Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32007 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.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24563 Apr 28, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I took that position because it was suppose to silence the critics of Mormonism, therefore proving the church is true, and it wasn't a collection on how to make better fried chicken. LOL!!!
Why am I not surprise you don't have a clue as to the purpose of the book?
You can be dumb as a pile of turds. LOL!!!
Such immaturity...
That book wasn't wrote to silence critics.
The book was written to give Mormons some help to tend to critics of Mormonism. Even Mormons on reviews of the book on the web admit it's a bit of a "Bible basher" in context.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24564 Apr 28, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exposing your self loathing, racist lunacy on a daily basis. Why?
So the female that sets her daughter in danger to sexually ogling stalking Mormon missionaries comes out to have a say in something? And I assume you call that safe parenting? And you continue to subject your daughter to sexually ogling stalking Mormon missionaries in the land of Mormonism? Talking about perverted lunacy of thought...You admitted to taking your daughter from the frying pan to the fricking fire itself...and why am I not amazed...

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#24565 Apr 29, 2013
You tried to show that modern humans became a different species outside of Africa. You even used the word species to explain how there is some kind of divergence. Then you try to define that "modern human" in such a way as to make it seem that there was some kind of permanent racial division. Why? Because you were at first using "modern human" in a way that is anthropological, with the concept of a homo sapiens in your posts.

See, while you call me a racist, what you fail to do is prove that there is an actual racial difference between humans. Modern humans developed into modern humans in Africa, all the way through. The differences between human groups in and outside of Africa are post-modern.

Now as far as all these conditions you bring out, clearly we have all of those elements in Africa, since they are... yawn... again found in Egypt, and Nubia, and Kush, and ancient Nigeria.

But even if we don't, that does not establish any credibility for the book of Mormon.

You mention Noah, and then saying you find no evidence in Africa. Where is your evidence that Noah did any of this? The Bible? Where in the world does it say that Noah did any of this outside of Africa?

Finally, even if he did in or outside of Africa, anyone can see where this is going. Like it was said earlier, you want to take this conversation to cars, castles and space ships. "Megalithic buildings" is thrown in there at the very end, so you can have someway to hold onto more deniability by lumping it with all the other shit that is already proven to be in Africa. But heck, I think the pyramids of Egypt qualify as megalithic buildings.

the problem is you're looking for an argument that these things had to develop entirely within Africa before any humans left Africa. You're completely off point, again. Modern human does not mean that all that shit happened before humans left Africa. It doesn't matter who did what, when, and where, because all human groups, however you define them, obviously have the capacity to do these things, because we are all the same group, race, people, and have been for well over at least 50,000 years, or since Adam and Eve.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Some more of your racism coming out of you.
I was trying to show you that the Modern Humans that came out of Africa, they became what they are 'outside' of Africa. They became farmers, herders, builders of non-cave dwelling homes and builders of megalithic buildings.
I wasn't establishing colour. I was establishing the progress of the mentality of the modern human once they were out of Africa in comparison to the progress before leaving Africa. Understand?
I did that for you and your stance on mixing science and the Bible.
You claim the garden of Eden was in Africa. What you can't explain is why these Modern humans that began the Bible as you claim it, you can't explain why we have no ancient dwellings and no fields from farming and no irrigation canals and no evidence of animal herding and no evidence of cities and towns and villages and megalithic buildings all dating of the same time period prior to the flood date and existing in Africa BEFORE they moved out of Africa and began to build ancient dwellings and fields from farming and irrigation canals and evidence of animal herding and evidence of cities and towns and villages and megalithic buildings after the flood and outside of Africa.
<snip>
So your theory of Adam and Eve being related to primates and both originating in Africa has just a few holes in it you haven't given a lot of thought about.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#24566 Apr 29, 2013
Yes, that's right.

"You have and others from the religions mentioned have declared guesses to their skin colour."

Yes, and a guess is not a fact, is it Joseph Smith?

