and holy order? And can or can we not observe in the countenances of almost all nations, except the Gentile, a dark, sallow hue, which tells the sons of God, without a line of history, that they have fallen or changed from the original beauty and grace of father Adam?"
- LDS Messenger and Advocate (Mar 1835), Pg.82

"History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom."
- Times and Seasons, Vol.6, Pg.857

The LDS Church's racism isn't just from some isolated quote from one or two church leaders. The racist teaching from the Mormon pulpit is prolific and consistent over time. If God didn't agree with his prophets teaching these things in His church, then why did they continue over generations?

There's a big difference between folklore and Mormon scripture. When the president and prophet of the church stands at the pulpit and teaches the laws of God, that isn't folklore.

The list of "inspired" LDS Prophets that have taught racist doctrine from the pulpit is too large to cite here. But here's a sampling:

http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm

Some church members make the mistake of dismissing the racist statements of 19th-century Mormon leaders as "their own opinion," "not official doctrine," "products of their times," etc.

Those same church members assert that the only "official doctrine" is the Standard Works and official statements of the First Presidency, and that if some leaders said something that didn't come from those sources, it isn't "binding on the membership," and it isn't "canon" or "official doctrine."

However, an official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the
handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."
- William E. Berrett's "The Church and the Negroid People," pp. 16-17

Since it's obvious from this official First Presidency statement that church leaders taught and believed that people are born as Negroes because of their behavior in the pre-existence------as well as being from the lineage of the "accursed" Cain---

---and the "sign" of Cain's curse was the black skin and flat nose, according to church leaders---

---then the fact that Negroes are still being born by the tens of thousands every day tells us that the God of Mormonism has never lifted the "curse of Cain," despite having the priesthood ban rescinded.

Church members are terribly mistaken when they say that the "curse of Cain" teachings were "folklore" and "not official doctrine."


Jn17.3 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 08/30/07 - What's with these Mormom "missionaries"?

yesterday I have a visitation from two young men with a BOM in their hand. Are these missionaries or terrorists. They wanted to talk about the BOM and at some point I said, you won't find Jesus in there. From the response I could only suggest they didn't think so either.

They said do you have a problem with it, and I said yes, I have a problem, arn't you the fellows who say that a man can become God? Their response no, and my next question was; so you refute Joseph Smith then?

It seems they are confused about the pronouncements their prophet has made. So, what's the point of sending "missionaries" who don't know the history of their religion, afterall, if you want someone to join, surely you are going to be able to answer their questions?

What's the point of presenting a book written by a person whose theories are so far out you have to deny them and certainly not teach them to your missionaries?

Ronnie, this is a good one for you to answer

peddler2 answered on 08/31/07:

The one that were disrupting the Veteran’s Day Ceremonies in my sleepy little Tennessee town last year admitted it.
I asked them what there first act as god would be and they said to spread love.
I assume he had to answer because he had already told the new guy the "TRUTH" of Smith worship.
Most of the times they lie and say they don't know what I am talking about.
Like Ronnie does about the Mormon coins.
There controllers tell them it is necessary to lie to combat the mean things the Christians say about them.
They are non faith building teachings. The truth is irrelevant, just faith.
It reminds me of the atheists and their fairy stories about evolution. Wonder why?
Birds of a feather?

Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 08/29/07 - Peddler and the Quacks!!!!

Once again the renowned Biblical scholar Peddlerina von Schitzferbrains, offers us proof of God according to another of her Quack 'christo-scientists' at "Assholes in Genesis". She profers for our enlightenment One Dr. David Menton, a Creationist Biologist from the world-renowed MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY, IN MINNESOTA. Trouble is, DR. MENTON IS A PROVEN LIAR, WHO DOSEN'T KNOW HIS 'TICKTAALICKS FROM HIS LUNGFISH'!!!!

To read the TRUTH about this wannabe biologist log on to:

lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-a-liar

How many more of these Quacks is she going to drag out of the woodwork to try and buttress her weakened faith?????????? The last shyster she gave us admitted to "using a dowsing rod to try and locate Noah's ark" and claiming that "no one who could NOT speak in tongues would ever be able to find it"!!!!!

And these are the geniuses she claims can prove the existence of her biblical god and his six-day creation myth??????? NOT!!!!

peddler2 answered on 08/30/07:

Domino
If you are going to present the rant of one of your fellow lunatics at least provide a valid link.

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 08/29/07 - Civilized???? Christian????

What does this say for a nation that calls itself 'civilized' and wants to be known as a "Christain" nation"

Geneva: STUDY: NINE GUNS FOR EVERY 10 AMERICANS

"There are nine guns for every 10 people in the United States, with about 270 million firearms in circulation, according to a report rleased yesterday.
Worldwide, civilians now have access to 650 million small arms, an arsenal that far outstrips what is held by police and militaries, according to the annual Small Arms Survey. It estimates that civilians account for about three-fourths of the 875 million such weapons in circulation.
But it is the United States that has the heaviest concentration of firearms.
Of the EIGHT million new firearms manufactured annually around the world, rought FOUR AND A HALF MILLION ARE BOUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES."

A civilized, Christian nation???????? WWJD

peddler2 answered on 08/30/07:

How many do you own? Oh that's right you invented gunpowder.
If atheist airheads like you were in charge we would get rid of our guns and surrender to the United Nations.
Like the sign says "They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers off the trigger".

domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 08/29/07 - Fred - Some Compass Help for you

Fred,

Since you seem to think that compasses should poi9nt somewhere other than north, here is a tutorial for you

How to Use a Compass

This quote outght to help you:

"You see this red and black arrow? We call it the compass needle. Well, on some compasses it might be red and white for instance, but the point is, the red part of it is always pointing towards the earth's magnetic north pole. Got that? That's basically what you need to know. It's as simple as that."


