Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31996 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.

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20037 Feb 11, 2013
The Watcher wrote:
Since Joseph Smith set himself above Jesus and the prophets, doesn't this mean the Later Day Saints are Smithists, not Christians?
" Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.
A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."
from History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409
I would think that a man who boasts that he is greater than all those who have came before him should have his cult named after himself, not someone for whom he has nothing but contempt!
To call this group Christian is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy!
You're right, but few people would've followed that religion, plus their main goal is to deceive Christians.

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20038 Feb 11, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You turn to YOUTUBE for valid answers... to sway others about what a cult is... lol. WOW!
That's a pathetically stupid remark.
Exactly who is the YOUTUBE executive I quoted? Duh!
That's as dumb as saying we can't use anything on TV either.
You're not smart -- you're so blind to the truth that it affects your ability to think clearly.

In case anybody else is confused - IT WAS THE PEOPLE that this poster was disturbed by, who gave answers and proof that Mormonism isn't Godly -- but he has no clue how to fight the truth so he attacked the electronics?!?!?

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20039 Feb 11, 2013
The Watcher wrote:
<quoted text>
In context?
Whatever context you put it in Joseph Smith said what he did and your church's claim of being Christian is false. You can put other meanings into what he said but it will only delude the twue believers. Any intelligent person will understand precisely what was said.
There are many other embarrassing quotes by your leaders as well that clearly indicate what your religion is.
And what I said, "To call this group Christian is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy" makes perfect sense, especially when we consider your blood atonement doctrine and the massacre committed at Mountain Meadows, not to mention your position on sexual orientation that has driven many of your young people to suicide.
Here is an interesting article on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and how it affects the mindset of the current church:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...
Murder, treachery, lying, none of these qualities are considered Christian.
And your ad hominem attacks against those who point this out just adds to the insanity being observed here on topix as the defenders of the Mormon religion try to defend their non-christian church with lies and slander just as Brigham Young did in denying responsibility for the massacre!
Well said.

More ex-Mormon sites:
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20040 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20041 Feb 11, 2013
The article below says so well

Mormons are not Christian no more than Christians are Mormons.

The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Here is a basic list of what true Christianity teaches as essential doctrine according to the Bible.

There is only one God in all existence (Exodus 20:1-4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5).
Jesus is divine (John 1:1;14; 8:24; Col. 2:9)
Forgiveness of sins is by grace alone without works (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:28; 4:1-5)
Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39)
The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4)
Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity. It is not a Christian religion.

Mormonism teaches...

Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation who was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator of all (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity is (see also, false trinity)

Because Mormonism denies the biblical truth of who God is, who Jesus is, how forgiveness of sins is attained, and what the gospel is, Mormonism is not Christian.
http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian
Father overtime