You have helped me disprove the Book of Mormon, yet again. You've also reminded people again that Mormonism is not Christianity.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You cussed...umm...lol...frustrate d? Don't be really.
Doesn't matter to me if you quote interpretations/reasonings/log ical arguments from Mormon, Muslim, Christian or Jewish sources.
The Bible HAS NEVER DECLARED THE SKIN COLOUR OF ADAM AND EVE.
Let's go over this again.
The Bible HAS NEVER DECLARED THE SKIN COLOUR OF ADAM AND EVE.
You have and others from the religions mentioned have declared guesses to their skin colour.
The Bible holds no proof of their colour. That's a fact you love to hate.

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#24567 Apr 29, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exposing your self loathing, racist lunacy on a daily basis. Why?
You're Dumb!

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#24568 Apr 29, 2013
I've also seen Dana and others list things with numbers.

Have you not yet realized that because you are such an asshole, that people posting here have learned methods and use methods, to debunk you?

Numbering their arguments coherently is a good way to discredit you.

You've been sitting here trying to make a point that the Bible never mentioned skin color. As if that means something. Joseph Smith's "Pearl of Great Price" does mention skin color to explain something and trying to link it to something else. He was wrong, and those believing it are historically ignorant for that.

Your response to that is, because the Bible doesn't mention skin color, that what? We should continue to pretend that we don't know the skin color of the first humans, nor should we examine the historical evidence within the context of the Bible to determine if the Mormon stuff is accurate?

In other words, you think we should stay silent on the issue and allow the Mormon stuff a pass based on the same level of credibility as the Bible, simply because the Bible doesn't mention skin color. The arguments here are that Mormons are NOT Christian because Smithy tried to add a mythical curse into Biblical understanding by making up a Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses and Abraham to insert the racial garbage into Genesis.

Where you go on and on about me being racist, you forget. Before Smith there is no racial undersatnding in the Bible, nothing about skin color. Just like you said. After Smith, in Mormon land, there is all this skin color race shit. Thus Mormonism, not Christianity is racist. Yes yes, we know we know, those Christians that ALSO practiced the same kind of mentality are also racist, but guess what, many of them have renounced it. And those holdouts, still thinking blacks came from the mark of cain they are just ignorantly false too...

FYI - Adam means literally red/dirt/blood. Dummies thought that meant he had rosy cheeks. But the fact is it explained that his skin color was a deep dark color. You know the color of the Native Americans that whites called 'red men'. And the fact that they thought they were Indians from India. Another group of very dark skinned people.

Not white guy with rosy cheeks.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
One more thing Osirica you David and Daniel liked to do was to number reasons for Mormon errors...
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#29747Feb 11, 2012
1. SO what, has nothing to do with Mormonism
2. So what. It does not indicate a relationship to #1.
3. So what, they left no where near as complicated a legacy as the one the Book of Mormon claims it had.
4. So what, their assimiations do not destroy utterly their constituent origins which are being assimilated. Every culture in the world can maintain SOME legacy of their previous origins. That's how we have traced language groups, families, and various previous cultures. In all of America, there should be SOME legacy left of one of the most powerful cultures OUT there.... JUDAISM! and another EGYPTIANS!
5. THere is none, thus Mormonism is proven false.
6. Two people cannot sit in the same chair at the same time. The vikings left evidence which was a mere settlement. Your mormons cant even find a speck of dust over some industrial society.
7. See 1-6
Sorry dude, you lose to the evidence.

