Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32096 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25538 May 11, 2013
I get what you're saying, but you're not getting what you're saying.

Not all races take the thing to such an extreme. Only whites took the thing to such an extreme as to make it seem to all OTHER races that this is what they looked like.

The OTHER races do NOT use nor feel a need to use their own race to validate it. I say Adam was black after looking at the physical evidence.... not to sustain an opinion.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't get this. Let me explain it again to you.
People use 'outside' Bible sources to validate their belief that Adam was their skin colour. You have stated these people are racists for doing that to sustain their opinion that Adam wasn't black.
You have done the very, same, exact, thing to sustain Adam being black and you say your not a racist in doing that but they are.
Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25539 May 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
The people in the film are. Having never gone through the temple ceremony, can you prove differently? LOL!!!!
You made no reference to 'just a film'. You said... "They are white in the temple endowment ceremony also." And you can't prove differently! LOL!!!! As usual you left out information to be considered in your need to claim white racism at work.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25540 May 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
She never asked why a church lead by prophets, seers, and revelators can't give us the name of their Heavenly Mother? Christianity doesn't even know the personal name of the God called God the Father. So if his name isn't known, should we expect to know her name?
I'll turn your question around and quite appropriately. I'm also throwing the question of why a God who gave birth to billions of spirit children is so unimportant to his children? It is a legit question. We hear all sorts of information about Jesus this and Jesus that. But we hear next to knowing of who the Father and God is that began it all and has superior power over all existing things including Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
And by the way, her actual question was "So what is her name than?" I believe. So I gave her a list of names that our human ancestors have called her even if we don't have her personal name or the personal name of God the Father. Get it?
You know what I was asking..since you had no answer you ramble on off topic, as usual.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25541 May 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You made no reference to 'just a film'. You said... "They are white in the temple endowment ceremony also." And you can't prove differently! LOL!!!! As usual you left out information to be considered in your need to claim white racism at work.
http://m.youtube.com/watch...
No...my favorite part is the mafia guy in front

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25542 May 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your great theory? Dirt=brown, Dust=white?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!
You are just way too old to be so immature, really dude.

Genesis 2:7
New King James Version (NKJV)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

For your pathetic stupid immature idiocy information, I was addressing what most English Bible versions use for that word that Adam was created from which is dust.
I mentioned it because no one had addressed the fact that most likely a brown skinned writer used the word 'dust' and not 'dirt' and there was a reason they did that.
Dust is different from dirt. Dust is what we become after dying. We dry up and slowly turn to dust, not dirt. In that reference we're speaking of a state of death not life.
So when it was written Adam was made from dust, it wouldn't have been a reference to dead matter with no life.
So the question remains why not just use the word dirt? It symbolizes life and life and death in some instances. From the dirt comes all existing forms of plant life and food animals eat and use.
Dirt would have been a much more accurate word to use for what Adam was made from, not dust.
So the question remains why did the writer, a writer with some brownish skin tone use that word? It would have also represented his colour indirectly if he wanted to use it for that insinuation.
Now leave your pathetic, immature stupid side behind and address the question as an adult of your old age, is that possible?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25543 May 11, 2013
But when they wrote that, they wrote it in Hebrew

God formed Adam from the "Alma" (dirt/dust) of the "Adamah" (Ground).

Hebrew doesn't use "dirt" to identify with "soil". they use "dirt" to identify with something that is unclean.

They use "Adamah" to identify the soil from the ground.

as Josephus says, of red earth macerated, or mixed with water;

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/g...

a dark red/brown color... you know like black people, and other dark complexioned humans.

Not white people.

So where did white people come from?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just way too old to be so immature, really dude.
Genesis 2:7
New King James Version (NKJV)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
For your pathetic stupid immature idiocy information, I was addressing what most English Bible versions use for that word that Adam was created from which is dust.
I mentioned it because no one had addressed the fact that most likely a brown skinned writer used the word 'dust' and not 'dirt' and there was a reason they did that.
Dust is different from dirt. Dust is what we become after dying. We dry up and slowly turn to dust, not dirt. In that reference we're speaking of a state of death not life.
So when it was written Adam was made from dust, it wouldn't have been a reference to dead matter with no life.
So the question remains why not just use the word dirt? It symbolizes life and life and death in some instances. From the dirt comes all existing forms of plant life and food animals eat and use.
Dirt would have been a much more accurate word to use for what Adam was made from, not dust.
So the question remains why did the writer, a writer with some brownish skin tone use that word? It would have also represented his colour indirectly if he wanted to use it for that insinuation.
Now leave your pathetic, immature stupid side behind and address the question as an adult of your old age, is that possible?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25544 May 11, 2013
Adamah is clearly related to adam

adamah is also used to describe fertile ground about 50 times in the Bible.

