The American Spectator : False Religions and Real Distractions

Moe Blotz| 10.11.11 @ 8:44AM

The same media weenies that questioned Mormonism when Juan McCain was their preferred Republican candidate four years ago,what?

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 1:40PM

Wish Marge would not be anti-Catholic.

Patrick| 10.11.11 @ 1:51PM

As a Catholic, I request that you please stop flame-baiting.

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 2:07PM

I absolutely reject your request. Let Margie do the requesting, not you.
I have no respect for you or any other Rightist, save for sincere minarchists, and will show you no respect.

Roy| 10.11.11 @ 5:36PM

Feeling's pretty mutual.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:40PM

I'm not interested in anything you all have to say.
JESUS IS LORD.
Choose this day whom YOU will serve, and leave me out of your phony arguments.

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 7:26PM

Jesus hung out with guys, mostly, so He must have been gay.

videos | 2.18.12 @ 9:49PM

The sentiments are real.

However, foreign and security policy must never be guided by sentiment, only by cold calculation.

sikiş | 2.18.12 @ 9:45PM

choose this day whom you will serve and leave me out of your phony arguments

Ivan Ivanovich| 10.11.11 @ 8:45AM

Jeffress just cost Perry 2 points in the polls.

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:23AM

That's enough to end him this round.

Though this may also force the GOP into suicide mode like last time. I hope not.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:11PM

Romney is suicide mode. Like Dole and Juan McAmnesty, it's just his turn. Romney is a Dem's dream Republican.

business | 2.18.12 @ 9:52PM

Not that he has a chance for the nomination.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:07AM

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/.....erica.html

To "... members of the liberal chattering class, he is a "Manchurian candidate," "secessionist," and dangerous theocrat for having prayed in public recently."
How I wish he were all of these, particularly the latter. However, Neumayr did not present the "full context" of Perry's comment":

"Getting America back to work is the most important issue facing this country. Being able to pay off 14-and-a-half, or 16 trillion dollars worth of debt. That big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous. There’s only one way to get rid of it that’s practical, that makes sense. And that is to free up America,”

"Getting America back to work is the most important issue facing this country"? Only a CINO (Christian In Name Only) would say this. Of course, not a single member of the liberal media or elite caught this blatant inconsistency with Scriptural faith. And of course neither did Neumayr!

"At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them" (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:38PM

C Smith,

I must agree with Perry on this one. If the country is going down the tubes FAST because a demonic Socialist & Gang are destroying the means of production and of productive freedom, we are doomed.

If Perry understands this, it's a good thing.

bebek | 2.18.12 @ 9:54PM

I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me!

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 5:26PM

"especially when the president they have so much invested in is teetering on irrelevancy"

First it is said Obama is irrelevant, now you say he is 'teetering' on irrelevancy.

TrueBlue| 10.12.11 @ 11:12AM

Different authors, different comments and opinions. You know, that whole ability to think for themselves thing?

Sean| 10.11.11 @ 8:53AM

I live in Texas and know Baptist Pastors. Baptists will not vote for a Mormon. Not only do they think it is a cult but they believe it is an immoral religion. They think Mormon bishops sleep with women before their weddings. They can't stand the Mormon's actively proselytizing in their neighborhoods.

Romney can not win the general election because he can't win the South without Baptists.

KennesawJack| 10.11.11 @ 9:05AM

I live in the South, know many, many Baptists (I'm not one) and don't know any who dislike Mormonism (I'm not a Mormon, either) more than they despise Obamarx. Jeffress has done a terrible disservice to the country.

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:16AM

On the contrary, his admission in such a spectacular way was refreshing. It helps to scrub away the typical BS that spews from the mouths of so-called righteous men, and lays bare any franchise the southies had to the high road.

Let's see if AmSpec will churn out as much on this as on the Reverend Wright.

Jeffress and his cabal are an integral part of the Texas establishment, very influential and more dangerous than 100 Wrights or Mormons knocking on your door.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:34AM

So, speaking the truth, and one's opinion based on years of careful study is a "disservice to the country"???

Give me a break...

KennesawJack| 10.11.11 @ 11:04AM

A disservice to the extent he hands the MSM more ammuniton to sow discord among Republicans and to take focus away from this miserable train wreck in the White House. How Mr. Jeffress views Mormonism, whether it's a reflection of a lifetime of study or simply uniformed bigotry, is not the issue. Anything to bring harm to a potential Republican nominee that helps Obamarx get re-elected is a disservice. Whether he speaks the "Truth" is an open question. Personally, I BELIEVE he does, I don't KNOW he does. What I do know is neither Romney's nor Huntsman's nor Perry's nor Cain's nor anyone's religious beliefs matter a whit in this election. Lighten up.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 12:50PM

Boulderdash!

The mainstream media can only sow "discord" in the ranks of republicans if we let them.

I, for one, cannot fathom why anyone gives a damn what those idiots think, say, or believe.

I do not give the mainstream media the power to shape MY opinions, and as a Party, we should NOT give them the power to choose our candidates.

Let's get real, folks.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:30PM

Well said, Dr. Right.
And in other words, screw the media.

:^).

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:14PM

The GOP left-wing leadership sows enough discord without outside influences.

KennesawJack| 10.11.11 @ 9:38PM

Doc, the problem is you only have one vote, as do I. We Republicans are famous for shooting ourselves in the foot. No doubt in my mind that some will be swayed by the MSM anti-Mormon campaign if Romney is the nominee. By the way, you're obviously an intelligent, well-read, and thoughtful person, it's balderdash, not boulderdash. (Although we could, metaphorically, be dashing around socialist boulders bent on destroying us if Obamarx is re-elected . Paying attention, Rev. Jeffress?)

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:23PM

By the way, where the hell is TAS on this story, and why is the NYT scooping them?

"Nigerian Man Pleads Guilty in Qaeda Plane Bombing CaseBy MONICA DAVEY
Published: October 12, 2011
Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin

comments (78)
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Reprints

Share
Close
DiggRedditTumblrPermalink. DETROIT — The trial of a man accused of trying to blow up a commercial airliner with a bomb sewed into his underwear ended Wednesday, just a day after it had begun, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused, abruptly announced that he would plead guilty to all of the federal counts against him.

Enlarge This Image

U.S. Marshals Service, via Associated Press
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Related
U.S. Says Man Admitted Plot to Blow Up Passenger Jet (October 12, 2011)
Times Topic: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTimesNational for breaking news and headlines.
.Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (78) »
Prosecutors and federal agents seemed stunned, if pleased, and declared that the plea was evidence that the American court system, as opposed to a military tribunal, could bring a suitable outcome to a terrorism case. Anthony Chambers, a legal adviser assigned to Mr. Abdulmutallab, who was representing himself in court, said that he was disappointed with Mr. Abdulmutallab’s last-moment decision, but that it was entirely his choice.

Almost two years after fellow passengers flying aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 watched in panic and confusion as smoke and flames rose from Mr. Abdulmutallab’s lap, he pleaded guilty to eight federal crimes, including conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, attempted murder and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. He was offered no deal from prosecutors in exchange for his plea. He faces sentencing in January, but prosecutors said the nature of some of the crimes he pleaded guilty to automatically required a life sentence with no chance of parole.

The choice appeared less a strategic legal calculation than an opportunity for Mr. Abdulmutallab, who has described himself as a member of Al Qaeda and who prosecutors say conspired in his plan with other members of Al Qaeda, to make a public statement certain to reach a wide audience.

After telling Judge Nancy G. Edmunds that he was indeed pleading guilty to each count against him, Mr. Abdulmutallab read a statement that he had written saying that his behavior may have violated American law but that it was in keeping with Muslim law, and that his efforts to harm Americans were retribution for American acts around the world.

“I attempted to use an explosive device which in the U.S. law is a weapon of mass destruction, which I call a blessed weapon to save the lives of innocent Muslims, for U.S. use of weapons of mass destruction on Muslim populations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and beyond,” Mr. Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen in his 20s, said quietly and calmly. In repeated appearances in court, Mr. Abdulmutallab, the well-educated son of a wealthy family, has almost seemed to have two personas: a polite, silent observer who appeared small at the defense table, and an unruly onlooker who would suddenly yell out messages of support for Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, who was recently killed by a missile from an American drone. The American authorities have described him as a leading figure in a Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.

“If you laugh at us now,” he said Wednesday, during the statement in open court that went on for several minutes, “we will laugh at you later.”

On Dec. 25, 2009, after almost eight hours of flying from Amsterdam, the plane was preparing to land in Detroit when a loud pop sounded from among the passengers. Some among the nearly 300 passengers quickly turned to Mr. Abdulmutallab, whose odd, specially designed undershorts were clearly burning. As a chaotic scene unfolded and the smoke grew thicker, passengers grabbed him from his seat, flight attendants extinguished the blaze and pilots made an emergency landing at the airport near Detroit.

The jarring end of a trial that had been expected to last a month drew praise from prosecutors, federal agents and other authorities. Many of them said the results offered a definitive counterpoint to critics who had argued for several years that terrorism cases — including this one — ought to be handled within a military system, not in the courts. Prosecutors here said that this case had proved that civilian court should remain an option.