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#24570 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
I've also seen Dana and others list things with numbers.
Have you not yet realized that because you are such an asshole, that people posting here have learned methods and use methods, to debunk you?
Numbering their arguments coherently is a good way to discredit you.
You've been sitting here trying to make a point that the Bible never mentioned skin color. As if that means something. Joseph Smith's "Pearl of Great Price" does mention skin color to explain something and trying to link it to something else. He was wrong, and those believing it are historically ignorant for that.
Your response to that is, because the Bible doesn't mention skin color, that what? We should continue to pretend that we don't know the skin color of the first humans, nor should we examine the historical evidence within the context of the Bible to determine if the Mormon stuff is accurate?
In other words, you think we should stay silent on the issue and allow the Mormon stuff a pass based on the same level of credibility as the Bible, simply because the Bible doesn't mention skin color. The arguments here are that Mormons are NOT Christian because Smithy tried to add a mythical curse into Biblical understanding by making up a Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses and Abraham to insert the racial garbage into Genesis.
Where you go on and on about me being racist, you forget. Before Smith there is no racial undersatnding in the Bible, nothing about skin color. Just like you said. After Smith, in Mormon land, there is all this skin color race shit. Thus Mormonism, not Christianity is racist. Yes yes, we know we know, those Christians that ALSO practiced the same kind of mentality are also racist, but guess what, many of them have renounced it. And those holdouts, still thinking blacks came from the mark of cain they are just ignorantly false too...
FYI - Adam means literally red/dirt/blood. Dummies thought that meant he had rosy cheeks. But the fact is it explained that his skin color was a deep dark color. You know the color of the Native Americans that whites called 'red men'. And the fact that they thought they were Indians from India. Another group of very dark skinned people.
Not white guy with rosy cheeks.
<quoted text>
There should be no pretending.