Fertile ground is black.

I rest my case.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25545 May 11, 2013
osirica wrote:
Please, reply with the hebrew word for "dust", "Dirt" and "Ground".
yes I want to get technical. We're talking about the dirt in the GROUND, not dirt in the streets, not some obscure meaning of dirt.
The Hebrew word for "dirt" IS our English "dust" when you are talking about it coming from the ground of the earth.
Dust of the ground is different colors depending on where you find it. Since God formed Adam of the dust of the ground and that same ground was used to grow crops, it's not right to assume the dust was, esp. in the hebrew context, "light colored". Again, you look at things with one perspective when you want it to equal white people. You broaden your perspective ONLY if it allows you to also include and push white people.
Three times in KJV is dirt used, and each time a different hebrew root is used:
Judges 3:22 - talks about the dirt coming out of a very fat person's body. So that's not it.
Psalm 18:42 - talks about dirt and garbage in the streets. that's not it.
Isiah 57:20 - talks about mire and muck of the sea. That's also not it.
Yet you will not find one time english "dirt" used to describe the "dirt of the ground". That's because in 1611, "dirt" referred to the undesirable yucky stuff.
But Genesis 3:19 - Until you return to the ground (adamah), for out of it were you taken. For your are dust, and you will revert back to dust.
The dust in this context is the dirt of the ground. The Hebrew word for "dirt" IS "dust".
<quoted text>
I actually brought the fallacious point up for your racism ideas you have. You didn't catch that?
You believe Adam and Eve were black, that everyone was black to noah and everyone was black way past Moses.
So by your logic all the writers had to be black.
The writers have a chance to establish a black race and they don't. They could have used 'dark dust/dirt' or black dust/dirt to make a an obvious connection to Adam's colour and didn't.
The writers spoke of a mark on Cain and don't describe it to their advantage.
The writers tell of a black man cursing all the descendants of one of his son's to lives of servitude.
The writers speak of God not liking race mixing. That at times he favoured only 'certain types' of blacks from certain geographical areas and shunned the rest as heathens.
These writers later reveal God can change a black man's skin colour to white if he's upset enough.
And these writers never take a moment to explain how the other colours came to be.
You're coloured orientated beyond racism and the Bible isn't and you don't seem to comprehend that fact. Just saying.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25546 May 11, 2013
Let us resolve the main issue:

Cain was marked with a skin of blackness.

I've clearly proven it is not possible.

I've proven it from within the confines of the Bible story.
I've proven it with Archaeological proof
I've proven it with the context of where the notion came from.

Your response is to go to other passages in the Bible which have no relationship to this discussion and which has never been referenced to by anyone postulating the first notion.(No white Christian ran church has ever banned whites for fear of leprosy).

You've tried to attack my view on Adam's skin color. This has no bearing on Cain.

You've tried to offer it as an explanation of the variation of human skin color, when skin color was not the context of the curse. So you'll have to look elsewhere.

You've made false statements "The writers speak of God not liking race mixing. That at times he favoured only 'certain types' of blacks from certain geographical areas and shunned the rest as heathens."

"race mixing" has not been an issue. They left Egypt as a "mixed multitude"

With the prophets setting the example: Joseph, Moses wives were of different nations than their own.

God punished Mariam for speaking unfavorably about this.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually brought the fallacious point up for your racism ideas you have. You didn't catch that?
You believe Adam and Eve were black, that everyone was black to noah and everyone was black way past Moses.
So by your logic all the writers had to be black.
The writers have a chance to establish a black race and they don't. They could have used 'dark dust/dirt' or black dust/dirt to make a an obvious connection to Adam's colour and didn't.
The writers spoke of a mark on Cain and don't describe it to their advantage.
The writers tell of a black man cursing all the descendants of one of his son's to lives of servitude.
The writers speak of God not liking race mixing. That at times he favoured only 'certain types' of blacks from certain geographical areas and shunned the rest as heathens.
These writers later reveal God can change a black man's skin colour to white if he's upset enough.
And these writers never take a moment to explain how the other colours came to be.
You're coloured orientated beyond racism and the Bible isn't and you don't seem to comprehend that fact. Just saying.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25547 May 11, 2013
The white skin color that God changed was a result of a skin disease.
The disease itself was the curse, the change of color was merely a reflection of the effect of the disease.