In Washington, Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, issued a statement on the verdict. “Contrary to what some have claimed, today’s plea removes any doubt that our courts are one of the most effective tools we have to fight terrorism and keep the American people safe,” he said. “Our priority in this case was to ensure that we arrested a man who tried to do us harm, that we collected actionable intelligence from him and that we prosecuted him in a way that was consistent with the rule of law.”

All along, Mr. Abdulmutallab’s trial had been expected to reveal far more than had been publicly known up about his ties to Al Qaeda, to Mr. Awlaki, the American-born cleric, and to an individual who prosecutors say provided him with an assignment to blow up a plane.

Any detailed testimony about Mr. Awlaki and his role in the attempted bombing of Northwest 253 had been likely to draw particular interest. But with the trial over, such details now appeared unlikely to emerge — at least here. Asked to elaborate on the Qaeda ties, Barbara L. McQuade, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, declined Wednesday to go beyond the broad outlines that had already come out in court.

In his own statement, Mr. Abdulmutallab talked specifically of Mr. Awlaki, but said little more than what was already known about their relationship: that he had listened to tape recordings of Mr. Awlaki. “I was greatly inspired to participate in jihad by the lectures of the great and rightly guided mujahedeen who is alive, Sheik Anwar al-Awlaki, may Allah preserve him and his family and give them victory,” he said.

Some of Flight 253’s passengers had been called to the courthouse here to testify as witnesses in the trial in the coming weeks. A few seemed puzzled by the swift end to the case, but also relieved to leave the episode behind. "

Another friend of JACK and CLINT in the slammer.

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 12:02PM

I'm with KennesawJack on this, Doc. Which would Jeffress prefer, a Mormon Repub in the WH or Obama the Marxist Black liberation 'theologist'? Jeffress looks like a publicity seeking opportunistic fathead cloaked in a preacher's frock coat who is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame to me. He's definitely a d@mn fool for running his mouth this way and assisting the Godless false religion of "Liberalism/Progressivism"/etc, etc. That IS in keeping with the typical Republican, stupid party, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory tradition though and assisting Satan at the same time. Way to go, Jeffress. Well played, sir. /sarc

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 12:20PM

Jeffress needs to brush up on Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: ..."

'There's a time to speak up and a time to shutup;
A time to vote for a Mormon, even if you don't like them, in order to beat a Democrat; etc'

BTW, just for the record, I have nothing against Mormons.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 1:57PM

In order to beat a Democrat, we will nominate ...a Democrat. Sure that makes sense. Romney is to the left of McCain, he represents the wing of the GOP that has opposed the Conservative movement from the start. Electing Romney is a sure way for the GOP to get a generations worth of blame for the Obama policy fiasco.

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 2:21PM

What are you smoking? If you think Jeffress expressing his views about Mormons hurts Romney more than it hurts all the other candidates (except Huntsman) you are simply mistaken. Many Americans do not agree with Jeffress' views on LDS, are not as condemning of LDS' religious views and/or consider Jeffress' views bigotry. Jeffress' big mouth hurts GOP chances for 2012, it doesn't help them.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 2:51PM

I LOVE (sarcasm intended) the hysteria on the GOP side!!!!

The DEMOCRATS are running the most left-wing, anti-capitalist, anti-American, job-killing failed President in the history of the Republic!

THEY'RE the ones who should be afraid of their candidate and what he represents, NOT US!!!!

Meanwhile, some of us are quivering like jello because a Pastor DARED to confirm his religious beliefs???? And because Rick Perry is a devout Christian???

THIS-IS-NUTS!!!!

Grow'em back, Republicans! Stand up for what you believe, and DON'T let Liberals and Moderate RINOs misrepresent you!

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:34PM

Jim P,

Did Jeffress say not to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon?
Or was he simply stating a true fact, that Mormonism is a cult?
It is.
That wouldn't prevent me from voting for Romney, though. I don't exactly like him, but not because he's a Mormon. It's because of his policies.. but if he were to become the nominee, I'd vote for him.
I've been voting straight 'R' ever since my very first vote, and will do so till the day I die.

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 5:20PM

As far as I know he didn't utter the exact phrase 'Don't vote for Romney'. The point is that his comments about LDS are being played by the MSM in the typical way they play these things to make Christians look like bigots and particularly associate Jeffress with Perry so as to hurt Perry's chances at the nomination. The MSM presumption seems to be that SB's will not vote for a Mormon and that 'moderate' Repubs will not vote for a Christian who believes LDS is a cult, in this case Perry.In my observation in the past, this has validity to it and it is the MSM's way of presenting the GOP in a negative light nationwide and creating a larger divide between conservatives and moderates within the party.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:34PM

You know, I don't watch television, so I miss a lot of this stuff.
Who knows what the motivations of Jeffres' heart are. but if the conversation came up concerning Mormonism, I'd say the same thing.
As to Rick Perry, I read on Drudge that Perry says he disagrees with Jeffres' statement that it's a cult. (Someone in his campaign office).

My reaction to that was, why didn't Perry agree with him, especially if he's a Christian.

As to the media, they will lie, obfuscate and try and deceive the public at large anyway, no matter what anyone says.

The conservative candidates will win by being truly conservative, and that means speaking the truth and letting the chips fall where they will. It looks like Perry already separated himself from the comments.. like a politician would do.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 12:51PM

He's speaking his personal convictions.

Personally, I find that refreshing.

Maybe he should parse his words...like a politician?

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 2:09PM

Again, it boils down to who does he prefer in the WH? Who is the greater "evil", from Jeffress' perspective? A follower of a Godless cult or a follower of a "false Christian cult"? We all have personal convictions, that doesn't mean it is helpful or appropriate to 'spress myself in a way that ultimately assists Satan.

Interesting that Jeffress had nothing to say about Obama's Black liberation theology "cult" [You know their meme: 'Christ was a socialist community organizer out to overthrow the capitalist Romans', yada, yada]. Now if Jeffress had expressed critical views of BLT, and bluntly stated that Christ was not a socialist and cited scripture for same [Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16] THAT would have been refreshing. Christ eshewed politics. Jeffress would be well advised to do the same if he would like to see Obama out of office. Ideally, Jeffress would not be noting the specks in his brothers' eyes and taking no note of the giant sequoia in his own. At least we know Jeffress will be judged by the standards that he has applied and therefore he's as likely to 'burn, baby, burn' as ALL the rest of us. So, as I said, there's a time to speak up and a time to shutup and if he had/would/will just keep his mouth shut we will all be less heavy laden and then be truly refreshed when Obama and the Dems are out of office.

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 2:52PM

BTW, why did MSM reporters go to Jeffress to ask him what he thought about Perry and Romney's "Mormonism"? I never heard of Jeffress before this. Has Jeffress backed politicians in the past on a state and national level, confered with them like Billy Graham, or is he running a large organization that favors traditional values a la The Moral Majority so the MSM "reporters" wanted to get his views? If so, I've not heard about it. The reason I ask is because from my perspective this guy came out of nowhere, literally and figuratively. Now the GOP nomination, and by extension the fate of our nation, is being influenced by some guy I never even heard of. For all I know he's just another wanna-be, future ex-televangilist Elmer Gantry. Inquiring minds want to know. Who IS Robert Jeffress, what are HIS bona fides for being a king maker, and WHY & HOW did the MSM find this guy?

Boar Hunter| 10.11.11 @ 2:14PM

You know the answer to that. The truth and/or reality are irrelevant to the media. There is no fair play and reality is what they decide.

Although Mr. Kaminsky's line equating puppies who pee on the rug to "journalists" is very clever, it is precisely because these puppies have never been disciplined that they are no longer content to simply pee on the rug.

The puppies now defiantly defecate all over the house. Where is their master with the rolled up paper?

These "puppies" spent vast sums of money to dig up dirt on Palin, edited Perry's comments about black clouds and the discovery of graffiti painted on a rock years ago in a desperate attempt to create the illusion Perry is a racist.

The same "puppies" who now feign offense at the comments of a pastor whose views they disagree with, completely ignored Obama's 20 year long association with Pastor Wright and his evil, racist, hate america brand of religion.

If they were my "puppies" I would upgrade the rolled up paper for a wooden dowel.

The "puppies" not only failed to examine for themselves, but aggressively attacked anyone who inquired about Obama's history with the vicious unity of a pack of wolves and now we have that reprehensible...words fail.

During the entire election, rather than do their supposed job, these "puppies" gleefully rolled in their own feces with other members of their litter and howled about the historic nature of Obama the messiah!

Instead of chastising the good pastor for speaking his mind (To which only liberals are entitled), I think it's time to take the "puppies" hunting.

Wood dowel my ass, sorry son, that dog wouldn't hunt.