But, my question is what evidence are you relying on to obtain the skin color of Adam and Eve?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24572 Apr 29, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? lol...let's review a few of your intellectual adult statements you made in just the last eight days for intellectually stimulating conversation...lol...
You can be dumb as a pile of turds. LOL!!!
When are you going to stop trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit?
So you're agreeing with him that Adam and Eve were Black. Good for you!
Are you going to take your toys and leave?
It's clearer than the gutter you like to play in, Carol.
That's OK, you're always proving what kind of Christian you'll never be. LOL!!!
No Surprise has a girlfriend.
No Surprise has a girlfriend.
No Surprise has a girlfriend.
No Surprise has a girlfriend.
LOL!!!!
You're the bitching like a little girl every time you're proven wrong(You can always tell by the "Dark Heart" sermon you try to preach LOL!!!)
Change you ways or get abused, I could care less.
You're a snake oil sells man who has zero interest in the truth
Well, "Stupid" does seem to be you favorite flavor of kool-aid.
Hey Carol, sounds like you have "Fear of a Black Planet" problems also. LOL!!!!
You afraid a black man died for your sins?
You're hardly one to be telling anybody, anything, assclown.
Poor No Surprise has "Fear of a Black Planet"! LOL!!!!
No, you're just crapping pants
Are you afraid of losing your "white and delightesome" status?
OMG! LOL!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh, shit, I'm choking......LOL!!!!!!!!!!
all of the sudden, you're some white Malcom X. LOL!!!
The freaks come out at night.
You're so pathetic trying to be a slick pig,
Put down the crack pipe, Carol. you'll never get your temple recommend back smoking that stuff.
Yes, a racists, incesterous, horny God is so much better! LOL!!!
God caring where Smith sticks his penis is another one. LOL!!!!
You're both mental ill stalkers.
You're both sick puppies.
Anyone seeing your blathering sees a person in meltdown mode.
You always go into meltdown mode when you can't respond. LOL!!!
Proof you smoke crack.
More meltdown, but nothing new to say.
That's how I talk to fools.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24573 Apr 29, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
So the female that sets her daughter in danger to sexually ogling stalking Mormon missionaries comes out to have a say in something? And I assume you call that safe parenting? And you continue to subject your daughter to sexually ogling stalking Mormon missionaries in the land of Mormonism? Talking about perverted lunacy of thought...You admitted to taking your daughter from the frying pan to the fricking fire itself...and why am I not amazed...
More proof of what I speak.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24574 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
You tried to show that modern humans became a different species outside of Africa. You even used the word species to explain how there is some kind of divergence. Then you try to define that "modern human" in such a way as to make it seem that there was some kind of permanent racial division. Why? Because you were at first using "modern human" in a way that is anthropological, with the concept of a homo sapiens in your posts.
The below is what I actually stated that you have with purpose taken totally out of context.
Do you possibly know the difference between 'originate' and 'develop'?
I consistently used the word DEVELOP/DEVELOPED. I didn't use the word 'originate'. Why? Because if I had that would have meant that I meant modern humans ORIGINATED outside of Africa. And they didn't originate outside of Africa. THEY MADE ALL THEIR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS (get that word I used, DEVELOPMENT) OUTSIDE OF AFRICA.
"But modern humans, us, those smooth hairless things walking totally upright with fully developed brains, developing shelters of wood grass and stone, farming and animal husbandry, our specific specie never developed in Africa. Our specie of the hominoid tree called 'modern humans' we never developed in Africa. We developed as a specie outside of Africa."
Read what I write, don't read it to be what you want it to mean. Understand the difference?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24575 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
See, while you call me a racist, what you fail to do is prove that there is an actual racial difference between humans. Modern humans developed into modern humans in Africa, all the way through. The differences between human groups in and outside of Africa are post-modern.
Now as far as all these conditions you bring out, clearly we have all of those elements in Africa, since they are... yawn... again found in Egypt, and Nubia, and Kush, and ancient Nigeria.
Black skin, brown skin, tan skin, yellow skin, red skin, pink/ruddish skin. Those are racially different skin differences of modern humans.
racially - definition of racially by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/racially
ra·cial (r sh l) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of race or races,(skin colour in this instance).
You stated...
"Modern humans developed into modern humans in Africa, all the way through."
Did you mean...
"Modern humans originated and BEGAN their development in Africa".
Is that what you meant? What the heck is "...all the way through?" All the way through what?
Modern humans originated in Africa, began their development on the savannahs of Africa and then to caves for shelter where they began to make projectile points for hunting. Modern humans moved out of Africa and continued too mentally develope inventively outside of Africa and those inventions were taken back into Africa. Read some science!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24576 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
Now as far as all these conditions you bring out, clearly we have all of those elements in Africa, since they are... yawn... again found in Egypt, and Nubia, and Kush, and ancient Nigeria.
..........
But even if we don't,
You stated of the earliest discoveries for clothing, farming, animal herding, making of shelters, establishing of villages, towns and cities, huge stone megalithic structures were all first found in Africa, not outside of Africa. Really?
And than you state...
"But even if we don't.."?
You don't get this two ways dude. You don't get to reestablish the findings of science dude. You don't get to pretend to claim what you say existed in Africa when it has never been found there and claim what you say is fact when it's an outright lie.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24577 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
