Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32098 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

#24598 Apr 30, 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?"
lol...no, no, no. You can't go that direction. You cannot, nor will you ever in a lifetime on this earth declare God as not having human form/substance because...Because...BECAUSE??? ??? Because you have not a single clue what God is beside your defining him as having mental/emotional values. Therefore by your logic you have repeatedly declared as God being nothing, nothing not having a definition, you cannot say what God is or isn't form wise because you have no belief that god has a form. God is an emotion to you and nothing more. God is an emotion with power. But that description does not declare or define God with or without form.
It's a 'straddle the fence' opinion. It frees one from having to consider 'what' God is beyond a powerful emotion.
Next. You somehow don't understand what it means when a book is called a book of fiction.
Fiction - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction
Definition of FICTION. 1. a: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically: an invented story . b: fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
A book that is called a literary work of fiction, that does not imply that 100% of the work of that book is fiction. Fiction is based on our own reality.
The Bible is called a book of fiction because it's main storyline or theme is about an imaginary being with super powers no one can see under normal circumstances. But the base of the book itself includes factual people, places and events.
That is what fiction is, understand? Fact and fiction. There is no such thing as a book that is 100% fiction that is a story like the Bible.
Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24599 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo080...
That's all fine and well. But you're a trinitarian. The trinitarian definition of God doesn't allow God to be defined by form, mass or shape. So the above has a lot of problems by your own trinity belief in God.
In the trinity belief God is a powerful emotional nothingness that trinitarians like you, say God can essentially be a shape shifter when it suits God, going from a powerful emotion to having form and shape as God desires before returning to being nothing but a powerful emotion.
That is your reasoning.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24600 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is so different from what I said, not!
You stated the book "...'The Day Of Defense' didn't save the church".
You then stated.."I took that position because it was suppose to silence the critics of Mormonism,.."
The book was specifically wrote/printed for Mormons to deal with critics of Mormonism using the Bible against Mormonism.
It wasn't wrote to "save the church" or to "silence the critics of Mormonism" as were your usual 'extreme' statements.
BOM critics using the Bible have been saying the same things as a defense the BOM is wrong since the 1800s. The book was written by a Mormon to help Mormons deal with the criticism to help prove the BOM position to doubters and critics.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24601 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You act as if different colors equal different species. It doesn't. No more then dogs of the same species being different colors does. No matter what the color a person is, we are of the same species.
You really hate the thought of having come from Africa, don't you?
You're one of the most pathetically ignorantly stupid thinking people I have met. I can't even match nomo to you because she's never elaborated on her 'beliefs' in any direction except for saying something in one or two sentences.
This has nothing to do with coming out of Africa and if I like that fact or if I hate that fact that modern humans according to scientific evidence ORIGINATED in Africa but EVOLVED into what we are from outside of Africa.
The racist David believes all things human are black when he mixes science and theism, get it? He believes/teaches/persuades God is black, Eden is in Africa though we can't see it, therefore Adam and Eve are black and all their posterity are black and there was no skin mark given to anyone by God.
Are you following? This is the racist Davids theories and they are severely flawed.
According to David a Black Noah with black sons and black daughters left Africa on a huge boat during a flood and according to the Bible scholars came down to rest somewhere in Turkey or that area.
According to David's theory, all of Noah's black family left the boat and dispersed to different parts unknown.
The fallacy of David's theory begins there. Because the flood is suppose to have happened about 1600 years before the birth of Jesus. Why is this a problem? Because David can't explain how, How, HOW IN A 1600 YEAR BIBLICAL TIME PERIOD from the end of the flood to the time of Jesus how How HOW the other colours of the human race came suddenly into existence.
What makes David's theory so filled with his own fallacy is that he believes all black humans came from Africa as we are now, intelligent, inventors, herders, farmers, builders of homes, villages, towns and cities and huge megalithic stone buildings and we as humans took all that inventiveness outside of Africa and continued to spread out from there in a 1600 year Biblical period.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT COMING OUT OF AFRICA you fricking pathetic clown. It's about a theory of David's based in his own racist based theory that all things human were Biblically black from Adam to Noah and all other colours suddenly emerged worldwide in a 1600 Biblical year period and he has no evidence.