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 4:02PM

There's no way to take the "puppies hunting". Not in the foreseeable future- meaning at least before November 2012. We all know that. As for Pastor Bob, he needs admonishing for his politically clumsy, ham handed, bungled handling of this situation which ultimately assists 'the forces of evil'. He warns his flock about "false religions" and so I do my duty as well by admonishing/instructing/"chastising" him on his political campaigning shortcomings and reminding him that expressing one's views, while Constitutionally protected, are not necessarily helpful for the big picture. Pastor Bob may be the big cheese at his parish or wherever he comes from, but America is a very big, religiously diverse country with a secular political tradition and loud mouthed big fish preachers from small pond Palookavilles who are wearing blinders to how their comments will play nationwide getting national face time from the MSM are rubes being used to harm conservatism. How naive is this guy? Or is it hubris on his part? Whatever the explanation, Pastor Bob needs to be quiet and needs to know it. So, he got a verbal spanking. He needs it.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:20AM

"Joseph[Smith], a good natured, lazy boy, suffering from a bad heredity physically and psychically, began to have visions which seem to have accompanied epileptoid seizures…"

Urim and Thummin

MORMONS: [The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 842-843, 1926]… a religious sect founded by Joseph Smith… born… December 1805 at Sharon… Vermont, from which place… his parents, who like his grandparents were superstitious, neurotic, seers of visions, and believers in miraculous cures and in heavenly voices and direct revelation, removed to New York, where they settled on a small farm… Joseph, a good natured, lazy boy, suffering from a bad heredity physically and psychically, began to have visions which seem to have accompanied epileptoid seizures… from which he recovered apparently before he became of age. The boy’s father was a digger for hidden treasure… the son became a crystal gazer and by the use of a “peep-stone” discovered the whereabouts of pretended hidden treasure.

He [Smith] said… that on the night of the 21st of September 1823 the angel Moroni appeared to him three times, and told him that the Bible of the western continent, the supplement to the New Testament, was buried on a hill called Cumorah, now commonly known as Mormon Hill….

It was not until the 22nd of September of 1827 that (as he said) he dug up, on the hill near Manchester, a stone box, in which was a volume… made of thin gold plates… and fastened together by three gold rings. The plates were covered with small writing [supposedly of the reformed Egyptian tongue]… with the golden book Smith claimed that he found a breastplate of gold and a pair of supernatural spectacles, consisting of two crystals set in a silver bow, and called “Urim and Thummin”; by aid of these the mystic characters could be read. Being himself unable to read or write fluently, Smith employed as amanuenses: first Martin Harris… then his own wife, Emma; after the middle of April 1829, Oliver Cowdery, a blacksmith and school teacher, and David Whitmer; to them , from behind a curtain, he dictated a translation, for the printing and publishing of which Martin Harris paid, in spite of the continued opposition of his wife to the scheme. An edition of 5000 copies of The Book of Mormon was printed early in 1830… Soon afterwards, according to Smith, the plates disappeared, being taken away by the angel Moroni.

The Book of Mormon, in which Joseph Smith was declared to be God’s “prophet,” with all power and entitled to all obedience, professes to give the history of America from its first settlement by a colony of “Jaredites” from among the crowd dispersed by the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel down to the year 5 A.D.

Brian61| 10.11.11 @ 1:56PM

Wow. Your post is so relevant and insighful. Not. Every religion has its share of interesting characters and stories. If you are a troll, you are gleefully helping the libs drive a wedge between conservatives. If you are a born again conservative, then you are unwittingly helping the libs drive a wedge between conservatives.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:21PM

Romney is *not* a conservative. Nor has Mormonism changed its spots. It just hides them better than it used to.

One needs to look hard at Mormonism to see the underlying danger of the group. A number of articles have appeared in recent months, you need to get and read up on the real world.

There's more to a cult than loony religious views.

Politically, however, as Patrick just below points out, Romney's quite unconservative views and behavior should be enough to bury the man. Mormonism is just icing on that cake.

Patrick| 10.11.11 @ 1:58PM

What I don't understand is why even call out the Mormon thing? His record and his political philosophy should be more than enough to bury him as a RINO both in values and in economics.

Dan| 10.16.11 @ 8:38PM

Mormon bishops sleep with women before their weddings?

Inconceivable! that people would even think this. But I guess if some people think that Cuba has a primo healthcare system, anything is possible.

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 9:06AM

Jeffress' statement was theologically correct and politically inept. I agree, it's going to hurt Perry more than help.

That being said, Romney really doesn't have a good chance in the South, with at least two strikes against him (Mormon and yankee) and other candidates that people will go for first.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:27AM

Apparently, you scribe to the "end justifies the means" theology cult. Nothing personal, at one time I did too.

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 12:03PM

What are you talking about? I was mostly just making a statement about political practicality.

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:08AM

Confirmation once agian that Texas needs to be downgraded to PR or Guam status. Great source for infantry and running backs, not leaders.

How a baptist has the audacity to critique another man's religion defies explanation.

Kaminsky's lament that this is the "last thing Republicans need" is dead wrong. It is providential that the rednecks have been outed so soon, and gives the party a fighting chance to marginalize these cretins before the real voting begins.

Watching Jeffress' skeezy sweaty-faced defense of his remarks was also a welcome gift to reason.

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 9:29AM

Canuck,

Your point is a good one (despite saying I am "dead wrong.")

IF, and it's a big IF, Perry can put Jeffress back in the corner, it might do what you suggest. I am skeptical of this outcome actually occurring, however, not least because Perry probably agrees with Jeffress and isn't really smart enough to frame the discussion the right way.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:48AM

Dear Ross:

So what if Perry agrees with Jeffress?

I am getting sick-and-tired of the phoney religious pluralism viewpoint that elites on both sides of the political spectrum try to enforce on those of us who are less "enlightened" than they are.

To put it bluntly, ALL religions have exclusive viewpoints. If they don't...then what's the point of having it in the first-place.

Devout Jews believe that Christians are crazy to believe that some long-dead carpenter who didn't exactly deliver them from bondage to the Romans is the Messiah. They believe that Christianity is wrong, and that the Messiah has yet to come.

Do I agree with them? No.
Am I offended by their opinion? No.

Muslims believe that the prophet Mohammed received a vision from "Allah" around 700 A.D. and was told by "Allah" to form the "one, true faith" known as Islam. They do not believe that other faiths are valid.

Do I agree with them? No.
Am I offended by their opinion? No.

WHY is it that people ONLY get offended when a Christian publicly proclaims the tenets of his/her own Faith?

Is it a surprise that Christians actually BELIEVE their Faith?

Is it a secret that Christians don't believe in the validity of other Faiths???

So what's the problem??

And why is this bad for Perry?

I'm not a Baptist, but I share Mr. Jeffress' belief.

If that offends anyone, or threatens them, that's NOT my problem. It's their's.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 12:31PM

Dr:
Mohammad d 632 AD. The Hajira was 622 and is the foundation date of Islamic calender. Most of the Quranic visions occurred prior to 622 although the authoritative text wasn't put down for many years. There still exists some debate over a couple different texts. Just for the record.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 12:52PM

I wasn't 100% sure about the dates, so thanks for the fact-check.

Doesn't change my opinion about Islam, though.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 1:58PM

And it should not Dr. Take it from one who knows.

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 4:54PM

my point was about politics, not religion, which is why you do not see any comment from me in the article about my view of Mormonism.

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:24AM

That's a very evasive response, considering that this entire article is about politics.

Your view of Mormonism is irrelevant.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:27PM

Yeah, Dr. R, but that's not fair 'cause you are a great guy, even if you believed in the King of the Potato people, like our POTUS.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:39AM

Confirmation once again that you're a total moron who understands neither:

1. Christianity
2.Mormonism
3. Leadership
4. Texas

I might say that your posts are confirmation once again that immigration from 3rd-world Craplakistan countries needs to be seriously downgraded to avoid an influx of ignoramuses, and I'd probably gather far more support on this board than you ever do.

A Baptist (or a Lutheran, or a Methodist) is free to criticize ANY religion he or she wants to criticize.

Additionally, you're a hypocrite because you have frequently criticized "fundamentalist" Christians as being undeducated neanderthals.

Whatsa' matter? Did a "redneck" give you a wedgie in high-school?

"Rednecks" vote, genius. And they rarely vote to please dim-wits such as yourself.

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 12:08PM

1. Christianity: a life of peace and forgiveness - not vengeance, and not "heartless".
2. Mormonism: don't know much about it, but even the yankees of Mass gave no pause to it. Our founders were deists and unitarians - probably more exotic than even BHO and yet we canonized them.
3. Leadership: LBJ - played stratego in the oval office. Junior - nuff said. Pulleeeze, no mas!
4. Texas: equivocators for over 200 years. Nothing in normal American life has been conjured, advocated or nurtured through Texan ethos or practice, nothing. "Head in sand" is the new Texas motto. Connally may have the last to truly see the possibilities.

Texas has benefitted, probably more than any other state, from massive Federal investments in military, production and education. The average Texas GOPer either forgets this or wantonly denies it while accepting cash ata the same time.

For fundies, no, I criticize evangelicals that confuse zionism with Third Temple mysticism, and underwrite aggressive wars, and transmutate making winfall profits with divine providence.
Fundamentalists are beyond help. That they can vomit word for word a text written without any knowledge of the germ or the atom is not inspired, it's a circus sideshow, a parlor game.

States with fundies in charge kill more, educate less and leave more behind on the road to heaven. Check it out.
I pray for them, but it appears to be not working.

Rednecks have a right to liberty and peace as much as I do, but to claim some warped cultural superiority under the protection of the dixie flag and the King James Bible is simply wrong, and I will continue to call them out.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:03PM

Sorry, but what you post is so full of idiocy and inanities that it's hard to reply.

The idea of "peace" in Christian philosophy has been abused by left-leaning theologians for hundreds of years.

"Peace" is NOT the opposite of War. If all you want is peace, you can surely have it...But there's no guarantee that it will be a "peace" worth having.