United States

#20042 Feb 11, 2013
Read the whole bible Egypt. Was Jesus praying to himself.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20043 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is lots of first hand evidence he did it has been posted and given to you in detail with 3 pages of footnotes that you can verify you saying there is none does not make it so.
You pasted references.
Next, do you know what a first hand account is? I'll explain it to you to help you out.
A first hand account statement is a statement from a 'witness' that is claiming to have had 'first hand eye witness' testimony that something happened/took place and they 'saw it' happen.
That said, you better wake up and smell some real time coffee dude because there are only a 'few''first hand testimonies' claiming to have either seen Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma or claimed to see Smith and a woman other than Emma enter a bed chamber.
These are the few accounts that people have used to substantiate Smith was having sex with other women.
The real question is do you know of these "specific" accounts? I do. If you do or you can locate them on the web, paste their statement in whole from a link.
I'll tell you now. One of the most famous first hand accounts of Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma was stated in a court hearing. She claimed to have went with them to a house. She claimed to have readied there bed chamber. She claimed to have seen them go into it. She claimed to have seen them have sex. She swore on a Bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law.
Guess what? The lawyer showed by questions that she was nothing but a bald faced liar. She didn't go to the house with them on the day she said it happened. She didn't ready the bed chamber. She didn't even enter it. And than she admitted she didn't see them have sex.
The other witness in the same court hearing seeing how that woman had made a liar of herself, that she committed perjury and lied to a judge and court room, when she afterwards came up for her testimony of what she knew of Smith having sexual relations with other women other than Emma, know what she said? Not a fricking thing. Refused to give comment. Refused to answer questions. This was a witness who had came there to swear on a Bible and tell her first hand account of having seen ??Smith engaged in sex with other women. Ans when it came to say her statement she refused to say anything.
The information isn't as concrete provable that Smith was sexing thirty plus women in three years as you would wish existed.
So paste just four (4) of your first hand accounts from your 'eye witnesses' and lets discuss the validity of what they said shall we?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20044 Feb 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lying for the Lord" is another long held tradition of the LDS church:
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
Apparently, Mormons are great lovers of a good lie.
Oh I love it when you say something without understanding the underlying context...lol
You were a Mormon for 30 years. That means lying for the Lord was a common everyday thing for you to do. That means you were a great lover of many many good lies. And that would maybe explain your nasty habit of lying when you do lie? lol...fricking sweet is the info you spill from your lips :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20045 Feb 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does the bible say that God commanded Abraham to take a second wife. Feel free to prove me wrong with something like a bible verse, and not those fictional scriptures you follow.
Well let's see.
If God didn't command Abraham to have Sarah's handmaid, than we should have read about God ripping Sarah a new *utt hole for enticing her husband into committing adultery. And because Abraham listened to his wife as Adam listened to Eve's enticement, we should have read of God disciplining Abraham for having committed adultery because the marriage wasn't recognized by God, thus making it an illegal marriage. Thus we should have read about both Sarah and Abraham being disciplined by the Lord in a most vexing manner for their most wicked behavior.
But I read nothing about that. Just the unfaithfulness of Sarah at an old age, well beyond child bearing age, hearing she would become pregnate with child and laughed disbelieving it, like you laugh and disbelieve in apostles and prophets existing today. You and Sarah are well alike in your disbeliefs :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20046 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT an ill well you would be as useless at poker as you are posting here
Dt 17:16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you,“You are not to go back that way again.”
Dt 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
We went over this long ago. You apparently forgot.
Solomon took unto himself 'many wives' that led his heart astray from the Lord.
David took 'one wife to many' with Bathsheba and his heart was led astray from God. But his heart hadn't been led astray from the Lord prior to having many wives before he ever saw Bathsheba. Before Bathsheba David was said to be a man of the Lord, a righteous man before the Lord. A man that the Lord was well pleased with.
You can twist what you want to mean what you wish it to mean by taking what was said out of context but it'll never mean you're correct.
According to your twisted way of interpreting the above verses, a king must have one horse, one wife, one piece of gold and one piece of silver.
"Oh no!" you'll exclaim. "My interpretation means a king can have many horses, one wife, many pieces of gold and many pieces of silver."
Yeah figures...lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20047 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT an ill well you would be as useless at poker as you are posting here
Dt 17:16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you,“You are not to go back that way again.”
Dt 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
Dt 17:18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.
Dt 17:19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
Dt 17:20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Dt 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. did you get that pretty sure this qualifies as ill words.
Despite his world–renowned wisdom, Solomon’s peaceful and prosperous rule ended in idolatrous scandal and civil strife, for “his wives turned his heart after other gods”(1 Kings 11:4).
MATTHEW 19:4–6
“Haven’t you read,” he replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one.”
BTW when I copy and paste the Bible is that bad too??? LOL
My bad, I was having a flash back of Dana asking about those verses, not you. My apologies. But I'm ready to further discuss them :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20049 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post shows no common sense but a lot of prejudice and hatred.
If Christians wanted to cover up anything, there would be no mistakes made by any disciple in the Bible at all. Instead, the truth is there, showing them as ordinary people, along with their mistakes and the lessons we should learn from their actions, both good and bad.
Before jumping on everything done by others, including the lies you told in your post by assuming things, take a look at yourself -- you need to work on yourself before trying convince others that you’re superior to anybody.
You should try and be less judgemental and just give a wee try to understanding the context of what is being said in a discussion before, you jump in feet first thinking you know what you prove you don't.
The other poster was speaking of how atrocious and horrendous the acts of modern men thinking themselves Christians were in consideration to things they did and said.
I was just showing that modern Christianity smooths over what type of apostles Jesus enlisted to be his right and left hand men and to appoint them positions of authority to run his church.
Jesus called all non-Jews dogs. Nice thing to say coming from a loving saviour unless you take time to understand the context of what was said.
Modern Christianity makes it appear it was nothing that Peter denied knowing and following Jesus as his saviour and God.
God the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus really was and Peter denied that personal revelation. Peter cast his pearl to the swine for fear of going to jail and or being put to death for following Jesus's teaches and being the primary apostolic leader.
Peter took all that he knew, all that had been given to him through his faith and tossed it all away for fear of losing his life. Do you have any clue what an atrocious and horrendous thing that was to do? It was evilly wicked. And Modern Christianity paints that story like Peter told a tiny white lie and God patted peter's head forgiving him and said give me a big hug!
Fricking idiots. And you judge me as having prejudice and being hateful because I can appreciate that gravity of what Peter did and it's serious nature? Yeah bring on some more of your judgements please...
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20050 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We went over this long ago. You apparently forgot.
Solomon took unto himself 'many wives' that led his heart astray from the Lord.
David took 'one wife to many' with Bathsheba and his heart was led astray from God. But his heart hadn't been led astray from the Lord prior to having many wives before he ever saw Bathsheba. Before Bathsheba David was said to be a man of the Lord, a righteous man before the Lord. A man that the Lord was well pleased with.
You can twist what you want to mean what you wish it to mean by taking what was said out of context but it'll never mean you're correct.
According to your twisted way of interpreting the above verses, a king must have one horse, one wife, one piece of gold and one piece of silver.
"Oh no!" you'll exclaim. "My interpretation means a king can have many horses, one wife, many pieces of gold and many pieces of silver."
Yeah figures...lol.
I do not take one verse out of context and make it a pretext as you do.