Do you understand now the basis of David's argument?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24602 Apr 30, 2013
David wrote:
You are right.
When Mormonism taught that God was white and those that want to be closer to God must have their skins white... you are right.... that had racial intent.
Thanks for proving again the BoM is false. After all, that skin color crap...
They didn't guess, they insisted that Jesus and god were white men.
<quoted text>
If you're going to make a sarcastic asinine partially correct but lying statement, be more correct than wrong, it helps.
European Christians from Rome painted Jesus/God a Caucasian European.
Russian Christians painted Jesus/God a Caucasian Russian.
African Christians painted Jesus/God black.
Asin Christians painted Jesus/God Asian.
No branch of Christianity ever painted God as actually white. A white skin colour doesn't exist, an albino would be close.
Mormons like Caucasian Christians might believe God is a Caucasian as you believe God is a black God, but to my knowledge, no Christian writing exists and no Mormon writing exists that declares God has colour.
So when you say Mormonism taught God is white you're a liar. Mormonism has no such writing/doctrine any more than the Bible has such a writing/doctrine.
Your post was founded on your racist beliefs and nothing less.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24603 Apr 30, 2013
David wrote:
DUMB DUMB...
Just handing me victory.
Mormon prophets and mormon scriptures insist that God and jesus was white. And no tht bullshit wasn't a metaphor.
Everything you've said about me and anyone else is magnificiently more true from that entire filthy Joseph Smith and all your "God is white" Mormon prophets.
All that crap that the Spanish Missionaries taught was entirely absorbed and regurgitated by Mormon Joseph Smith and his progeny.
So thank you AGAIN for proving that Mormonism is a bunch of fake racist garbage.
<quoted text>
Speaking of pathetically ignorantly racist motivated. You believe all things human from God to yourself is black skin colour. Yet you're going to pit your very established racists beliefs as better than someone else who also professes racist beliefs concerning skin colour?
No Mormon prophet has ever declared God to have white skin. They never declared him to be a Caucasian.
Mormon's teach God is perfect and his being unchanging. That means to them if God has a skin colour, it doesn't change and has no blemishes, it's a perfect colour as doesn't exist on this earth.
What you said,
"Mormon prophets and mormon scriptures insist that God and jesus was white."
is a really pathetic and sad attempt to bolster your own racism that God is black and no one should doubt you. There is no such written statement in Mormonism that God is white/Caucasian. You're a pathetic liar and a racist on top of that. Nice job as usual.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24604 Apr 30, 2013
David wrote:
Oh...
Tell me if you think this is evidence....
(2 Nephi 5:21)
<quoted text>
That verse is not evidence for the skin colour of Adam and Eve.
21 ...wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,
Next, let's have a moment of intelligent thought of this statement.
Nephi and his family were from where? Israel. In the time period for them what would have been their actual colour? Tan to brown.
The only way Nephi's family could have been EXPLICITLY WHITE/CAUCASIAN as we call it now according to the sentence, is if Nephi's mom and dad family lines were pure white/caucasian European ancestry. Since the story doesn't state they were, they weren't actually white/Caucasian in appearance.
That means according to Smith he was translating from a language using his own to fit best what he said he read.
Now here is where I reflect back to having heard medium to dark skinned blacks call a lighter skinned black white or fair/light skinned. This is where I remember medium to dark skinned natives on two reservations calling light skinned natives white and fair/light skinned. I've listened to Caucasians call a Caucasian white and fair/light skinned.
So if we approach this verse as you like to do using science, white and fair skinned would have been an expression to describe a person who is lighter in skin colour than what was normal.
"..white, and exceedingly fair..." doesn't refer to just the people called Europeans. I can show you people classified by people like you as "white" Europeans with tan skin, brown skin, olive skin, bronze skin etc.
Smith lived in a time era when white was an inaccurate reference for Europeans and black was an inaccurate reference for Africans. We can show as we did once that even in Smith's time, not all Africans had dark/black skin. There were other shades not falling in the spectrum of "black/dark" just as not all Europeans in Smith's time were white and fair.
Imply what you want but you should read what was written and address it that way.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24605 Apr 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...no, no, no. You can't go that direction. You cannot, nor will you ever in a lifetime on this earth declare God as not having human form/substance because...Because...BECAUSE??? ??? Because you have not a single clue what God is beside your defining him as having mental/emotional values.
That's your defense? You don't think I clue about the nature of God? Why? Because I don't agree with you? You have shown you don't have a clue about 99% of what you talk about. Yet that has never stopped you from running you mouth about it. I can state that my beliefs on the nature of God are at least based on what scripture actually says, while yours usually originate from your butt. I know God isn't a man because the Bible says he isn't a man:

Numbers 23:19
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent;

Romans 1:21-23
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man

Now you tell how that doesn't mean exactly what it is saying just like Jesus didn't say there wouldn't be marriage in the next.

Deleted some BS that made absolutely no sense to move on to your next idiotic reasoning
Next. You somehow don't understand what it means when a book is called a book of fiction.
Fiction - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction
Definition of FICTION. 1. a: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically: an invented story . b: fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
A book that is called a literary work of fiction, that does not imply that 100% of the work of that book is fiction. Fiction is based on our own reality.
By the definition you copied, fiction is something made up, not based on reality. Do you even understand what you just posted? Are you able to comprehend what you read? Do you not get the concept of "an invented story"? What is the matter with you?
The Bible is called a book of fiction because it's main storyline or theme is about an imaginary being with super powers no one can see under normal circumstances. But the base of the book itself includes factual people, places and events.
Who declares it fiction, beside non-believers? Talk about "straddling a fence," holy cow. Take a position, be a man.
That is what fiction is, understand? Fact and fiction. There is no such thing as a book that is 100% fiction that is a story like the Bible.
Understand?
Yes, there is, it's called "The Book of Mormon."

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24606 Apr 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all fine and well. But you're a trinitarian. The trinitarian definition of God doesn't allow God to be defined by form, mass or shape. So the above has a lot of problems by your own trinity belief in God.
In the trinity belief God is a powerful emotional nothingness that trinitarians like you, say God can essentially be a shape shifter when it suits God, going from a powerful emotion to having form and shape as God desires before returning to being nothing but a powerful emotion.
That is your reasoning.
No, that is your inability to reason.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24607 Apr 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated the book "...'The Day Of Defense' didn't save the church".
You then stated.."I took that position because it was suppose to silence the critics of Mormonism,.."
The book was specifically wrote/printed for Mormons to deal with critics of Mormonism using the Bible against Mormonism.
It wasn't wrote to "save the church" or to "silence the critics of Mormonism" as were your usual 'extreme' statements.
BOM critics using the Bible have been saying the same things as a defense the BOM is wrong since the 1800s. The book was written by a Mormon to help Mormons deal with the criticism to help prove the BOM position to doubters and critics.
You:
"The book was written by a Mormon to help Mormons deal with the criticism to help prove the BOM position to doubters and critics."