Only 1 of the original Apostles died a natural, "peaceful" death. The rest were put-to-death for an unswerving faith in Christ. The idea that we should pursue "peace" at the cost of our Christian convictions is NOWHERE to be found in the Bible.

"Dhimmis" in Islamic lands can live relatively peaceful lives. North Koreans live relatively peaceful lives, too. So what?

Like I said, you don't know much about Christianity, nothing about Mormonsim, and very little about the GREAT State of Texas. As a Texan by proxy (wife is from Dallas), I feel safe in saying that if you don't like Texas, then keep your rear-end out of the Lone-Star State because they don't much like you, either...I can guarantee that.

Per your definition, I'd probably be a "Fundamentalist." I can't quote Chapter or verse like an expert, but I'm willing to bet that I can EASILY out-debate ANY point of Christian philosophy with you and not even break a sweat. Wanna' play?

Yeah...I thought so. All talk.

The truly clueless Christians are the left-leaning pseudo-Christians such as yourself, elitists who confuse humanistic philosophy with the Word of God, and who are unable to understand that when God said "X, Y, and Z", he literally meant "X,Y, and Z".

The image of Christians as wispy wimps who roll over and allow themselves to be abused is over. "Turn the other cheek" does NOT mean "be a doormat."

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 2:45PM

Ok I will play: name a current calamity in your view and we'll see what scripture teaches us and align it with WWJD.
My picks:
John 18:36
Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 5:38-45
and the doozy:
Matthew 1:23

Use KJV for kicks.
Ready, set, go!

I know these words, I live my life by them, and they guide me more than any other "Christ's soldier" baloney that you had beaten into you as a child.

Watch the Prohibition doc running now. I know you're afarid to watch the pinko PBS, but I dare ya.
You will recognize yourself and the spectacularly bad worldview within the first 30 minutes. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:12PM

John 18:36
"Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' "

This is fairly straightforward. If you're using it to try and say that Christ implored his followers to roll-over for their enemies, you've failed miserably.

Christ was LITERALLY saying that His Kingdom was NOT of "this world", so his "followers" (the disciples) should NOT fight to keep Him from falling into the hands of the Romans because that was NOT part of God's plan for man's salvation.

So...what does this mean to you?

Matthew 16:18-19
18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Again, fairly straightforward...although it's also one of the MOST misinterpreted passages of scripture, especially to Catholics.

The Greek translation of Peter is "petras", or stone/pebble. In essence, Jesus was telling Peter that he (Peter) was small, but he was also strong, and that this strength would be used by Christ to build His (Christ's) Church - NOT the Pope's Church - on earth, and that Satan would never prevail over the faithful.

He was also telling Peter that salvation awaits the faithful.

WHAT does this say to you?

Matthew 5:38-45
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

This is also a highly misinterpreted passage of scripture.

NOWHERE in the Bible does Christ say that Christians should NOT speak the TRUTH (as does Mr. Jeffress).

To the contrary, he tells them to rejoice in suffering for the truth:

James 1:12
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him."

Romans 5:3-5
"More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."

Aas far as "turn the other cheek" is concerned, that is NOT an exhortation to be a doormat, or to let people abuse or mistreat you. It is an exhortation to treat others the way you would want to be treated in INTERPERSONAL relationships. It has NO bearing on the justification for self-defense if one is attacked physically, either in the micro, or the macro.

WHAT does it mean to you?

Matthew 1:23
23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”).

Gee, let's see...It means the virgin (that would be Mary) will conceive (become pregnant) and give birth (give birth) to a child, and that they shall call him 'Immanuel', meaning 'God is with us".

It's...ummmmm...pretty straightforward.

WHAT does it mean to you?

Sorry, but if you thought that somehow you were going to rock my world, you've failed.

It will take more than a schoolboy's knowledge of scripture to do that.

Your turn!!! Put it all out there!

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 4:35PM

You went both ways: interpretive and inerrant.

Matthew 5 does not qualify or equivocate on the behaviors JC is advocating. Nothing about "interpersonal relations" is mentioned, nor is there a laundry list of exceptions. He said what He said. I interpret them as challenges, with the greatest expectation I will fail them - but still hold them true in my heart and actions moreso tomorrow than today.

For Matthew 16: 18-19, He actually stated that Peter was to lead His people on earth, and Peter appointed Linus and Cletus to continue his ministry, bequeathing to them the divine right to make policy.

Attempting to read anything else into it is reaching - but a Pope having illegitimate children and underwriting wars were not likely in the job description.

I won't quote any more scripture, because it proves my point that anything taken in isolation can be used to support a view that can never stand up to broader scrutiny.

The narrative of JC and his followers thereafter is a guidebook for people to refrain from anger and vengeance when dealing with issues they know little or nothing about. The challenge is to be open to new things, embrace others and reveal Him to them. His words are transformative in nature, and are not dead on the page. They have life and I believe we are permitted to apply them as well as possible to today's circumstances.

He would not be for demagoguing Mormons or any other rite in order to advance the likelihood of a Perry win - because He would be there to directly refute or support their claims.

He would not be for conjuring a whisper campaign about a man's citizenship, or questioning his allegiance to the country. He would be for a separation of church and state in all commercial and military affairs. He would not be for spending obcene amounts of money on a military apparatus that Caesar would get wet dreams about.

Would JC be for healthcare for all? Possibly, but healthcare in the first century consisted of amputations and spirit voiding.
For gun regulation? Possibly, but unless he met the ancient Chinese in his 20's, he could have never imagined such weapons outside of a well-regulated militia.
For peace treaties - even bad ones? Don't know.
For justice for the oppressed? Probably, but He only mentioned slavery once and never advocated for the end of this practice.
For one person one vote? Don't know. He showed particular respect for local Hebrew traditions, however.

For occupation by "infidels"? Don't know, but He certainly did not incite to riot against Rome on his walkabout.

For the last 2000 years we have interpreted everything in current law and behavior to what were clearly applicable to Hebrews under Roman occupation.

The problems of application all stems from there as those circumstances can never be repeated with precision.
When preachers - any preachers- stand up and state with certainty anything other than the basics about JC, I cringe.

You should too.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:28PM

"You went both ways: interpretive and inerrant."

That is a statement of grave idiocy. You show you know the meaning of neither word. The two are not exclusive of one another.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 4:45PM

Doctor Right,

Forgive my butting-in, but, regarding Matthew 16:18-19, I'm sure you are well aware that Christ and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

So, Christ changed Simon's name to Kepha, which only has one meaning in Aramaic: Rock. Also, if you have ever seen pictures of Caesarea Phillipi, there is a huge cliff which was called the "Rock of the Gods" and a cave that was called the "Gate of Hades," by the pagans.

This is where Christ chose to change Simon's name to Rock, with a huge rock in the background that had pagan myths attached to it.

Why did Christ change Simon Peter's name (and only his) to Rock if he was not to be the leader of His Church?

The "tiny rock/pebble" argument doesn't fit with what we know the Apostles John and Paul called Peter, i.e., Kephas. I though you might find this interesting.
God Bless!

Jack in Wi.| 10.11.11 @ 6:37PM

Nick: Fine comment and biblically and historically accurate.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:33PM

Sorry, it won't wash. Yes it is true that Aramaic was teh language of Israel in post-exilic times, but that is not relevant. The New Testament was written in Greek. Theer is no known early manuscript of the NT in Aramaic. They are all in Greek, which was the dominant trade language of Imperial times.

The fact is the Greek word used for Peter is "petras,' a feminine noun that would have been an insult to use on any man of the time. Kephas is a Roman Catholic interpolation with no theological relevancy.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 8:41PM

Excellent.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 9:18PM

Quartermaster,

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken about this.

"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: You are Simon the son of Jona. You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." - John 1:42

"But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." - Galatians 2:11

The Apostles John and Paul called him Rock (Kephas) which is apparent for all to see. They called Simon Kephas because they spoke Aramaic. There was no word petros in Greek to translate Kephas into, so they made-up a masculine form of petra in the Greek.

Hope that helps.
God Bless!

RCV| 10.12.11 @ 2:44AM

Thanks Nick for the necessary illumination!

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:19AM

No problemo, RCV.
(I used a little Spanish lingo there, as Rush would say! Ha-ha!)

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:28AM

Yes, I know they spoke Aramaic.

Many of the ORIGINAl texts are in Greek, not Aramaic.

And regardless of whether you accept the Greek or Aramaic definition, the extrapolation to what became the Catholic Church is a REAL stretch.

There's no doubt that Christ charged Peter with continuing to lay the foundations for His Church, but again, to extrapolate ANY of that to the structure of the Catholic Church, or to say that Peter became a "Pope" is not valid/

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:17AM

Doctor Right,

I assure you, my only objective was to show that the petras/petros, rock/pebble argument doesn't really make any sense, in light of the fact that Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

I know your views, so, I was pretty sure you weren't going to convert (or, revert, I should say) based on this one piece of evidence! Ha-ha!
I only wanted to share some information.
God Bless!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.11 @ 7:27PM

Doctor right,
Thank you.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:40PM

Bravo, Dr. Right!!!

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:29PM

"States with fundies in charge kill more, educate less and leave more behind on the road to heaven. Check it out."

WHAT "states" are you referring to?

The Pilgrims were "fundies"...so were many of the Founders.

As usual, your argument holds no water.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:31PM

Actually...

When it comes to state-sponsored murder, NO states have exceeded the secularist-atheistic states like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Are you aware of that thing known as "the 20th century"???