At leats for some of us it is that simple.

The Book of Mormon says that the Nephites went the direction that the needle pointed, so again, unless they used their wooden submarine and followed the path suggested by paraclete, they would have found either the arctic or antarctic (assuming that they ever existed anywhere by in Joseph Smith's mind).

If you continue to defend the BoM by saying that they followed a malfunctioning or mis-used compass, you have a few problems, for example:

- That means that they were mis-guided and made a mistake.
- If you assume an anomaly in the ground, those exist over small areas, not across the whole of the ocean, so that would not explain the false teaching in the BoM

So Fred - give it up. All you are sholwing is that either you are deliberately mis-representing what you know, or you really have forgotten anything that you ever did know about the use of a compass in the real world.

Tom

peddler2 answered on 08/29/07:

Tom

Theys guys were no boy scouts. LOL!
You have to give Fred credit where credit is due. He never lets reality stand in his way .

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 08/27/07 - For your enjoyment................................



peddler2 answered on 08/28/07:

A society that makes people who could not pass an eight grade science test,like most on this board, super rich for playing a kids game while starving it's teachers and policmen should expect this kind of nonsense and worse.

If America was living for God the teachers would could instill Christian values in our children would be worth More than a guy who does the 40 in 4.2 seconds.

arcura rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 08/27/07 - PAULA WHITE, TELEVANGELIST

Sunday, 8-26-07, Paula and Randy White, pastor of a 15,000 congregation in Florida, announced that they are divorcing -- immediately upon the heals of Juanita Byrum and her husband's fiasco.

Randy White announced (as Paula stood by his side): "This is the hardest thing I've ever had to do." THEN WHY DO IT?

What's happening to "Christians" who preach to millions, yet their own lives are in shambles? Is the "gospel" they are preaching void of the Power of God to "reconcile all matters in heaven and earth," according to Colosians 1:20? Yes, they are human, but sweet, smiley faces annoucing divorce is a bit pathetic to me. When Ronald Regan was questioned re his divorce from his first wife, he asked: "How can I discuss anything so painful?" Yet, ministers smile and "promise" to preach in each other's pulpits "when invited." WHAT HOPE DO THEY OFFER TO A HURTING WORLD?

Your comments, please.
Bobbye

peddler2 answered on 08/27/07:

With the New Age Mega Churches that mock the Holy Ghost with their false healings and self edification of speaking in gibberish, not tongues, it is hard to find any without marriage problems and sexual immorality.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

In no less than 5 places in Corinthians Paul teaches that women are never to speak in other languages in church. When the word of God is shown to these people they dismiss it as legalism which it is not. It is the word of God. Women are more emotional than men, God made them that way so they would nurture children better than men.

The Bible is absolutely clear that the gift of speaking in tongues , languages unknown to the apostles , was a miracle to bring people to Christ. These new Agers have made a mockery of it for their own edification, not God's.

It is a fact that the large fundamentalist churches like Coral Ridge and First Babtist in Hammond Ind. do not seem to have these problems.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 08/26/07 - India's fearless 'untouchable' ............................................


India's fearless 'untouchable' paper
By Amarnath Tewary
Dumka, Jharkhand


Gaurishankar Rajak is a poor, "untouchable" washerman, who barely went to school.

But the sixty-something Dalit from Dumka in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand has published a newspaper every week without fail for the past 21 years, highlighting discrimination against the poor and local corruption.

Mr Rajak's four-page, handwritten Hindi-news Din Dalit is photocopied 100 times and sold to subscribers or pasted onto Dumka's main traffic lights, bus stands and roads.

Din Dalit is not just another small town news sheet - the newspaper is registered with India's Registrar of Newspapers, thanks to the efforts of India's first Dalit President, KR Narayanan, after Mr Rajak wrote to him.

Since its first edition in October 1986, Din Dalit has made a difference to the lives of local people, even helping a resident to secure social security from the authorities after his plight was reported in the paper.

'I was hurt'

Mr Rajak says he decided to bring out the newspaper after he was humiliated by local authorities when he took some people to meet them to help enlist them in a government social security scheme.

"I was very hurt. I approached the local media to highlight the incident but they did not show any interest. So I decided to go ahead and bring out my own newspaper," he says.

Over the years, Din Dalit has run stories on diverse subjects like a local scam in the distribution of specially-made cycles for disabled people, and bungling in a government housing scheme and kerosene oil distribution for the poor.

After washing clothes through the week for a living, Mr Rajak concentrates on bringing out the paper by selecting the news, deciding on the editorial page content and headlining the articles on Sundays.

The paper now even boasts a reporter - 45-year-old Ravi Shanker Gupta, who works in a grocery and goes out to collect news when he gets a work break.

On Monday morning, the editor and his intrepid reporter publish 100 copies of Din Dalit - 50 are bought by regular readers, and some are pasted on the walls. Some 25 copies go to government departments.

Mr Rajak says he spends 300 to 350 rupees (about $8) producing the paper.

His wife is less than impressed with his efforts. "He just wastes his time and money every week. I have no idea what he gets by bringing out the paper," says Lakshmi Devi.

But others in Dumka think highly of Mr Rajak's paper.

Ashok Khatri, a disabled man, says he received a 2,000 rupee social security grant from the government, only after Din Dalit wrote about him.

Rickshaw puller Dhrub Rai says Din Dalit serves a critical social purpose.

"Rajak has simply waged a war against corruption and social evils here," he says.

Mr Rajak's four sons also support their father's unstinting efforts.

"We feel proud when we see people reading and discussing the issues raised in the paper," says eldest son, Raj Shanker Rajak.

Mr Rajak pastes hi