Not a matter of swallowing without question. I would bet that I've done a ton more research into it than you have. You haven't even read the book that you hate so much. That doesn't make you a very reliable source as to its accuracy. You don't even know what you are protesting. You also seem to think that there are a small number of people who believe in this book. I think the worldwide number right now is around 13,000,000. That is a whole lot of people to think that all of them are unintelligent sheep that just follow blindly without questioning. Blind hatred is discouraging but there have always been people like that I guess. Great answer, but not original. It's something I hear all the time, "I don't have to read the book to know I hate it." Ever stop to think that maybe the only reason you have the views you do is that someone told you it was that way and you believed them blindly. This is the same thing you are criticizing others for. Whatever.....
Dna evidence proves Joseph Smith wrong. What more evidence do you need? Please dont tell me you buy the golden plate story. "If âfaithâ is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for âfaithâ in any particular belief. All supernatural beliefs require âfaithâ in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief. So it must be the âfaithâ itself that dictates what is true. Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the âfaithâ of the believer to see its truth. -"
Ron Paul Goes From Near Last To FIRST After 'Debate' From Frank Gonzalez 5-4-7 Given the huge field of the early Republican lineup of candidates that prevented Paul from elaborating much more on what makes him so very different from the rest of the pack, and the scant 90 minutes afforded the public to know who they are, Paul did as well as he possibly could going from near last to FIRST place. BEFORE the Republican 'Debate' 1. Giuliani 41% 2. McCain 31% 3. Romney 28% 4. Huckabee 14% 5. Thompson 11% 6. Tancredo 10% 7. Brownback 10% 8. Paul 9% 9. Hunter 7% 10. Gilmore 4% AFTER the Republican 'Debate' at 9:28am the next morning: 1. Paul 35% 2. Romney 30% 3. Giuliani 25% 4. McCain 20% 5. Huckabee 16% 6. Tancredo 10% 7. Brownback 9% 8. Thompson 9% 9. Hunter 8% 10. Gilmore 7% Frank J. Gonzalez For US House in '08 vs. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL's D21 786-287-7491 voteliberty@bellsouth.net MySpace link: www.myspace.com/gonzalezforcongress Updates & commentary: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/gofrank/ http://www.rense.com/general76/rpo.htm
HILARIOUS !!!! With this post, the troll unknowingly admits that he knows next to nothing about the candidates position on Bush's presidency, and yet feels free to make statements about how they supported him....... ROFLMAO !!!!! WHAT A TOOL !!!
Debatable. You should understand that I don't claim that others didn't come to the americas. I just claim that there were three families who came from the middle east whom we have record of. Who else came at various times? I'm not sure. Many probably came from asia over the land bridge. The three groups that are in the book weren't related so I'm sure there were many more that were from various parts of the world. Also you should realize that Joseph Smith isn't the only one to claim to have seen the plates or the accompanying angel. There were eleven other witnesses, some of whom were prominent men in the community. All thereafter willing to give up everything for what they had seen. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=21&table=transcripts Anyway, I've actually read the book and compared it very closely with the bible. The two are companion scripture with identical purpose. If someone truly understands the Book of Mormon and says the teachings therein are false, they are also by default saying the Bible is false. Both declare the same things. Anyway, if you're not even willing to read it to find out, then that is your decision. It really comes down to 2 hypothetical situations. 1) IF the book is true then it is a great thing that we have it. 2) IF the book is false, it still led to an organization that is one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known. Pretty great thing to have come from a "conman". http://www.mormonwiki.com/mormonism/Humanitarian_Efforts
after debate ron paul ahead of everyone else: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aEWlKT9obPY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aEWlKT9obPY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
The God in the Trinitarian belief system is unlike the God in the Mormon belief system -- I am not sure how the bible and the book of Mormon can be considered to be similar. Mormons believe that God was a man who evolved into a god and that worthy Mormon males can evolve into gods. Mormon teachings on Jesus are are also significantly different. http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html the above page does not indicate all the differences in belief. By the way just because I see the two religions as different does not mean I would not like to have a beer with Romney.
The debate showcased the Republican faggot candidate - - Mitt Romney. "Gosh, I love America." How nithe Mitt.
First of all, I'm not saying that mormon belief regarding God and Christ isn't different than other christian sects. There are very distinct differences which ultimately lead to my belief of mormon doctrine rather than others that I've studied. But, when you say that mormon teachings of God and Jesus are different than others' beliefs you should specify which other christian sect they are being compared to. Indeed the idea of who God is and his actual relation to Christ are still being reinterpreted and heavily debated today. You refer to the Nicean Creed. The very fact that Constantine (who might not have even been a believer himself) had to assemble the Council of Nicea is evidence of the fact that less than 300 years after Christ's death there was so much debate on this topic that Constantine feared disruption of his empire. Yes, mormon doctrine on the nature of God is entirely different than this creed, but you should understand that it is a matter of interpretation. The Bible declares God and Jesus to be seperate individuals more often than it declares them to be "One". Indeed they are referred to in a very similar fashion in the Book of Mormon. Mormons do not claim the Book of Mormon to be true and the Bible to be false. Indeed the 8th of the 13 articles of faith states; We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html Obviously if mormons believe in the same bible (King James Version is the standard for the church) it must relate back to a translation or interpretation difference. Other churches teach their followers that the Book of Mormon teaches a different God than the Bible, and those followers believe this without ever reading it. Ironically mormons are the ones criticised for blind faith.