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:42PM

At great risk of firestorm, how many babies abortions were paid for by state funded/sponsored clinics in this country?

Which idol do we worship? The godess Choice?

Marco| 10.12.11 @ 8:57AM

Dr. Mengele, the "rednecks" are not the problem, the "drooling goobers" are. Fortunately, there aren't that many of them. So Romney's margin in the South is 60-40 instead of 65-35. Smells like, victory!

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:31AM

Don't know where you get your polling data from, but Romney is NOT "ahead" in "the South".

In fact, he's losing ground there faster than anywhere else.

WHY do you think his friends in the GOP-establishment are desperate to move-up the early primaries?

Because they want to NULLIFY the South's ability to have an impact on this race.

BECAUSE Romney cannot win the south.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:46AM

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Casey Abell| 10.11.11 @ 9:10AM

Whatever Romney and Cain are paying Jeffress, it ain't enough.

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:21AM

Nope, this was self-inflicted, and a ham-handed reaction to Rove's "n*ggerhead" plant last week.

Why fire an ICBM when a grenade would have sufficed? Perry has zero modulation skills and should bow out now.

Casey Abell| 10.11.11 @ 10:29AM

Leaving aside the quaint conspiracy theory about Rove, I was only kidding about Romney and Cain, of course.

But this Perry supporter is feeling pretty sore right now. This campaign has been a train wreck.

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.11.11 @ 9:11AM

Really? You think he should apologize?
Barack Hussein, and his wife, are friends with Louis Farrakhan and his wife. Should Louis Farrakhan apologize for the things he's said about JEWS, and their "GUTTER RELIGION"? Should OBAMA be held to account for all of the Racist, Anti-Semitic, America Hating, SCUM, that he has surrounded himself with, all of his life, and, STILL surrounds himself with them, to this very day? The LEFT says whatever they want. They call everyone a Racist. A Bigot. A Homophobe.
They go after Romney's Religion. They go after Republican Homosexuals, with a vengeance. And, God help ya, if you're a BLACK Republican. Or, a JEWISH one.
My advice to the Right. STOP APOLOGIZING. Stand up on your hind legs. Be a MAN. And, never take a step backwards.
THEY never do.
Ask Al Sharpton, on his New Television Show.

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:18AM

That's right, deflect.....that's manning up?

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 9:25AM

Timothy,

Not sure if you were responding to me, but I don't think I used the word "apologize" or suggested anything of the sort. I just said Jeffress should shut up...at least in public. He should decline to do any more TV or radio interviews, at least if he really wants to help either Perry or the GOP.

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.11.11 @ 10:13AM

If it walks like a Duck.................

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:07PM

Ummmm, why should he "shut up"???

Seriously...WHY?!?!?

Because you don't agree with him?

Because people of faith who speak confidently make you nervous?

Because you think all religions are bogus?

Why are people so offended by one man's opinion??

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 4:58PM

DR,

I already explained why he should shut up, but since you didn't get my point (which I must assume is my fault), I'll say it again: He is creating an unnecessary distraction during a time when the protests should be providing benefit to the GOP.

You religious types are so oversensitive sometimes. I didn't criticize Jeffress for his beliefs, nor because they are different from mine, and many of my close friends are "people of faith".

I said that if he wants to beat Obama, as he seems to, then he's not helping.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:33AM

You didn't explain anything.

You said "It's politics", and tried to walk away, thinking that's somehow profound.

OK...Let's assume it IS politics. In that case, Romney just got gut-punched by the Perry team.

Oh well, Mitt...in the words of Ross and his buddies...SHUT-UP. Stop whining, and take it like a man.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:35AM

Mr. Kaminsky,

"Nothing more, nothing less."

Wrong. You also falsely asserted that Pastor Jeffress was attacking Mormonism.

There are only two possible explanations for this bogus charge. 1) You knew exactly what he was saying, and are distorting it on purpose for some reason, or, 2) you were ignorant of what his point was, and jumped on the anti-Southern Baptist bandwagon.

I pick #2.
(Not that you're anti-Southern Baptist, mind you. I wouldn't know.)

Roy| 10.11.11 @ 11:33AM

He shouldn't apologize for his opinions about Mormonism, but he went on to say that voters should want a "born-again Christian", not a Mormon.

If he holds to that, we'd all be better served if he would, indeed, shut up.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:47PM

Yeah, it would REALLY be horrible if our President were a believing, committed Christian, wouldn't it???

And the idea that someone might actually express that opinion in public?

FOR SHAME!!!!!

...shut up, indeed...

Johnnycomelately| 10.11.11 @ 4:00PM

As Martin Luther basically said: give me a smart turk instead of a stupid Chrisitan as a leader any day.

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:38AM

I could care less what Martin Luther King Jr. had to say about anything.

He was another moral reprobate. His skirt-chasing and adulterous liaisons were legendary. He was with his Mistress the night before he was killed. In fact, she was there when it happened.

Sorry, but when you parade around calling yourself "Reverend" and pretending to represent the Word of God but you behave in ways that are so obviously sinful, you're nothing but a hypocrite.

And that was MLK, Jr. He was no angel. He was a fraud.

Ryan| 10.12.11 @ 11:30AM

Back up a few hundred years.

Martin Luther. The German.

NOT Martin Luther King, Jr.

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 11:47AM

...I knew that...

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 4:25PM

"Yeah, it would REALLY be horrible if our President were a believing, committed Christian, wouldn't it???"

He already is.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:43PM

He is?

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:37PM

Really. Coulda fooled me. The fact that both parties have abandoned Christian morality has led us to the financial sink we are in. The problems we have can not be separated from morality. Even if you wish they could.

RND| 10.12.11 @ 1:54AM

My almost tea-partyesque freshman congressman made sure to point out his firm Christian bonafides in all of his 2010 campaign literature.

He won. He's in office now for, what, nine months already.

Bumping into him several times, we've chatted a bit. So he recognizes me. A few Sundays back I ran across him just passing the time in a town square.

First time I'd ever seen him without entourage, college/graduate aged aides around him, speech at the ready, or glad-handing would-be donors.

I almost didn't recognize him. He looked normal.

He wasn't hussling off somewhere or looking harried.

So I came up to say hi. Now, remember it's Sunday. And he was sure to tell you how committed he is to church and faith....in all those campaign stops just 10 and 11 months ago.

Not too many syllables after the exhanges of hello came explatives like you would not believe. I almost cringed. In fact, I did. These words came out of nowhere and for no reason. I looked about a bit awkwardly because a nearby church (that had obviously gone long on the service) was letting out its folk as they came down the steps.

Mothers with kids were nearing. I was about ready to say, "Hey, cool it. Watch your mouth around folk like these."

No, as it turned out, my congressman (yes, the one with all the Christian bonafides in his literature) had not been in church anywhere that morning. He did not seem to care one whit. He scoffed at me when he asked if I had just been in service. But he surely did seem to want to continue to cuss. I think he believed that his strong words were impressive to me.

No.

As I listend to this, I realized that many good folk in the local Tea Party and many in faith based organizations which had provided the muscle and impetus behind his election were gipped.

Deceived.

Shortchanged.

Yes, we are in this mess in every county in the land because we don't have men that follow Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives.

Words are cheap. The actions prove. And the actions when you think that no one is looking -- that tells the truth.

He's hailed as one of those new hotshot freshman congressmen that will make the difference in the US Congress.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:03AM

RND,

Why didn't you name this "congressman"?

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:35AM

Obama is NOT a Christian.

That phony "Church" he attended in Chicago is a left-wing congregation dedicated to America-bashing, and NOT the word of God.

Obama masquerades as a Christian, but his sympathies are Muslim.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:42PM

"Stand up on your hind legs. Be a man."
LOL! Love it.

Le Cracquere| 10.11.11 @ 9:36AM

The time & place of Jeffress's comments suggest an invincible combination of crassness and dimness. Perry would do well to put some air between himself and such men.

On the other hand, it is commonly and broadly held among Christians that Mormonism is nothing less than a cult. And if the Nicene Creed be any sort of litmus test, they're right. It's a fine line: believing Christians should NOT be discouraged from frankness on this point, but the burden's on them to demonstrate how Romney's religious heterodoxy could possibly affect his fitness to serve as President. I can't see that it does, and disapprove of his candidacy on thoroughly non-religious grounds.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 10:21AM

Le Cracquere,

Christians do not believe Mormonism is a cult in the same sense as Jim Jones, "Rev." Moon, or Krishnas. Read my link, below, to find the proper use of the word cult in its theological sense.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:50AM

"Joseph[Smith], a good natured, lazy boy, suffering from a bad heredity physically and psychically, began to have visions which seem to have accompanied epileptoid seizures…"

Urim and Thummin

MORMONS: [The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 842-843, 1926]… a religious sect founded by Joseph Smith… born… December 1805 at Sharon… Vermont, from which place… his parents, who like his grandparents were superstitious, neurotic, seers of visions, and believers in miraculous cures and in heavenly voices and direct revelation, removed to New York, where they settled on a small farm… Joseph, a good natured, lazy boy, suffering from a bad heredity physically and psychically, began to have visions which seem to have accompanied epileptoid seizures… from which he recovered apparently before he became of age. The boy’s father was a digger for hidden treasure… the son became a crystal gazer and by the use of a “peep-stone” discovered the whereabouts of pretended hidden treasure.