Cain's oath was to protect him and was not a result of the curse. It was a result of Cain's fear and pleading with God to protect him.

And still these two events are not related to one another. You're trying to explain that because God "can" do it in one instance (where you misrepresent the color and it's implication), he may have or must have done it in another (where you misrepresent the event in question).

And no, those writers never take a moment to explain it because... unlike YOU and unlike your mormon liars

THEY DIDNT CARE. IT DIDNT MATTER. ITS A QUESTION THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANSWERING.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
These writers later reveal God can change a black man's skin colour to white if he's upset enough.
And these writers never take a moment to explain how the other colours came to be.
You're coloured orientated beyond racism and the Bible isn't and you don't seem to comprehend that fact. Just saying.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25548 May 11, 2013
I made a comment that Cain was not marked with white skin.

You have not one time argued against this assumption.

You've argued against the assumption that Cain was not marked with black skin...

But you've been silent about Cain not being marked with white skin.

Why?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25549 May 11, 2013
osirica wrote:
Let the "singular" water be gathered into "one" place.
that's your first premise.
You can see, you've erred.
Then you said the singular water was gathered into one place, not many places.
Yet the Bible says and YOU quoted "and the gathered waters he called “seas.”...
mistake number TWO...
this part you left out when you went over it the second time...
you typical slight of hand tactic. Mistake number THREE...
<quoted text>
No. I didn't err.

9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

It doesn't matter in this case if it was written 'sea' or 'seas' afterwards. The reason it doesn't matter is because it was already previously stated "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,..". So call the water sea or seas or an ocean or oceans or seas and oceans. However you wish to redefine it, the "WATER" had been GATHERED to ONE PLACE. NOT to MANY PLACES.
Thus if you look at maps of what scientists think how the earth looked when it was all connected as one large island, you would see a side of the lakes and seas on the land mass, all of the water SURROUNDING the isle would be one body of water even if you gave different sections of it different names, it would still remain one body of water that surrounded one mass of land. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25550 May 11, 2013
osirica wrote:
LOL
I always thought that white people rejected Spaniards as one of them.
Cut off one of your limbs to save the body huh?
Well that would explain where Joseph Smith got the thing from... wouldn't it?
But Smith said he got it from a revelation from God when he translated the Book of Moses...
What happpened?
<quoted text>
You're not following my leads. I do poke fun at your opinions, like the one where racism began with whites and not before. Like your opinion that people didn't even know what racism was before whites began to use it for their purposes.
Well smarts, you failed to note that Spaniards were brown to very brown in Spain several centuries ago due to race mixing and began racism for Africans to enslave them. While the Spanish were enslaving blacks from Africa, whites in Europe were still enslaving whites for slaves.
Point being, racism was alive and well from brown Spaniards to black Africans before blacks were used in Europe for slaves.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25551 May 11, 2013
Yes

Multiple places of water would have to exist in order for them to be gathered in one place.

So yes... you erred...

By the way, are you applying science to the biblical narrative? Are you doing the very thing you said I could not do?

Why yes... yes you are...

how DELIGHTFUL!

Please, continue... how does this relate to Cain and black skin?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I didn't err.
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
It doesn't matter in this case if it was written 'sea' or 'seas' afterwards. The reason it doesn't matter is because it was already previously stated "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,..". So call the water sea or seas or an ocean or oceans or seas and oceans. However you wish to redefine it, the "WATER" had been GATHERED to ONE PLACE. NOT to MANY PLACES.
Thus if you look at maps of what scientists think how the earth looked when it was all connected as one large island, you would see a side of the lakes and seas on the land mass, all of the water SURROUNDING the isle would be one body of water even if you gave different sections of it different names, it would still remain one body of water that surrounded one mass of land. Understand?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25552 May 11, 2013
That's because I'm the one leading.

Your first paragraph, filled with misrepesentations is irrelvant to me. It's your distraction.

Your second paragraph is rather irrelevant to me as well. There is no doubt that the anti-black racism came from the Arabs and whites adopted it.

But here's your problem. The white supremacy took it to another level. You see, Muslims didn't teach Christians how to make "Oath" with Cain become "marked with a skin of blackness". Because Muslims didn't really understand the thing right. They thought the skin of blackness WAS the curse... which was what they did pass to you guys.

Nor did Muslims teach you to combine the mark with cain myth with Ham... you know the whole "egyptus" thing...

No, that was pure Southern Baptist teaching, and Mormons took it to yet another level... by trying to put it IN the Bible.

