Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32099 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25598 May 12, 2013
You have discussed what if Cain was cursed and marked with dark/black skin (for the fiftieth time).

You have not ONE TIME discussed if Cain was cursed and marked with light/white skin (why not)? You only speak of how it can apply without specifying it. Just speak it plainly.

Both are equally possible, right?

Skin doesn't darken from the environment that quickly. People with light skin will not become black skinned people over that period of time. So that is out.

But besides that, none of this is inferred nor implied in the Bible. And it was never considered until the 1600s only when people wanted to justify enslaving black people.

So your entire conversation is not based on objectivity, but based on supporting a prejudiced mindset. It's like you're supporting a rapist argument that his victim dressed in a provocative black dresss...

It's like saying, what if the rapists were justified, because the women dressed too provocatively with a black shirt. If they dressed with a white shirt, or with a black shirt it doesn't matter. Because the fact is, the women, even if dressed provocatively should not have been raped.

But MY Point is this: The woman didn't even dress provocatively.

Your counter is "How do you know".

My response: The clothes that we've found, do not match the clothes she is accused of wearing. And you are forgetting that it doesn't matter.

Your counter is: "She could have worn a black shirt"

My response is: "no black shirts were found at the scene, and no recepits show she purchased one, and no one has ever seen her wear it."

Your response: "She could have bought one, with cash, and lost it after she wore it before the rape."

My response: "There is evidence from shirts she wore, that those shirts were the one she was raped in"

Your response: "Someone could have switched the shirts, put the forensic evidence on them".

My point is that it is as possible as any random meaningless transmutation. God could have marked cain with a unicorn on his head, or with bats attached to his ears. There is NO reason to zoom on into black skin verses ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY.

Why you spend so much time trying to explain it, where you bring in the origin of other skin colors... is because YOU are obsessed with proving to yourself that blacks were cursed. You won't let it go and you want to find a crack in reasoning that you can fit your prejudice in.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You have shown by your opinion it's not possible to you, that is correct.
You're not considering this in light of the information the other sides gives up without explanation. Such as...
Even if it stated Cain was cursed and marked with dark/black skin, this could be a description of many, many races. Because the verse says nothing of facial features. There is also the unsaid portion of this story if Adam was tanned and all of his posterity with the same facial features, then Cain's skin was darkened, long before Noah was born Cain's posterity and Seth's posterity would have mixed for a thousand plus years. By the time the flood arrived there would have been an assortment of light to dark brownish skin colours from race mixing and skin colour darkening from environment.
Point being by the time Noah came along, with everyone having the same facial features and hair type and various skin shades of brown, genealogy would have been the only way to know who was from what lineage.
Now take two thousand more years of race mixing and facial feature changes and there would be next to no way to identify who was of Cain's lineage.
And all of the above can be said in the reverse for any colour you want to start Adam with and for whatever coloured mark you want to assign Cain with.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25599 May 12, 2013
In that instance in the Bible, IT WAS A CURSE. The skin turning white is a side effect of the disease itself.

What you are then arguing for is that God cursed him with Vitiligo as well as Leprosy.

Vitiligo does not change one's "race".

What you are basically trying to push is that god cursed the guy with a bacterial infection and a melanin destroying condition.

Nope...

But even if he did, neither of those produce new races and they do not lead us to wander into the origin of the "white" race or the "asians" or "arabs", or some fictional white race that is not white.

But on TOP OF THAT....

There is no disease, condition, or anything that relates any of those two conditions to Cain... I mean unless you want to push the notion then that Cain was marked with WHITE SKIN!

The Bible does not state which way the skin tone went. It doesn't even IMPLY SKIN TONE WAS A FACTOR

But for some reason YOU want to go there.

So if you're going to GO there, BE consistent.

According to YOUR REASONING NOW... Cain was MORE LIKELY... MUCH MORE LIKELY made into a white person.

1. Vitiligo
2. Others cursed in the Bible in the same manner.

You're USING LOGIC...