He [Smith] said… that on the night of the 21st of September 1823 the angel Moroni appeared to him three times, and told him that the Bible of the western continent, the supplement to the New Testament, was buried on a hill called Cumorah, now commonly known as Mormon Hill….

It was not until the 22nd of September of 1827 that (as he said) he dug up, on the hill near Manchester, a stone box, in which was a volume… made of thin gold plates… and fastened together by three gold rings. The plates were covered with small writing [supposedly of the reformed Egyptian tongue]… with the golden book Smith claimed that he found a breastplate of gold and a pair of supernatural spectacles, consisting of two crystals set in a silver bow, and called “Urim and Thummin”; by aid of these the mystic characters could be read. Being himself unable to read or write fluently, Smith employed as amanuenses: first Martin Harris… then his own wife, Emma; after the middle of April 1829, Oliver Cowdery, a blacksmith and school teacher, and David Whitmer; to them , from behind a curtain, he dictated a translation, for the printing and publishing of which Martin Harris paid, in spite of the continued opposition of his wife to the scheme. An edition of 5000 copies of The Book of Mormon was printed early in 1830… Soon afterwards, according to Smith, the plates disappeared, being taken away by the angel Moroni.

The Book of Mormon, in which Joseph Smith was declared to be God’s “prophet,” with all power and entitled to all obedience, professes to give the history of America from its first settlement by a colony of “Jaredites” from among the crowd dispersed by the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel down to the year 5 A.D.

Le Cracquere| 10.11.11 @ 6:22PM

Nick: Your experiences and mine may differ. To the circles in which I was raised and live, the difference between Mormonism and the sects you cite is a hundred-year head start.

Nevertheless, such considerations have little relevance to whether Romney would be an acceptable, competent president. As I said above, airing such considerations in the context Jeffress did is pure knavery. But it'd be even worse if conservatives put frankness about Mormonism socially out of bounds.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 6:37PM

Le Cracquere,

I didn't mean to imply that all Christians feel this way. I was only referring to the theological sense that Pastor Jeffress used the word, and has fully explained.

I think knave is a little strong. I have not sensed any trickery on the good pastor's part. But, I could always be wrong. It is hard to judge character through an LCD t.v. screen, even in HD! Ha-ha!

I'm only defending his use of the word cult in the context of the Church of Ladder Day Saints. It was not meant to convey a group of loons, as is the modern societal use of the word. It is not the pastor's fault if so-called journalists cannot understand the difference.

Le Cracquere| 10.11.11 @ 9:22PM

Heh--that's certainly fair enough! Although I'm tempted to stick to my guns in describing Jeffress--trickery doesn't always rely on untruthfulness. Sometimes it consists of dropping the right, otherwise-irrelevant factoid in just the right time & place. It may be accurate, but why say it then/there unless one is AIMING to poison the well?

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 11:47PM

Le Cracquere,

I definitely will allow for the possibility. I had never heard of Pastor Jeffress until this episode, so, I don't know the man, at all. He may very well have had a nefarious motive attached to what he said. But, until I see the proof, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

My problem with Romney is his wishy-washy, flip-flop on the killing of unborn babies (fetus in Latin.) I may prefer a baptized Christian who believes in the Holy Trinity, but, I would vote for a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, if he is a strong conservative, over President Downgrade in a heartbeat.

Le Cracquere| 10.12.11 @ 7:45AM

Amen to that.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:42PM

perhaps you are loose enough to actually believe what you wrote, but know of no Christians that do not put Mormonism in the same category with Jim Jones and Rev. Moon. The definitive work on Cults places them squarely in that tradition.

g wayne| 10.11.11 @ 9:56AM

If the public is getting it's info from the MSM and forming opinion on that then we are in big trouble. On the one hand you indicate the public is responsible enough to form a negative opinion about the occupy wall street gang but not about Jeffress' statements and the fact that these were made by one Christian pastor, as if he spoke for the Republican party. Give me a break. Jeffress also listed other groups in with his cult statement. He is not comparing the militancy of Mormonism with Islam. He only mentions these in the same breath to point out that each is a false religion. Cult is a strong word and I agree maybe it did not need to be said at this time and Perry should distance himself from Jefress, but that does not make the statement any less true. There are 5 good reasons I would not vote for Romney and Mormonism comes in 5th. Romneycare will be his undoing. Immigration, Perry's. Cain 2012!

JohnM| 10.11.11 @ 9:58AM

The goal is to elect a true conservative President, who most reflects Christian values, not necessarily to replace Obama. Therefore, Romney is out of the running since he is not Christian and does not reflect Christian values. Perry may be Christian but does not reflect Christian values any more than GW Bush did. So, out with Perry also. All of these men compromised instead of leading.

Bruce| 10.11.11 @ 11:39AM

JohnM;
Contrary to popular opinion, there is NO MORMON CHURCH. There is The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that accepts The Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ. As you can readily see, the name of the Church shows who is at its head and in whom we believe. Jesus himself told His apostles "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be cone fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16) The Book of Mormon tells of His visitation to one portion of those "other sheep".

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 12:07PM

Nope. Christ was talking about gentiles in John 10:16. He was directly addressing the Jews.

Sorry, but that interpretation just doesn't hold water when viewed in context.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:44PM

Ryan,

How do you know He was talking to the Gentiles?
What if He was talking about Jews who would believe in Him.
Or for that matter, ANYONE else who was to believe in Him?

Ryan| 10.12.11 @ 11:31AM

Please re-read, Margie.

ABOUT Gentiles. Not TO. He was talking TO an audience of Jews in the text.

Ed| 10.11.11 @ 12:10PM

The LDS church is an offshoot of traditional Christianity. By traditional Christianity, I mean those who adhere to the Nicene/Apostles' Creed.

I firmly believe in freedom of religion, but the LDS church is theologically very, very different from traditional Christian churches like the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical Protestants.

JohnM| 10.11.11 @ 12:21PM

I do not accept the religious baiting. Obama, GW Bush, Romney and Perry have compromised away from Christian values. I want a moral leader! I do not want to just "change".

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:10PM

So where's the actual evidence (Apologetic proof) that ANYTHING in The Book of Mormon is true?

Where's the archaeological evidence of the Nephites and the Lamanites?

Where's the geneological evidence linking Native Americans with the 12 tribes of Israel?

Sorry, but Mormonism began as a sham, and it remains a sham to this day.

mal| 10.11.11 @ 1:49PM

There is sufficient historical evidence to establish that Mr Smith existed and there was indeed a places called missouri and vermont where he lived for a time. There is no evidence of miraculous occurence, although he did manage to found a sizeable religous following.
This puts him in an equivalent position to Mohammad and Jesus, who eachhave evidence of having existed and having lived in real places but no evidence of miraculous occurences has been found.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 2:01PM

Except for that little matter of the empty tomb.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:16PM

I was going to say...

...Except for the 12 Apostles who were put to death because they KNEW the Truth.

Would they have been willing to die for a lie? Hardly.

Sorry, but comparing the evidence regarding the validity of Joseph Smith's claim with the evidence regarding the Life of Christ is sheer ignorance.

mal| 10.11.11 @ 4:26PM

The evidence supporting the claims of Smith is actually somewhat stronger. Smith has substantially more documentation and coorberating evidence to haviong existed and saying what he said while Jesus's record has had a great deal more time to be clouded by embellishment and accident.
In either case no verifiable evidence of miracles has been obtained, so they are pretty much equal there.

mal| 10.11.11 @ 4:27PM

there are lots of empty graves

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 6:03PM

...and many hopeless ones as well mal.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 4:54PM

But you're missing the point. We know Joseph Smith existed, but there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that any of the peoples the Book of Mormon claims once lived in America actually existed. No Nephites, no Lamanites, and no records written in ancient Middle Eastern tongues such as Hebrew or Aramaic, etc.

There is no doubt, however, that Bethlehem, Jerusalem, etc. were actual places in Israel and still exist today.

Sammy| 10.16.11 @ 8:52PM

Well, after archaeologists have explored more than the current 4 % of Central America known to date -- the 96 % covered by jungle -- then you might have a point. Fifty years ago there was no evidence that David existed either. Now there is.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:46PM

The importance is not that Smith lived and walked the earth. It is what he taught in comparison with the teachings of Christ and the writings of the early church. Smith falls distinctly outside the fold of Christianity by that criteria, and that will not change with any sort of special pleading or changing the subject.

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:41AM

Sorry, but your argument is absurd.

NO ONE doubts that Joseph Smith existed.

That's a straw-man. Of course he existed.

That's not the point, and you know it.

These are the kind of games you have to play when you're a Mormon...

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 4:44PM

"Would they have been willing to die for a lie? Hardly."

That's a facile argument, but not convincing in the least. People die for a religious lie all the time, believing it right to the end. Look at the followers of Jim Jones, or David Koresh. Look at the 19 hijackers. The willingness to die for a belief does not validate that belief in any way.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 4:56PM

Sorry, apparently I can no longer attach comments under the relevant comments. In case it's not clear, my response at 4:44 was to Doctor Smith and the one at 4:54 was to Mal.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:48PM

here is a massive difference between the followers of Jones and Christ's Apostles. The Apostles walked with Christ before he was crucified, and walked with him again after he rose from the grave. Everything the religious leaders of their day taught was against everything they saw with their own eyes.