So you see? An 18th century fraud should not have the kind of influence to have you on here typing away.

but he does...
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not following my leads. I do poke fun at your opinions, like the one where racism began with whites and not before. Like your opinion that people didn't even know what racism was before whites began to use it for their purposes.
Well smarts, you failed to note that Spaniards were brown to very brown in Spain several centuries ago due to race mixing and began racism for Africans to enslave them. While the Spanish were enslaving blacks from Africa, whites in Europe were still enslaving whites for slaves.
Point being, racism was alive and well from brown Spaniards to black Africans before blacks were used in Europe for slaves.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25553 May 11, 2013
osirica wrote:
Well you are ignoring context.
You criticize me for using science and bible together. but you've made your strongest argument for Cain being marked with black skin as to explain where (some) other skin colors come from.
So we will never know what color adam was? Ok, then don't follow up with: Cain could have been changed skin color to explain where different skin colors come from.
My assumptions are in response to yours. I take your or Mormonism racist conclusions and apply them consistently/
I criticize you for using 'outside' sources to establish Adam and Eve and all of humanity were black and no other colour in the same way you criticize Mormons and whoever else, for using outside sources to establish Adam and Eve and all of humanity are their colour and no other colour.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25554 May 11, 2013
What's rather delicious is that you are using a scientific theory (which I agree with) to explain how something in the Bible could come to be...

Ok that's fine...

But then clearly you try to put humans in that time period, where not even the BIBLE places them...

Skip over the part where I used the same science, which you said I "cannot" do...

then try to put the Bible story of Adam/Eve/Eden in Pangea, which science shows broke up millions of years before the first humans existed.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I didn't err.
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
It doesn't matter in this case if it was written 'sea' or 'seas' afterwards. The reason it doesn't matter is because it was already previously stated "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,..". So call the water sea or seas or an ocean or oceans or seas and oceans. However you wish to redefine it, the "WATER" had been GATHERED to ONE PLACE. NOT to MANY PLACES.
Thus if you look at maps of what scientists think how the earth looked when it was all connected as one large island, you would see a side of the lakes and seas on the land mass, all of the water SURROUNDING the isle would be one body of water even if you gave different sections of it different names, it would still remain one body of water that surrounded one mass of land. Understand?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25555 May 11, 2013
Yes it does matter.

"one" sea and multiple "seas" clearly indicate that the context of the passage must be understood.

It seems obvious then what God did was separate the water which covered the entire earth into distinct seas... basically God started with Pangea, but then Pangea was separated gradually.

But you are consistently wrong.

You seem to take one half of what the Bible says very restrictively so... and ignore the other half.

I said this earlier. You're doing it again.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>

It doesn't matter in this case if it was written 'sea' or 'seas' afterwards. The reason it doesn't matter is because it was already previously stated "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,..". So call the water sea or seas or an ocean or oceans or seas and oceans. However you wish to redefine it, the "WATER" had been GATHERED to ONE PLACE. NOT to MANY PLACES.
Thus if you look at maps of what scientists think how the earth looked when it was all connected as one large island, you would see a side of the lakes and seas on the land mass, all of the water SURROUNDING the isle would be one body of water even if you gave different sections of it different names, it would still remain one body of water that surrounded one mass of land. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25556 May 11, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what I was asking..since you had no answer you ramble on off topic, as usual.
Off topic? I answered in kind as you asked and you find offense with me? lol...Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. In this case, I at least gave you an idea of what humans have called her for the last few thousand years.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25557 May 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic? I answered in kind as you asked and you find offense with me? lol...Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. In this case, I at least gave you an idea of what humans have called her for the last few thousand years.
Asking the name of "heavenly mother is a stupid question? Your goddess list has nothing to do with all the women Elohim has celestial sex with.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Top StoryTrump tells young immigrants in US ill... 3 min anonymous 18
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 43 min UidiotRaceMakeWOR... 8,353
News Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party? (Jan '08) 47 min UidiotRaceMakeWOR... 29,313
News Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 50 min UidiotRaceMakeWOR... 24,303
News Should popular vote replace electoral college i... 1 hr Prophecy 41
News Trump increases deportations of formerly protec... 2 hr Dude 34
News Global backlash grows against Trump's immigrati... 2 hr Quirky 3,672
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 2 hr Truth 150
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr UidiotRaceMakeWOR... 1,520,286
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Kid Rocker Panel 240,283
Gay Skype !! 5 hr DMK025 327
News Racism motivated Trump voters more than authori... 7 hr davy 201
More from around the web