RIGHT????
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The disease of leprosy isn't a curse. It's a disease people get like any other disease.
But God through a prophet turned the disease into a curse. Leprosy doesn't come in colours. Leprosy affects patches of skin and to the bone so parts of the extremities are lost. Go and Google leprosy and click on images. The man being turned white as snow was an extra curse on top of the leprosy because lepers don't turn white. The man could only have turned white under some super natural condition that doesn't ever happen to other lepers.
So ignore that fact all you want. God took a man with probably some type of brown skin and turned him white as snow and all his descendants were to suffer the same cursings.
God took a disease and used it to curse a man to turn his skin a completely different colour. That's a Bible fact so adjust to it is my recommendation.
So you think the writers left out information because they didn't care? Interesting. You realize that means man has redid the scriptures as he saw fit to write them and, they aren't inspired at all IF the writers showed they didn't care and were indifferent to different pieces of information they judged whether to allow it in or not?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25600 May 12, 2013
You do find it important. that is obvious.

YOu've tried to counter EVERY comment I've made about Cain not being turned black.

You've been silent on any notion and have made no effort to make a case that Cain was turned white.

You've tried to explain completely within the confines of science. Then you turn around and use scientifically impossible assumptions (tanning to black and mixing over 5000 years). You've tried to make the passage about the dust in the ground refer to ligher dust and ignore the value of water IN the Bible, in relating to life and in just basic common sense (they are in a garden). You've gone to the complete cop out by saying God just transmutes stuff so evidence is not even a factor anymore. All to explain it being BLACK.

Yet you have taken NO effort, despite the fact that EVERYTHING points to blacks being the predecessor...

And this is because you are not defending truth, or Christianity, you are not defending objectivity.

You are defending white racist thinking, giving it a pillow to feel ok about. You are defending Mormon lies and Joseph Smith stupidity. You are trying to make it so that Joseph Smith is at least as credible as any writer of the Bible.

And along the way you hope that readers can somehow get a notion that blacks 'had' to come from this. Because the alternative is scary to you. It was blacks that were first, and whites came after.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I find the colour of Adam unimportant. I find the curses on Cain and Ham's grandson and all the rest unimportant. It's interesting to discuss and debate the issues but that is all.
But I'm not so ignorant to not acknowledge that God can do anything he wishes, even if to change a person's skin colour.
I have no personal evidence from the Bible that tells me what the mark of Cain was. I have no evidence from the Bible that tells me how any of the human colours came to be. But I have evidence from the Bible that God will change a person's skin colour by a disease or without a disease if he so wishes to do so.
If a person wanted to establish where white people came from using just the Bible, they could use this 'white as snow' skin colouring curse as 'possible' evidence. It's a very weak theory as is the mark of Cain theory but it can be used that way to explain colours.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25601 May 12, 2013
See... you're doing it again. You're mixing the science and Bible in your own way, then telling me that I cannot do the same thing.

What was said afterwards MATTERS CERTAINLY SO. BECAUSE THE WRITERS KNEW THAT IN THE PRESENT DAY THERE

THEY NEVER SAID THAT AFTER THE WATERS RECEDED THE LAND HAD SHIFTED. They were using the SAME rivers to describe things.

So stop trying to make it seem like the context doesn't matter when you cherry pick a passage in the Bible in such a way to destroy it's true meaning.

ESPECIALLY when this has no bearing on the issue.

How the heck does any of this about the land and water explain Cain being marked with BLACK skin?

It doesn't. And that's my point. You go through too much effort, even for your own sanity, to try to build a case that blacks came from Cain.

NO ONE but you stupid ass Mormons go through this level of deception. No one. Not even the racists in those days. MAYBE the Christian Identity racists of today. And I think you might be reading their Stormfront posts on this subject.

Because your stuff IS starting to sound like their own version.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Nooo...you're ignoring the geographical description the writer used. There isn't any science to it. And what was said afterwards matters not. For the first sentence describes how it was before it was described as what it became afterwards with time.
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
The writer used a geographical description to describe how the earth looked before it had life.
The writer who wrote the story of Adam and his creation didn't do that. He just stated Adam was made from the dust of the earth. You on the other hand wish to claim Adam is the result of primates. You can't logically apply that reasoning because the Bible gives Adam's creation from the earth, dust, not a primate. By using a primate theory you change what the story actually states. That means you err and you will always err as long as you use primates for Adam's creation. Understand?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25603 May 12, 2013
The oldest references to Cain being the ancestor of the black race comes from the first Caliph right after Muhammad. NOTHING before that. That's 7th century.

It's called the "Hadith", it's the Muslim "Talmud" if you will.