You mention Noah, and then saying you find no evidence in Africa. Where is your evidence that Noah did any of this? The Bible? Where in the world does it say that Noah did any of this outside of Africa?
I tossed in Noah to show a problem with your theory that the garden of Eden is in Africa where you claim a black God choose to make his first black children complete with skin coats of clothing when he kicked them out to the east of Eden Gen 3:24.
Can you show me where the modern humans you claim that became Adam and Eve in Africa, can you show me where there is evidence that your modern Adam and Eve in Africa had animal skin clothing first? See, I can show you where modern man thought/invented animal skin clothes outside of Africa. Science has established those findings.
But if your Adam and Eve of Africa had the first animal skin clothing, than science should have found evidence of animal skin clothing being first invented in Africa, not outside of it. The first man made houses should have been found in Africa. The first signs of farming should have been found in Africa. The first signs of animal herding should have been found in Africa. The oldest remains of villages, towns and cities should have been found in Africa. The oldest megalithic structures should have been found in Africa. The oldest cave paintings should have been found in Africa.
All of the earliest inventive accomplishments of modern humans should have been found in Africa IF, IF the garden of Eden had been located in Africa.
And Noah would have built his boat in Africa BEFORE the flood regardless of where the boat rested AFTER the flood. And since to you Adam and Eve and all their posterity to Noah evolved in Africa, in the subsurface of the soils of Africa we should find a layer where bones of humans and animals and fish and birds and human habitation should all exist together.
Are you getting this? Your actual science facts you use prove the probability of a fantasy land called the garden of Eden and your intelligent animal skinned modern humans couldn't have originated in Africa because there is no evidence!
I don't care if someone thinks Eden was on the moon and when the moon was to our west Adam and Eve were booted to the east to land on the earth, prove your theory by the science you claim supports your theory. Because at present, you're not doing a very good job of it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24578 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
Yes, that's right.
"You have and others from the religions mentioned have declared guesses to their skin colour."
Yes, and a guess is not a fact, is it Joseph Smith?
You have helped me disprove the Book of Mormon, yet again. You've also reminded people again that Mormonism is not Christianity.
<quoted text>
Every skin colour race on this earth 'guesses' at what God is period. Only the one's with racial intent demand others believe God is a specific colour just like their colour which you demand people believe.
Ignoramus, I never helped you to prove the BOM false. That lunacy is like stating I have helped you prove the Bible false. You can't prove either book false. A book of fiction is a book of fiction. Fiction can't be proved false ignoramus.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24579 Apr 29, 2013
osirica wrote:
You've been sitting here trying to make a point that the Bible never mentioned skin color. As if that means something.
Where you go on and on about me being racist, you forget. Before Smith there is no racial undersatnding in the Bible, nothing about skin color.
The Bible never mentions God having a skin colour. That's a fact. Not a single solitary time when differnt people saw God in the Bible in the flesh or in a vision did they ever declare his skin colour.
You have. You claimed God is black. That is the point I was making.
For a person to have an opinion that God is their skin colour is one thing.
To believe God is your skin colour and to teach people God is your skin colour not theirs, to demand a disbeliever to believe your proof that God is your colour, that's plain and simple prejudiced bigotry based on racism by colour.
..........
And this intelligent statement...lol
"Before Smith there is no racial undersatnding in the Bible, nothing about skin color."
You fricking self deluded liar! lol. Spanish/European Christianity taught a Biblical racial theory that black Africans were the cursed descendants of Cain and and through Ham's descendants they were made to be slaves! Christianty for over 500 years used that BIBLICAL RACIAL UNDERSTANDING to support their involvement in the slavery and slave trade of black Africans!
European Christians here in America for a century fostered that theory before Smith was ever born!
Fricking..."Before Smith there is no racial understanding in the Bible, nothing about skin color."...lol...boy do you ever try and prove some whoppers...you go dude...
PS, being racist doesn't pertain to just being against a skin colour. It also involves being against a specific ethnic background within one's race. Like when Jesus a Jew defined the non-Jew Samaritan woman a dog because she wasn't of his immediate race being a Jew.
Native Americans (not all Native Americans)are racists to each other because they believe one tribe based on name, language, and origin are better than the others. Not long ago they killed each other as the enemy and subjected each other in raids to slavery when captured. Their rank as a slave wasn't much better than the rank the tribe's dogs had.
People all over this earth of the same colour have been racists based on prejudice and bigotry because someone wasn't of their tribe/village.
Racial understanding existed before the compilation of the first Bible. People have been prejudicial bigoted racists of each other for thousands of years. Wake up and read some science/history dude.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24580 Apr 29, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how I talk to fools.
No. Wrong. That's a small example of your 'intelligent thought out phrases' you have used in various ways for the last three years to a couple dozen posters.
And I didn't even include your more famous homosexual slurs you use to throw around.
That's how you talked in general to most anyone.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24581 Apr 29, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
More proof of what I speak.
More proof of what you said/speak/spoke? Really?