Consequently, the argument is anything but facile. Perhaps to a skeptic, but the skeptic looks for any excuse not to believe.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 9:19PM

QM:
Back to that annoying little detail about the empty tomb and resurrection. All those witnesses and even His enemies did not dispute it at the time.

I suggest reading N. T. Wrights' The Resurrection of the Son of God. A great study.

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 11:50AM

You've TOTALLY missed the point:

YES, people die for lies that they BELIEVE are true.

That means that in their minds, they didn't die for a lie.

That is DISTINCTLY different from someone being willing to die for something that they KNEW was a lie.

Facile? Hardly.

Convincing? Absolutely.

Not my fault you didn't get it.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:46PM

Not to mention that miracles are ONLY ever done in the Name of Jesus Christ.
REAL miracles, that is!
And, He lives, Jesus is alive, yes, He actually, actually rose from the dead and hears the prayers of those who come to Him.. for His mercy and forgiveness.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 6:19PM

Bruce:
We seem to be overlooking the Reorganized Church of JC of LDS. That would be the Smithian and not the Youngian (Salt Lake) organization. Where do they fit in?

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:53PM

The Josephites, who have changed their name from RLDS to another name I can't recall at the moment, are viewed by many as the legit LDS Church. Many of them have ridiculed the Brighamites and pointed out the inconsistencies of the Salt Lake Mormons.

They also defend the memory of Joseph Smith, but that's a losing battle as their is too much documentation that shows what Smith really was.

At one time, there were over 50 splinter groups of Mormons. Most have dwindled to nothing. I think there are about 10 that still exist with the RLDS being the largest.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 9:14PM

Thank you QM. We might also inquire about the Danites.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 10:07AM

Mr. Kaminsky,

Pastor Jeffress is not "attacking Mormonism." You should listen to his explanation carefully, and learn what the word cult means in its theological sense.

I write this as a Catholic. I agree with the Catholic writer whom I read last night, Terry Mattingly, who made the point that, basically, Pastor Jeffress' only mistake was assuming that today's journalists would understand the real meaning of the word cult in the context that the pastor used it.

The good pastor has spoken the truth about Mormonism. He is not attacking or demeaning Mormons, or what they believe. His views on this subject are about the same as the Catholic Church's, from what I've heard so far. Are Catholics also a bunch of anti-Mormon bigots?

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 10:09AM

Oh, yeah, here is the link to Mr. Mattingly's blog-post:

http://www.getreligion.org/201.....gion/DmXm+(GetReligion)

David T| 10.11.11 @ 10:24AM

"Cult" means Jim Jones and drinking the kool-aid. Ross Kaminsky is absolutely right--Mr. Jeffries needs to keep his mouth shut if he wants to help Perry.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 10:26AM

David T.,

Try educating yourself before you type.

David T| 10.11.11 @ 10:38AM

Nick--We're talking politics here, not theology. Apparently my point was too subtle for you.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 10:51AM

David T.,

No, not too subtle. If people, and so-called journalists, are too ignorant to know the proper context that the word cult was used, how is that Pastor Jeffress' fault?

This is P.C. garbage run amok, among conservatives, and I will have nothing to do with it, sorry.

John Navratil| 10.11.11 @ 12:17PM

Nick, David T,

Why not share the definition you two are disagreeing over?

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 2:04PM

Mr. Navratil,

I thought that I had, with the link that I provided.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:47PM

A cult is that where people follow men instead of Christ Jesus, Who is Lord of all.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:14PM

Margie:
As good a definition as we might get. Thank you.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 5:21PM

So Islam is a cult? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism?

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:48PM

Interesting question. How much time do you have?

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:49PM

Do they follow the only true God, and His Son, Jesus Christ~ the Saviour of Mankind?

RCV| 10.12.11 @ 2:49AM

Jesus is the one true God, of one being withe the Father. If you don't accept that, you're following just a man, and by your own definition, a mere cultist.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 2:24PM

You talkin' to me, hypocrite? (RCV)?

RCV| 10.13.11 @ 4:50AM

Yes, ma'am

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:50PM

(you're welcome, Al Adab).

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 6:14PM

Perhaps at this point we should simply ask, "Why do the heathen rage?".

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 8:04PM

Walter Martin, in Kingdom of The Cults, gave, in my opinion, the definitive definition of a cult:

"...that a cult might also be defined as as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation fo the Bible." Page 11, "Kingdom Of The Cults" 15th printing, 1974.

Walter Martin fleshes that out a bit more over the next two pages. He also specifically mentions the Mormons who, admittedly, fall into this definition.

There are also several points on which Mormons fall into a far more liberal morality that Christianity does (e.g. abortion), but I will leave that to any honest inquirer who wishes to research the matter.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 8:45PM

Excellent definition.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:54AM

The other cult:

The Roman Doctrine of (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

• “There is but one universal Church...., outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:48PM

Oooh, you won't get anywhere with THAT truth, my friend!!

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 5:01PM

Nick,

Calling it a cult, regardless of your reference to a dictionary definition of the word, is certainly attacking Mormonism. And if you weren't clear with that, then mentioning it in the same sentence with Islam makes it that much more obvious.

I could agree with Jeffress's view on Mormonism as far as the cult thing goes (not saying I do, not saying I don't because I don't want to distract from my argument) and still think Jeffress is wrong for making these public statements.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 6:10PM

Mr. Kamisky,

Pastor Jeffress was at the Values Voter Summit, not a Republican fundraiser. Isn't VVS a mostly Christian event, similar to the old Christian Coalition?

Again, you must not have seen Pastor Jeffress' many detailed explanations as to what he meant by the use of the word cult. Did you read my link?

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 6:39PM

Nick,

I did not read your link because you're missing my point. His definition is totally irrelevant. And I barely care that he said the "cult" thing one time. What I care about is that he keeps on going with all this, very much in public, playing right into the hands of the Democrats.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 8:07PM

Ross, he didn't miss your point. You are, however, missing his. You also miss the point that politics and how religion informs those politics can not be separated. You may wish for a Pastor to get back in his box and stay there, but political pragmatism got us into this hole. Doing the same kind of stupidity will not get us out, no matter how much you think it will. Obama is the result of your type of thinking.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 8:39PM

Mr. Kaminsky,

Is it not incumbent on Pastor Jeffress to set the record straight if the MSM are distorting what he said? Should he also be mealy-mouthed and weaselly when he answers, or, should he be truthful about his beliefs?

I say good for Pastor Jeffress for not apologizing or backing down. He had nothing for which to apologize. He stated his beliefs clearly and concisely. It is not his fault the MSM is distorting his words. Don't they always do this?

Bill S| 10.11.11 @ 10:17AM

Mormonism IS a cult. So is Catholicism. You should never be afraid to speak the truth.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 10:26AM

Bill S.,

All religions are cults, if you're going to put it that way. It comes from the Latin cultus: Habitation, tilling, refinement, worship.

David T| 10.11.11 @ 10:30AM

Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a clue about truth, let alone be able to speak it.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 12:00PM

The Roman church about its work:
http://martyrsmirror.blogspot....../temp.html

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:28AM

To anyone who's first reaction is to criticize Mr. Jeffress, do yourself a favor and critically examine what Mormonism is all about before you issue a blanket condemnation.

Sorry, but Mr. Jeffress is 100% correct. Mormonism IS a false religion.

It has remnants of Christianity, but even though Mormons refer to themselves as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", it's core beliefs are anti-Christian.

Now before anyone gets offended, let me state for the record that in this instance, "anti-Christian" does NOT mean "evil". It means that Mormon doctrine is contradictory to the Bible, and not in a small way, either.

In summation, Mormons believe that the peoples of North America (the native peoples) are the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel, who traveled across the Atlantic Ocean sometime in antiquity and established a vast civilization in North and South America. They believe that Jesus Christ RETURNED to earth in the Americas after his death, burial, and resurrection, and preached to them an entirely NEW Gospel, which Mormons call "The Book of Mormon."

...To anyone with a shred of scriptural knowledge, your head is probably already spinning. Let me continue...

Mormons also believe that this vast civilization in the Americas was ultimately destroyed in an all-out war between the Lamanites and the Nephites, which is why there is conveniently not one shred of archaeological proof to back up this claim.

They also believe that ALL of this was revealed, in a series of revelations, to a young boy in upstate New York named Joseph Smith. The initial vision to Smith came from the Angel named "Moroni", who showed Smith a buried treasure of mystical Golden plates inscribed with the Book of Mormon (in the ancient language of the Nephites, so untranslatable EXCEPT to Smith), and gave him a set of MAGIC EYE-GLASSES to translate them, and some MAGIC ROCKS to use for initiating new "visions" (which he saw by placing the rocks into his hat, and burying his face in the hat for hours.

Smith, who had already tried to start another religion prior to Moroni's visitation found the path to success. One of his other passions was for the ladies, and since the Book of Mormon openly preached polygamy, Joe started to party down - hard!

Mormon faith is also grounded in a series of proclamations known as the "Doctrine and Covenants", or "D & C", and despite the fact that these are supposed to be firm as bedrock, over the years, they have changed so much that NO ONE is allowed to see older versions that contradict the current version except the Church Elders (or "Prophets").