My post included verses before and after Det 17.

You see you must take in all the verses of the whole Bible to come up with sound doctrine so It is clear from the Verses in Genesis to Deuteronomy to Galatians where elders are only to have one wife as are laymen.

What the LDS does is take on verse that is fairly clear yet has some wiggle room as does Deuteronomy 17 and then make a case why it might not be.

But if you chose to be fair you take all the verses in the Bible that pertain to Marriage and you will find no wiggle room one man one woman to be married no more no less.

Now in the case of Moses David Solomon they did not have the NT that we have today but even then God judge them fairly and it is clear they knew better but chose not to listen to the Spirits leading. We have the complete revelation in Jesus the Christ as did Joseph Smith and like him you and I are with out excuses.

The biggest Problem with J.Smiths wives is he hid them from his 1st wife married legally married women, and married children.

In light of scripture Joseph Smith clearly was a false prophet the Bible tells us so.
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20051 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You pasted references.
Next, do you know what a first hand account is? I'll explain it to you to help you out.
A first hand account statement is a statement from a 'witness' that is claiming to have had 'first hand eye witness' testimony that something happened/took place and they 'saw it' happen.
That said, you better wake up and smell some real time coffee dude because there are only a 'few''first hand testimonies' claiming to have either seen Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma or claimed to see Smith and a woman other than Emma enter a bed chamber.
These are the few accounts that people have used to substantiate Smith was having sex with other women.
The real question is do you know of these "specific" accounts? I do. If you do or you can locate them on the web, paste their statement in whole from a link.
I'll tell you now. One of the most famous first hand accounts of Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma was stated in a court hearing. She claimed to have went with them to a house. She claimed to have readied there bed chamber. She claimed to have seen them go into it. She claimed to have seen them have sex. She swore on a Bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law.
Guess what? The lawyer showed by questions that she was nothing but a bald faced liar. She didn't go to the house with them on the day she said it happened. She didn't ready the bed chamber. She didn't even enter it. And than she admitted she didn't see them have sex.
The other witness in the same court hearing seeing how that woman had made a liar of herself, that she committed perjury and lied to a judge and court room, when she afterwards came up for her testimony of what she knew of Smith having sexual relations with other women other than Emma, know what she said? Not a fricking thing. Refused to give comment. Refused to answer questions. This was a witness who had came there to swear on a Bible and tell her first hand account of having seen ??Smith engaged in sex with other women. Ans when it came to say her statement she refused to say anything.
The information isn't as concrete provable that Smith was sexing thirty plus women in three years as you would wish existed.
So paste just four (4) of your first hand accounts from your 'eye witnesses' and lets discuss the validity of what they said shall we?
I posted links that have these references that are first hand accounts that you have chosen to ignore. I given you first hand accounts that you can not refute.

If I posted the whole thing all 4000 pages of documentation then you would rant about cutting and pasting. READ it TEST it till then your posts are just gibberish from a rambling idiot.

AGAIN I have posted accounts you ignore because the truth is scaring the behegees out of you.

I post Cases X Y Z and then you try to argue about Cases A B and C that I never brought up or even once referneced.

I show you exhibit Z that shows J.S. had sex with children and you choose to argue about Exhibit B LOL you are a child.

If you are unwilling to address the evidence I have brought forth at least be honest and tell the forum you have not got a clue how to refute it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20052 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
including the lies you told in your post by assuming things,
Let's go over one of what you call a lie shall we? Maybe your idiocy will wane a bit and you intelligence will fill it's void?