That was my summary from information nomo stated. I said...

"So the female that sets her daughter in danger to sexually ogling stalking Mormon missionaries comes out to have a say in something? And I assume you call that safe parenting? And you continue to subject your daughter to sexually ogling stalking Mormon missionaries in the land of Mormonism? Talking about perverted lunacy of thought...You admitted to taking your daughter from the frying pan to the fricking fire itself...and why am I not amazed..."

Yet you claim you said the same thing of nomo too? Interesting...:)

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24582 Apr 29, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Every skin colour race on this earth 'guesses' at what God is period. Only the one's with racial intent demand others believe God is a specific colour just like their colour which you demand people believe.
Ignoramus, I never helped you to prove the BOM false. That lunacy is like stating I have helped you prove the Bible false. You can't prove either book false. A book of fiction is a book of fiction. Fiction can't be proved false ignoramus.
Since God isn't a man, he has no "skin color". The debate is pointless.

If you are declaring a book is fiction, you are declaring a book is false. There is no such thing as "true fiction."

Therefore you have declared it false. Now, who is the one you are calling "ignoramus?"

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#24583 Apr 29, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Since God isn't a man, he has no "skin color". The debate is pointless.
If you are declaring a book is fiction, you are declaring a book is false. There is no such thing as "true fiction."
Therefore you have declared it false. Now, who is the one you are calling "ignoramus?"
If that were true than we would not have any "skin color" either...

because we were created in his own image...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24584 Apr 29, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true than we would not have any "skin color" either...
because we were created in his own image...
We know we are created in God's image because the Bible tells us so in Genesis 1:27 where we read, "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Now, this event happened before the fall of man, but we know that we are still in some sense created in the image of God because 1 Corinthians 11:7 reaffirms this fact. Also Genesis 9:6 imposes the death penalty because of the fact that man is made in the image of God. This would argue that the idea of being created in God's image still applies to us today.

The words "image" and "likeness" used in Genesis 1:26-27 express the idea of the whole man being created in this way. In some sense, both a man's material and immaterial aspects are included in this assessment. Now, we know that strictly speaking man's physical body is not patterned after the physical appearance of God. We are taught in John 4 that God is Spirit and does not reside in a physical body. However, this does not preclude the physical body being some part of the image of God. We exist currently as body and soul together. It is meaningless to talk of us a just a soul or just a body when we are alive on earth. Both are intricately intertwined to make you the person you are.

The body reflects God's image by first of all being one in substance. God as a trinity is one being, acting with as much unity as our soul acts with our body. Our bodies are living, and Paul emphasizes that we serve a living God, not one of gold or silver or stone (Act17:29). In fact he says that those idols cannot be God because it would take a living being to create us as living beings. This is a highly rational argument, and difficult to find objectionable.

Paul's ability to appeal to reason demonstrates another way that man is made in the image of God. God by His nature is a rational being. He operates by the laws of logic. He is not constrained by them because they are some kind of "higher force", but they are the natural outflow of His will; they are His nature. He is as much a rational being as He is a loving being. Because only man has the true capacity for rational thinking, he is in this way also made in God's image. Also, man is intelligent; aware of his surroundings and capable of changing them. He does not act on instinct, but should be able to control his natural drives for higher purposes.

God has given man free will, which likewise reflects God's image. Every man has the ability to choose for himself his actions. He is morally aware. Man understands that certain things are good and certain things are evil. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had no experiential knowledge of good and evil, but they most certainly understood that they should obey God's commands. If this were not so, God warning them about punishment if they disobeyed Him would have no meaning to them, and the fall could be viewed as entrapment on God's part. Adam most certainly did understand that disobeying the will of God was wrong, and there could be dire consequences to his actions. Although we now must struggle against our evil nature to obey God, we still have moral understanding and comprehension of good and evil.

Lastly, one of the ways the image of God manifests itself in man is that only man can be aware of God and is capable of fellowshipping with Him. This part of man was exercised freely in the Garden before the fall. All men still are able to comprehend God's existence, but none are able to fellowship with Him unless they have been born again in Christ. Obviously, the universality of religion shows that awareness of God and some need for a relationship with Him is common to man.

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo080...

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.

South Salt Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in chu... 5 hr Bugs Bunyak - Car... 15
last post wins! (Jul '11) 5 hr The Dominant Poster 359
DONALD TRUMP is NIGERIAN PRINCE ! .. Birth Cert... 5 hr TRUMP ADMENSTRUATION 1
Review: AMSCO Windows (Jan '10) Aug 26 ajohnson 67
News LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) Aug 23 Zorri 30,209
News Body of missing Cedar City teen found (Nov '08) Aug 16 rhondaw 16
News POLYGAMY: Utah Co. prosecutors want to see 'big... (Sep '10) Aug 14 Mary Jesus 11
More from around the web

Personal Finance

South Salt Lake Mortgages