The hadith quotes Muhammad: "Do not bring black into your pedigree."

The hadith in which an Ethiopian woman laments her racial inferiority to Muhammad, who consoles her by saying, "In Paradise, the whiteness of the Ethiopian will be seen over the stretch of a thousand years."

SOUND FAMILIAR??????????

The word for BLACK PERSON in Arabic changed in the 7th century to "ABED"... which orginally meant SLAVE, because Muslims were encouraged to enslave them SO MUCH.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php...

Many MANY more...

And the excuses that the respondents give? They sound SO much like yours...
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep dragging the muslims into the mark of Cain story? The Koran has a story of Cain and Abel and Cain was marked with sorrow but that's all. Muslims and Arabs racially discriminated against Africans because they choose to.
The brown Christian Spaniards were the definite proved first to use the story of Cain to justify enslaving Africans.
And white supremacy didn't take it to another level that didn't already exist. I don't know where you came up with that one. The Arabs, Muslims and Spanish elevated their races way above the African and beat them and tortured them and killed them as Americans did in early America.
And that 18th century guy you talk about, he wanted to set the slaves free before Lincoln even wrote about it. That guy was letting Africans into his church as members when American Christian religions were excluding them. He was allowing natives and Asians in his church if they wanted in. He was actually viewed as an abolitionist by slave owners in the southern states. That guy you call a fraud had an early influence in the changing opinion of how white America viewed blacks. Many scholars think it's one of the primary reasons why he was killed, is because of his 'free the slaves' position.
What happened after his death is another story.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25605 May 12, 2013
And I responded many times ago that the water is a part of the life in the dirt. The writers were not implying that light dust was used, that's the ENGLISH 1611 interpretation.

Just like "mark" and "oath".

God made heavens and the Earth.. Earth is called "ERETS" which is where we got our word "EARTH" from.

Earth is NOT called "EDEN".

Ground is called "ADAMAH"

Ground is NOT called "EDEN"

The place on "ERETS" on "ADAMAH" where the garden existed was "EDEN".

EDEN was not the entire "ERETS" nor "ADAMAH"

You make all these long diatribes to circumvent PLAIN and DIRECT writing.

The Hebrew writers were not going through all of this convolution you try to make up.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We discussed this long ago. I put a theory out there by what the writer stated was how the earth looked before life was put on it.
You disagreed because you believe that God made the earth with many land masses and many bodies of waters so it looks today as it did when Adam was set on the earth.
Unfortunately my theory matches closer to the writer than your theory even if we can't prove either theory.
I believe the earth(land) at first was called Eden, all of it. I believe it was all as it was described, in a state of perfectness, no variance, no good or evil. Pure, simple perfectness where nothing died.
Than a garden was made on this single land mass called Eden to it's eastward side. There Adam was made with Eve to tend it and take care of it. What made this garden special in the story I think, wasn't it's local but the fact that it contained two special trees. I say that because if you take the trees away from the garden and we wouldn't exist according to the story.
The trees made the garden special and that's why it gets mentioned. I think God in his wisdom allowed that garden to remain in it's state of perfectness while allowing the rest of Eden to become influenced by the laws of life and death. Than God set Adam and Eve to the east of the garden. I am guessing the north, west and south sides of the garden were impassible to human or spirit by some means because the cherubim and flaming sword were only placed at the east side. So that insinuates God wasn't worrying about the garden being entered by the north, west and south sides.
And once Adam and Eve were out of Eden, God made it to disappear from human eyesight. Now all that existed was the earth and body of water surrounding it.
Adam and Eve's children went forth and settled this land to it's four corners I am guessing. And then we have the flood and things are very different afterwards.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25606 May 12, 2013
You're the kind of guy that reads "Ground" in the Bible and think they were talking about pavement...

That's how out of touch with the subject matter you are...

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25607 May 12, 2013
The problem is,

You're using that to make a case on another passage in the Bible where skin color was not mentioned nor implied.

You then try to get around that by recontextualizing even other parts of the Bible, not even relating to this part, to make it appear that the environment or circumstances would lead to it being about skin color.