And that is an attempt to silence the critics, DUH! You are so afraid someone is going to win a debate, you lose all common sense.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24608 Apr 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're one of the most pathetically ignorantly stupid thinking people I have met. I can't even match nomo to you because she's never elaborated on her 'beliefs' in any direction except for saying something in one or two sentences.
This has nothing to do with coming out of Africa and if I like that fact or if I hate that fact that modern humans according to scientific evidence ORIGINATED in Africa but EVOLVED into what we are from outside of Africa.
The racist David believes all things human are black when he mixes science and theism, get it? He believes/teaches/persuades God is black, Eden is in Africa though we can't see it, therefore Adam and Eve are black and all their posterity are black and there was no skin mark given to anyone by God.
Are you following? This is the racist Davids theories and they are severely flawed.
According to David a Black Noah with black sons and black daughters left Africa on a huge boat during a flood and according to the Bible scholars came down to rest somewhere in Turkey or that area.
According to David's theory, all of Noah's black family left the boat and dispersed to different parts unknown.
The fallacy of David's theory begins there. Because the flood is suppose to have happened about 1600 years before the birth of Jesus. Why is this a problem? Because David can't explain how, How, HOW IN A 1600 YEAR BIBLICAL TIME PERIOD from the end of the flood to the time of Jesus how How HOW the other colours of the human race came suddenly into existence.
What makes David's theory so filled with his own fallacy is that he believes all black humans came from Africa as we are now, intelligent, inventors, herders, farmers, builders of homes, villages, towns and cities and huge megalithic stone buildings and we as humans took all that inventiveness outside of Africa and continued to spread out from there in a 1600 year Biblical period.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT COMING OUT OF AFRICA you fricking pathetic clown. It's about a theory of David's based in his own racist based theory that all things human were Biblically black from Adam to Noah and all other colours suddenly emerged worldwide in a 1600 Biblical year period and he has no evidence.
Do you understand now the basis of David's argument?
If science has proven the first humans were black, then Adam and Eve were black, because they were the first humans according to scripture. DUH!

As for his God being black, I don't see him describing God as a man, glorified or not. What he is successfully proving is that the LDS teaching that black skin is a curse is bogus. The teachings of a false prophet. The scripture of the devil.

The clown is you, and your fear of having black ancestry.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#24609 Apr 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>

No branch of Christianity ever painted God as actually white. A white skin colour doesn't exist, an albino would be close.
Again, playing word semantics and debating what he was really saying in hopes you can win the debate.

It's your common assclown game you play because you can't stand to be wrong. Any 2 yr old understood his intent when he referred to white as a skin color.

Let us know when you are going to stop being an idiot.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#24610 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You:
"The book was written by a Mormon to help Mormons deal with the criticism to help prove the BOM position to doubters and critics."
And that is an attempt to silence the critics, DUH! You are so afraid someone is going to win a debate, you lose all common sense.
"You are so afraid someone is going to win a debate, you lose all common sense"

BINGO.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#24611 Apr 30, 2013
No prize says white people were created by god from dirt and black people came from apes.
blackiethecat

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#24612 Apr 30, 2013
Mommy2Bof3 wrote:
We belive the BIBLE to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We all that God had revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Irael and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion, the New Jerusalem, will be build upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and that the earth will be renewes and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, and in doing good to all men; indeed we may say that we follow thw admonition of Paul. We believe all things, we hop all things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Anyone who believes that Joseph Smith, a convicted swindler / con-artist and a pedophile, translated "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics from golden plates (the location being revealed by an angel named Moroni) using a "seer stone" in a hat which he put over his face is an idiot. Anyone who believes that Joseph Smith used a Urim and Thummim to translate the above mentioned golden plates is an idiot. Anyone who believes that there existed great civilizations of Nephites and Lamanites in the New World is an idiot. I could go on for days. So, I am not interested in your canned, scripted BS. You are a delusional, cult member idiot. There is no other way to put it.

Good luck in the Celestial Kingdom on your way there maybe you can stop by the planet Kolob and chit chat with some unembodied spirits. Mormonism is as wacky as Scientology.
Father overtime

Salt Lake City, UT

#24613 Apr 30, 2013
blackiethecat wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who believes that Joseph Smith, a convicted swindler / con-artist and a pedophile, translated "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics from golden plates (the location being revealed by an angel named Moroni) using a "seer stone" in a hat which he put over his face is an idiot. Anyone who believes that Joseph Smith used a Urim and Thummim to translate the above mentioned golden plates is an idiot. Anyone who believes that there existed great civilizations of Nephites and Lamanites in the New World is an idiot. I could go on for days. So, I am not interested in your canned, scripted BS. You are a delusional, cult member idiot. There is no other way to put it.
Good luck in the Celestial Kingdom on your way there maybe you can stop by the planet Kolob and chit chat with some unembodied spirits. Mormonism is as wacky as Scientology.
The incas , Mayans , Aztecs , just to name a few, are indeed great civilizations. You should learn how awesome they are. This thing called a history book and archeology will help you in retracting your kindergartenish statement. I believe that the lamanites destroyed every trace of the nephites, aka canibalism, fire, more fire, cannibalism. I'm glad you are so far removed from respectable faith that you can't behave Christian. Ain't no rest for the Mormon haters.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#24615 Apr 30, 2013
NoMo wrote:
No prize says white people were created by god from dirt and black people came from apes.
You are a liar,

