Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31997 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.

DaMeS iMaGiNarY FRieND

Gridley, CA

#31475 Jan 17, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when it doesn't apply.
According to your atheist @** the entire Bible doesn't apply.

It's impossible for God to actually impregnate a woman and have a son, there's so much bull there that "you can load it with a pitchfork and should for all the manure it is"

You've repeatedly cheered for the murdering raping Sodomites as the good guys

You've repeatedly said you'd
murder Jesus Christ Himself
for teaching Levirate Marriage

You've repeatedly said you'd murder anybody who practices it

You've repeatedly cheered for homosexual molesting priests winning cases where they got exonerated

You've repeatedly said Genesis is fake.

You've repeatedly said you'd murder Mormons if you could get away with it.

What you are is a sociopath
from Cone Shaped Hat & Shoe Confederate Rebellion Country
who got caught by the Mormons "counseling" their little boys about your homosexuality
and you decided your homosexual feelings
exempt you from even acting human
toward anybody.

So you ran away from Stars & Bars states to state your preference for men on the internet.

Your main attraction to Christianics is you don't like picking up the unwashed pagans on your homosexual trolling site; You orient it to the Bible because you like the cleanliness and good manners of the Christianic boys better.

No?

Pfft.
suman00971566759 201

Fujairah, UAE

#31476 Jan 17, 2014
sexe chat kro

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31477 Jan 17, 2014
DaMeS iMaGiNarY FRieND wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your atheist @** the entire Bible doesn't apply.
It's impossible for God to actually impregnate a woman and have a son, there's so much bull there that "you can load it with a pitchfork and should for all the manure it is"
You've repeatedly cheered for the murdering raping Sodomites as the good guys
You've repeatedly said you'd
murder Jesus Christ Himself
for teaching Levirate Marriage
You've repeatedly said you'd murder anybody who practices it
You've repeatedly cheered for homosexual molesting priests winning cases where they got exonerated
You've repeatedly said Genesis is fake.
You've repeatedly said you'd murder Mormons if you could get away with it.
What you are is a sociopath
from Cone Shaped Hat & Shoe Confederate Rebellion Country
who got caught by the Mormons "counseling" their little boys about your homosexuality
and you decided your homosexual feelings
exempt you from even acting human
toward anybody.
So you ran away from Stars & Bars states to state your preference for men on the internet.
Your main attraction to Christianics is you don't like picking up the unwashed pagans on your homosexual trolling site; You orient it to the Bible because you like the cleanliness and good manners of the Christianic boys better.
No?
Pfft.
And this is what No Standards considers Christian.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31478 Jan 17, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
It did apply. I was making a comparison. Only a fool wouldn't get that.
You were taking a verse out of context, only a fool doesn't get that.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31479 Jan 17, 2014
DaMeS iMaGiNarY FRieND wrote:
<quoted text>
Your the one who wants it to be legal for your daughter to marry one.
No I don't think anyone should marry you.
sonam09693691543