When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples.2Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples.3Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.4So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them,“Whom do you seek?”5They answered Him,“Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them,“I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them.6So when He said to them,“I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.7Therefore He again asked them,“Whom do you seek?” And they said,“Jesus the Nazarene.”8Jesus answered,“I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,”9to fulfill the word which He spoke,“Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.”
..
Now all seems to be going okay. Jesus seems to have 'pacified' the situation from a tense one to one where the officers, priests and guards began to relax seeing there would be no resistance from Jesus or his disciples.
So one of the guards reaching to take Jesus into custody as has been interpreted by scholars at this point receives a violent reprieve from Peter.
..
”10Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus.11So Jesus said to Peter,“Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”
..
Peter didn't try to aim so perfectly as to only slice off that slave's ear that was a guard for the high priest. Peter had been obviously aiming to split that guard's skull into two halves for trying to take his Lord away. As the other poster likes to equate our present terminology for that of 2000 years ago, Peter committed first degree attempted murder. Peter tried to murder a guard in a situation that Jesus had diffused so violence wouldn't happen and his disciples wouldn't be hurt and killed by the guards.
There is no lie to that story. You have lied claiming what I said was a lie, that is true :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20053 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
You're like a simple little ant whos so egotistical that he rejects the idea of people because he can't see them coming at him in time to hide.
lolol...that's it? That's your attempt at belittling me? Please tell me you can do better than that? You come into the thread speaking like some good Christian and one of the first things you do as a good Christian is belittle someone with your pathetic attempts at sarcasm? Why am I not surprised....lol....fricking too funny....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20054 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is based on proof, including the ongoing fulfillment of prophecies.
It doesn't surprise me you would say such a lame statement. Since Christianity is based on proof as you say it is, please prove Jesus lived. Prove he was even born. Shown un-doubtable proof that Jesus was born of a virgin and was the most perfect person to walk this earth.
Just a hint, there is no proof for any of that. Not for Jesus or his church or anything. There is evidence that alludes to a person named Jesus that did exist. But you have to have faith that Jesus even existed because there is no proof for his existence. That's what having faith in Jesus is all about don't ya know :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20056 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, but few people would've followed that religion, plus their main goal is to deceive Christians.
Christians deceive themselves all the time. They need no one's help in accomplishing that task lol. Christians of different religions blister each other over who's doctrine is the best and most correct interpretation and who's isn't every single day 24/7/12.
They have a 'get together day' and they act all chummy in unity. But back behind the pulpit and arming their missionaries with their doctrines, their out there in the trenches trying to get people from this Christian religion to join their Christian religion.
They'll have no qualms for speaking how wrong another religion is. Baptists against Methodists, Methodists against Presbyterian's, Seventh Day Adventists against the Church of Christ, Baptists against Baptists, Methodists against Methodists, etc, etc.
Christianity has fought against itself since it was first reformed in Rome. Just saying.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20057 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity.
I love non-thought out posts like yours :)
The reason Christianity isn't Christian is because they deny several essential doctrines of the early church that Jesus set forth himself. Modern Christians find excuses not to believe in there existence which proves their nothing but fake wannabes.
Modern Christians deny the existence of apostles, prophets, seventies, revelation by and through prophets and apostles, they don't believe a bishop needs to be married. They don't believe a deacon needs to be married. Most Christian churches have no position but a minister. Most don't have missionaries. Most don't believe in baptism by immersion. Many don't believe a baptism is needed at all. Many teach a doctrine of faith and preach against works and faith.
Modern Christianity is a fraud of what early Christianity was once. And those are facts Jack.
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20058 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I love non-thought out posts like yours :)
The reason Christianity isn't Christian is because they deny several essential doctrines of the early church that Jesus set forth himself. Modern Christians find excuses not to believe in there existence which proves their nothing but fake wannabes.
Modern Christians deny the existence of apostles, prophets, seventies, revelation by and through prophets and apostles, they don't believe a bishop needs to be married. They don't believe a deacon needs to be married. Most Christian churches have no position but a minister. Most don't have missionaries. Most don't believe in baptism by immersion. Many don't believe a baptism is needed at all. Many teach a doctrine of faith and preach against works and faith.
Modern Christianity is a fraud of what early Christianity was once. And those are facts Jack.
Actually as any one who is not a dumb dumb like you can see there is not one fact in your post.

The is not one shred of evidence or one statement that can be tested and verified as factual.

Its all from the your delusional mind. 100% incoherent gibberish.

If LDS are Christian as YOU Claim why as a follower of Evangelical Christian beliefs am I not Mormon too?

You are Polytheistic as a Mormon you believe there are many God's like in Greek Mythology.

I am Monotheistic like the first Christians were.

Can these two beliefs Many Gods only One God be reconciled and called the same Beliefs have the same name?

NO its absurd its like saying snakes and ants are all insects.

By your beliefs as a MORMON you are not a Christian.

YOUR beliefs are as far from Christian beliefs as is paganism or witchcraft.

Truth Matters

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min thetruth 40,655
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 3 min thetruth 4,672
News U.S. attorney joins Muslim community to promote... 6 min Marie-Luise_J 44
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Michael 650,196
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min It aint necessari... 16,132
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 33 min thetruth 256,004
News 'Remain Loyal!' theme of Jehovah's Witnesses co... 1 hr I_know_better_now 436
More from around the web