and you're still dumb!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24616 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your defense? You don't think I clue about the nature of God? Why? Because I don't agree with you?
lol...nooooooo...you have declared you don't know the nature of God. You're a trinitarian. Trinitarians do not believe there is anything more to God beyond them applying emotions and power as a thing.
The trinitarian belief gives neither death nor life to God. Neither beginning or Ending.
God has always been a thing without beginning or ending to trinitarians but they don't know how to explain it. There is no origin to God. To trinitarians God is and that is it. Accept the unreasonable or stand accused of not allowing yourself to pretend to understand what can't be comprehended by the trinitarian belief of God.
A summary of God by trinitarians is God is a thing with emotions and unlimited power.
And for this thing's pleasure God, it has taken from it's nothingness and created all that exists with a beginning and an ending and trinitarians can't explain why. We're extensions of it's nothingness in being something and at death we'll return to being God's nothingness again.
See, If all is God by creation by God, there can be no true good and evil, no heaven or hell because God created all that exists, good and bad and wrong and right.
God is neither good nor bad nor right nor wrong according to the trinitarian teachings and you don't comprehend it. God made all that is. Thus according to the trinitarian belief, God created good and evil as an illusion for us, us that are actually bit's from God itself which makes us God also.
You have no idea of the complications that the trinity belief brings forth when you question it. You should actually think on it just once.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24617 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your defense? You don't think I clue about the nature of God? Why? Because I don't agree with you?
This is some of your 'mystery of God belief from the source...

"It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently."

Than it get's better...

"There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986)."
Now that just explains it all! lol...
And about the devil stuff I said in the last post you're obviously choking over read this from your trinity founders...
"Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act."

You're trinity founders created their concept of God and all that is.
They stated God created all that is from himself.
That would HAVE TO MEAN anything God created is of God, including good and evil. Evil cannot be a separate thing of good except by an illusion the trinity fathers stated has to exist by their definition of what God isn't.
God is God and God is Satan and the Devil. This has to be true because...Because....BECAUSE.. .."It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently."
The only way that God would not also be Satan/devil is if Satan/devil created it's own self or, Satan/devil has always been as God has always been. And that reaffirms by the trinity founders God is everything: good, evil, wrong, right, neutral, indifferent, etc.
That's your trinity in action for you....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#24618 Apr 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
Deleted some BS that made absolutely no sense to move on to your next idiotic reasoning
<quoted text>
By the definition you copied, fiction is something made up, not based on reality. Do you even understand what you just posted? Are you able to comprehend what you read? Do you not get the concept of "an invented story"? What is the matter with you?
<quoted text>
Who declares it fiction, beside non-believers? Talk about "straddling a fence," holy cow. Take a position, be a man.
<quoted text>
Yes, there is, it's called "The Book of Mormon."
Idiotic reasoning? You're the one that isn't calling a book based on an invisible nothingness that shape shifts at will with undefined super powers a book of fiction.
You illiterate idiot, fiction is based on bits and pieces of reality to incorporate things that haven't happened and things that don't exist to make a fictionalized story.
Understand?

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.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 16 min WelbyMD 322,060
News Charlie Sheen sues tabloid over assault allegation 18 hr Just Saying 4
News Lawyers: Trump too busy to face woman's defamat... 23 hr okimar 21
News Kim Kardashian struggling to deal with surrogat... Mon Pardon Pard 1
News Ben 10 Gets Cartoon Network Reboot Mon russmartinez 1
News EXCLUSIVE: Amanda Knox, OJ Simpson and Our Fasc... (Mar '17) Sun Texxy 16
News Trump Might Be Planning to Deploy the National ... (Feb '17) Sun GoodPhartx 8
More from around the web