So then you ARE debating cain's color.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you failed to notice it, but I haven't debated Cain's colour. I debated whether God would turn someone's skin a different colour if he wanted to and I showed Biblical evidence he has did just that.
But that evidence wasn't to prove Cain's skin colour. Understand?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#25608 May 12, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You waste more time discrediting something you don't believe.
Yes, to save people from going through the hell I did.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25609 May 12, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, to save people from going through the hell I did.
What hell?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#25610 May 12, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
What hell?
This was all talked about a long time ago. Go back if you are interested.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25611 May 12, 2013
i dont know what hell you are talking about. and i dont know where it is at in the 24,460 posts. i'm not going through them again.

i dont understand what hell you are talking about though.

i do know people in general are not perfect... the church is. and if you are saying a person hurt you, i'm sorry to hear that. but if you are saying the church hurt you i dont understand and cant understand because ive only seen good from the church... though people are people and i not necessarily right in all things... just like people everywhere.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25612 May 12, 2013
Man please,

you're a LIAR too...

Mormonism has all the racist hall marks of badness all over it.

Get off the damn thread, water carrier.
sportxmouse wrote:
i dont know what hell you are talking about. and i dont know where it is at in the 24,460 posts. i'm not going through them again.
i dont understand what hell you are talking about though.
i do know people in general are not perfect... the church is. and if you are saying a person hurt you, i'm sorry to hear that. but if you are saying the church hurt you i dont understand and cant understand because ive only seen good from the church... though people are people and i not necessarily right in all things... just like people everywhere.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25613 May 12, 2013
See the proof that you are lying is simple.

You bring up shit that you never thought of. I disprove it, so you go, looking and looking for some other concept to attach to it

Oh Cain might have been cursed with black skin because of some other curse on someone else, or because the dust was light brown, or because Eden was all over the earth, or because of all sorts of shit that has no bearing on this.

Then you come off with this nonsense about not being able to disprove it.

I show that I can by pointing out that blacks were agriculturally successful throughout history...

so then you did this before and do it now, you try to say "oh then they were still marked, but not cursed"

but then you point out other descendents that you feel carried the mark and curse.

you keep going and going and going and going...

all to make a case that cain was marked with black skin.

but you make NO effort to make a case that cain was marked with white skin.

Why? because you don't take that shit seriously if it's white.

You take it seriously if it's black

And thats because you're a prejudiced racist punk.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25614 May 12, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
i dont know what hell you are talking about. and i dont know where it is at in the 24,460 posts. i'm not going through them again.
i dont understand what hell you are talking about though.
i do know people in general are not perfect... the church is. and if you are saying a person hurt you, i'm sorry to hear that. but if you are saying the church hurt you i dont understand and cant understand because ive only seen good from the church... though people are people and i not necessarily right in all things... just like people everywhere.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#25615 May 12, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
i dont know what hell you are talking about. and i dont know where it is at in the 24,460 posts. i'm not going through them again.
i dont understand what hell you are talking about though.
i do know people in general are not perfect... the church is. and if you are saying a person hurt you, i'm sorry to hear that. but if you are saying the church hurt you i dont understand and cant understand because ive only seen good from the church... though people are people and i not necessarily right in all things... just like people everywhere.
Stay ignorant, then. Who cares?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25616 May 12, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes stupid. Especially in light of the fact that you know the LDS have no name for her or for God the Father for that matter.
It's stupid to want to know about heavenly mother?...it's stupid to believe gods have harems in heaven.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25618 May 12, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay ignorant, then. Who cares?
I show concern and that is your response. Wow... impressive.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25619 May 12, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's stupid to want to know about heavenly mother?...it's stupid to believe gods have harems in heaven.
Harems in Heaven? Are you kidding? That is ridiculous... what are you talking about. That is not even part of our religion.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25620 May 12, 2013
NoMo wrote:
Your "You Tube Collection" doesn't impress me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Salt Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Are Aliens Real, if so are they nice or mean? (Oct '12) May 22 A guy 38
White men! Date a woman with bi-racial kids? (May '11) May 22 A guy 117
LDS Hospital noise pollution May 11 No more noise pol... 1
The Many God's of Mormonism May 10 NYC Kid 6
News US Interior secretary tours hotly contested Uta... May 9 Cordwainer Trout 1
News Geologists, residents see more movement in Nort... (Apr '16) Apr '16 jsmetzgerin 1
News Loss of members spurred LDS singles ward changes (Apr '11) Feb '15 Blow 4

North Salt Lake Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

North Salt Lake Mortgages