Fujairah, UAE

#31480 Jan 17, 2014
haa bolo

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31481 Jan 17, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>There is absolutely nowhere that I have said killing wasn't a natural human instinct. And why do you write to make it look like murder and killing are one in the same? Murder surely is always a killing, but a killing is not always a murder.
I wrote it the way I did because murder/killing achieve the same result, loss of life no matter what reason the loss of life is founded upon. Humans have made a difference between the words 'kill' and 'murder' to justify their reason for taking life so they don't feel so guilty for having taken a life.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31482 Jan 17, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow I can't believe how stupid you are, and the one that agrees with is a complete Idiot.
Catholicism - 1.2 billion
Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million
Oriental Orthodoxy - 86 million
Anglicanism - 85 million
Protestantism - 600 million
LDS 14 million. what a joke most in bread in one state.
Sorry to burst your bubble but if its a number games the LDS don't qualify as a Religion let alone Christian your numbers are not even a drop in the ocean.
No. The sad joke is your post is from a low mentality based on immature childish rantings. That's the sad joke. You pull out numbers and think you have proven something I wasn't even debating. Some more hallucinating on your part also. You should have tried to respond to what I actually wrote. It would have been a better option, just suggesting :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31483 Jan 17, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>You said, "males rule very little any more" again, is this exactly what you mean? And I didn't say as you claim "that I haven't noticed any of that taking place" I said I don't see a lot of women as heads of state, presidents, senator or CEO's. That's not the same as saying "haven't noticed any of that taking place." Why are saying my claims are different than they are? And if you really do mean "males rule very little any more" than who are all the heads of state, because they for the most part, aren't women.
You qualified my statement to mostly the political arena of life. That's why I said what I did of your statement. You tried to show males were still the major ruling factor because mostly males you said were heads of state, presidents, senator or CEO's. and that was your error. So let's go over what you excluded where males have no controlling factor any more where in my statement "..males rule very little any more." actually pertains to shall we?
Males at one time were the heads of all things in life be it the home, the work place or politics. Males no longer rule the home. That's a fact. Women are no longer in subjugation to their husband to do as they say in the home. That's a huge area that is no longer male dominated. The work place. Males no longer rule the work force. That day is long gone and done. Of politics males still are the ruling factor but decade by decade female numbers are rising. One day the numbers of males to females will be as equal as in the work force area of today. And one more area being squeezed out of an all male dominated society, the military.
So on a comparable level of 200 years ago to today, males rule very little today in comparison to the all male dominated society that existed just 200 years ago. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31484 Jan 17, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Again, your statement was, "Humans nature is to exist as any living species." but again that's not what you meant. The statement infers or clearly says, it's human to live as a gopher or a duck. Don't expect me to interpret your words in any other way than what they actually say. I'm not in your brain, and as I have suggested before, proof reading helps
So let's review our past statements. You claimed human instinct couldn't be changed. I disagreed. I further explained the difference between human instinct and human behavior. You acknowledged those two differences. I stated and tried to explain human instinct was limited to description but human behavior wasn't. You didn't understand what I said. I gave a primary example of what human instinct was, to exist. Also phrased in psychology as the instinct to fight or flight, the base summery of the need and want to exist in a situation where one's existence is threatened.
Anything beyond the instinct to fight or flight to exist is largely termed human behavior. Human behavior (not human instinct as I corrected myself a few pages back) can be changed by laws.
Your problem is you seem to wish to label all things that humans do as human instinct. And that's incorrect. There's a fine line between human instinct and human behavior. Human behavior is based on what we learn obviously. But the need/want to exist is instinctive. And I see little of human behavior that could be defined as human instinct.
So I leave it up to you to list several things about humans that you define as being human instinct that can't be changed/lessened/manipulated by laws.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31485 Jan 17, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>You gave two opposing answers to the question. Also you point out {again} that laws have indeed restricted behavior stating that most people would think twice and refrain, but you don't seem to acknowledge, even though you keep pointing to it, that the urge is still there. Because you can"t change human nature by making laws forbidding it, You keep giving examples of controlling behavior but that doesn't mean the urge {your word not mine} is gone.
You said human instinct can't be changed. I said what you call human instinct is actually called in most instances human behavior and that it had been changed and controlled by laws. But of the word 'urge', I never said the urge could be taken away. Urges can be controlled obviously. But the conversation of human instinct can be limited to only a very few things as I have mentioned because their is a vast difference between human instinct and human behavior.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31486 Jan 17, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You were taking a verse out of context, only a fool doesn't get that.
How so?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31487 Jan 17, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is what No Standards considers Christian.
You're so Lame... I bet you think the world revolves around you... you're so lame!!!~

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31488 Jan 17, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't think anyone should marry you.
Debate Mormonism!~

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31491 Jan 17, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's review our past statements. You claimed human instinct couldn't be changed. I disagreed. I further explained the difference between human instinct and human behavior. You acknowledged those two differences. I stated and tried to explain human instinct was limited to description but human behavior wasn't. You didn't understand what I said. I gave a primary example of what human instinct was, to exist. Also phrased in psychology as the instinct to fight or flight, the base summery of the need and want to exist in a situation where one's existence is threatened.
Anything beyond the instinct to fight or flight to exist is largely termed human behavior. Human behavior (not human instinct as I corrected myself a few pages back) can be changed by laws.
Your problem is you seem to wish to label all things that humans do as human instinct. And that's incorrect. There's a fine line between human instinct and human behavior. Human behavior is based on what we learn obviously. But the need/want to exist is instinctive. And I see little of human behavior that could be defined as human instinct.
So I leave it up to you to list several things about humans that you define as being human instinct that can't be changed/lessened/manipulated by laws.
Impressive... and I love how you left it to her to define it... brilliant!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31492 Jan 17, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Debate Mormonism!~
Keep the topic on Mormonism.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31493 Jan 17, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so Lame... I bet you think the world revolves around you... you're so lame!!!~
It does, fruitloop.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31494 Jan 17, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep the topic on Mormonism.
Yes that is what I am saying... what is your debate about Mormonism?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31495 Jan 17, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
It does, fruitloop.
No, idiot, the world revolves around Heavenly Fathers Plan... and Jesus Christ coming here suffering for all of our sins so we can return back home to Heavenly Father.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#31496 Jan 17, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I wrote it the way I did because murder/killing achieve the same result, loss of life no matter what reason the loss of life is founded upon. Humans have made a difference between the words 'kill' and 'murder' to justify their reason for taking life so they don't feel so guilty for having taken a life.
That's like saying a banana is an orange because they are both fruit and we only differentiate between them to convince ourselves that we have a diverse diet. Murder always includes malice, premeditation and intent. A killing is not always murder, hence they are not the same.

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.

Salt Lake City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
voting for trump 2016 thread 24 min Ginger 3
Vote for Hillary 34 min Ginger 4
I'm getting over you! Aug 25 Noah 2
Review: Haaga Mattress (Nov '15) Aug 24 cool dealzz 3
Trump Aug 24 Paris 20
ancestry findagrave MICHELLE 46983123 Aug 19 KATRINA SMITH 3
Review: Pinky's (Apr '13) Aug 18 Greg 7

Salt Lake City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salt Lake City Mortgages