Anyone ever been to the Mormon tabernacle in Salt Lake City? It's both beautiful AND creepy. The building is filled with murals depicting the life of Christ - a very BLONDE-HAIRED, BLUE-EYED Christ, surrounded by his fair-skinned, Nordic-looking Apostles.

Now, if you're a secular type who has no real regard or reverence for any particular religion (because, to put in honestly, you think they're ALL hokum), then this won't bother you.

Whatever. I could write volumes on Christian Apologetics that show the Bible to be the most thoroughly fact-checked and reliable document from antiquity, but that's not the point.

The point is that even to an intellectually honest secularist, Mormonism is...well, wacky.

FINAL POINT:

Are Mormons nice people? YES, most of them are, of course.

Do Mormons make good neighbors? Probably. They're family oriented, and respect traditional values.

Should Mormonism disqualify Romney or Huntsman from the Presidency?

My opinion: NO.

diviz| 10.11.11 @ 1:53PM

I should cite to this the next time evolution debates crop up on this blog.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:17PM

Why???

diviz| 10.11.11 @ 4:19PM

Reasoning based on verifiable evidence instead of stories of magic exclusively favors the scientific consesus of evolution.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 6:00PM

Someone should mention all the evidence for speciation in the fossil record. (?) But that could be for another day.

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 8:11PM

Diviz thinks there is evidence for Darwinian evolution. They conflate the fact that we can force evolution with selective breeding and get different forms of the same species, just as natural selection ends with the same species. You don't another species without addition of genetic information.

Rottsa Ruck finding that in the real world.

Casey Abell| 10.11.11 @ 10:34AM

Just what Perry needs, more great news...

A couple polls out today for IA and NH. Perry places fourth or fifth. Swell. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MS.....nnaire.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MS.....es/NH_Poll Results_Questionnaire.pdf

Casey Abell| 10.11.11 @ 10:38AM

Can't get the link to work for the NH poll. The results among likely voters: Romney (44 percent), Cain and Paul (13 percent), Perry (6 percent), Huntsman (5 percent), Gingrich (4 percent), Bachmann (2 percent), Santorum and Johnson (1 percent).

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:51AM

Frankly, who really cares what happens in New Hampshire??

No offense, it's a great state, but it's a small state with only 3 electoral college votes.

WHY this early primary, in Mitt Romney's own backyard, has so much significance is beyond me.

Did anyone actually think that Romney WOULDN'T win New Hampshire???

New Hampshire is meaningless.

Casey Abell| 10.11.11 @ 12:11PM

If Perry finishes fifth in NH, it ain't gonna be meaningless for him. For even more good news, Perry has now slipped to a distant third in South Carolina and Virgina...

http://americanresearchgroup.c.....ry/rep/sc/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x5822.xml?ReleaseID=1658

I'm a Perry supporter but I can't whistle past a very gloomy graveyard. Either Perry stages a comeback fast, or it's back to Austin. He can't survive third-place finishes in southern states.

A decent performance in tonight's debate would be a start, anyway.

Electoral System = Stupid| 10.12.11 @ 1:30AM

I live in a state that is geographically 25 times larger than NH. More importantly we have a state population of adult (voter age) people that is 19 times what NH's miniscule population is.

Why we give import to a voting decision in NH in January and the slap-dash dodgy "polls" done bi-weekly there is baffling.

The Granite State is a nice motto. But they are less than 1% of the adult population in the USA.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 5:45PM

It's not the electoral votes that matter in the primaries, but the delegates sent to the convention. The GOP candidate might not win California or New York in the general election, but California and New York will both send a significant number of delegates to the convention and their votes will count just as much as those of delegates from the red states. So what happens in New Hampshire will be viewed as a bellwether of what's likely to occur in the GOP primaries in other blue states.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:51PM

Let me pose this question. Why should the GOP allow the delegates from states which no republican will carry in November to decide who the nominee should be? If a state cannot deliver its electoral votes, why should they help pick the candidate?

Total Overhaul of System Now| 10.12.11 @ 1:33AM

Bingo! You are on the right trail Al Adab. Keep on this path. You are on the road to discovering how all of this is whitewash tomfoolery. All of it. Every 2 and 4 years.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:38PM

For example, CA should be 1/10th the importance of Texas, as should New York. Actually, as a purple state, MN should have more sway than New York or CA.

Who Knows?| 10.11.11 @ 10:38AM

“Mormonism is a cult”.

X is a cult---put in ANY name for X, up to and including “me”, as an ego. Or, should it be “down to”?

Anyway, as humans and not frogs on a frond, we each belong to many cults, as we live and move and act in Transcendental Radiant Being.

Isn’t it obvious that humans NEED to evolve to an at least somewhat higher understanding of this whole “cult” divisive subject?

We should thank the good reverend for speaking his, and OUR, truth, by realizing the profound expanse of his statement.

Where has Freud gone?

Ever heard of “projecting”? When I hear a Christian (of all religions!) claim Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever are cults, it’s instantly apparent that they are projecting. Christianity is simply one of the most popular cults, as are Islam, Judaism, et al.

Who else have we too soon forgotten?

Forrest Gump!

Unconsciousness is as unconsciousness DOES! And, speech-mind is an act, which invariably DOES its thing.

Who knows how long it’s going to take for extant Americans to wake up about the cultic nature of our narcissistic Being.

Allow me to rehabilitate a third memorable oldie but goodie---

Fritz Perls---

“I do my thing, and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations.
You are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you and I am I.
And if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.”

Is HELP on the way?

LOL!

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:55AM

There is a distinct difference between a CULT and a RELIGION.

CULTS exercise active and detrimental control over their members.

Religions don't.

Now, your first reaction is probably going to be "Oh yes, they do!!", to which I will reply "In some cases".

Maybe then, what you need to do is examine which ones do that, the source of their doctrines, and why they do that.

TRUE Christian faith is 100% voluntary. GOD has never forced anyone to worship Him. He gives us free will to choose between right or wrong, and he respects our decisions.

And we MUST respect the consequences.

That's NOT a cult.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:48PM

"CULTS exercise active and detrimental control over their members.

Religions don't."

Are you kidding?
Think Catholicism.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 5:50PM

"TRUE Christian faith is 100% voluntary. GOD has never forced anyone to worship Him."

But plenty of His followers have forced worship of Jesus Christ at the point of a sword. If we were to use your definition of Christianity, then the Catholic Church would not be considered "true" Christianity.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:59PM

Correct. And Catholicism is NOT Christianity.
The Papists put to death MILLIONS of Bible believing Christians AND Jews for six centuries.
Their crime?
They believed the Words of God, and refused to bow the knee to false Religion~ Catholicism.
It's history.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 6:22PM

Margie,

It's not history, it's make-believe. As I've shown you many, many times.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 6:50PM

You lie!

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 8:03PM

Margie,

I don't lie. It is against God's Eighth Commandment.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 8:35PM

You continue to lie and to deny history because you are a fellow Papist, who follows the Pope, and not God.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 9:01PM

Margie,

Again, I do not lie. And, I love history. How many times have I corrected your mistakes about historical events? Remember your claim about John Wycliffe?

I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, True God and True Man. He is One in being with the Father. Praise the Lord that we can share the Good News of Jesus Christ.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 9:19PM

Not sure just who you think you are, but it is history, and history does not lie.
Your CULT has the blood of millions of Martyrs on its hands, and your blatant lying CAN NOT change that!

John II| 10.11.11 @ 10:37PM

Hundreds, Marge, not millions. And the dimwits responsible for those depredations are probably thinking about it in you-know-where just now.

Actually, "history" lies a lot, depending on who's telling it. Ask anyone who's survived a few generations in the Soviet Union.

If you really, really, really are interested in history, Marge, I think you have to be amazed (as I am) that of all the 260-plus Popes, fewer than ten were sure-enough stinkers. That's just flat-out humanly impossible to anyone who spends a lot of time doing history.

That's also a very minor addendum to all the historical astonishments that finally brought me into the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

To which bosom I pray daily that you shall return, Marge. We Catholics need you.

And now back to "Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima" (1952), the musical score of which was composed by that great secular Jew, Max Steiner. A friend of mine in graduate school, a secular Jew, once blurted out a fiercely hostile comment about Christianity. We were both on our third beer on a Friday evening after a grueling week of classes, and this all seemed to me like important stuff, and a great opportunity for argument. So I looked up from my suds and regarded him critically and said, "Just what do you mean by 'Christianity'?" To which leading question, he responded without hesitation: "I mean the Catholic Church, of course--the rest of it isn't serious!"

He thus shut me up instantly, forcing me to look into the matter more deeply.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:17AM

Sorry John II, but you're wrong.
You see, you want to be deceived. It's way more comfortable to your flesh.
I choose reality, by the Grace of God, because I have the fear of God in me.
Without the fear of God, you are lost. You meaning anyone.
Nice guys like you still need to repent and believe the Gospel of God.
And if you truly love Jesus, you'd seek Him His way. That Way, according to the Bible, is Christ Himself~ and His Words and Doctrine.
There simply is no other way.

And as to "returning" to Catholicism, I never was into it. I just did what my Parents wanted because I had no choice. When I became of age, I rejected it outright after coming into a relationship with Jesus Christ, after receiving His Spirit in my heart.

He opened up my eyes to reality, as He does with ALL who the Father gives Him to be saved.
Religion won't save you, John II.
Only Jesus can.
I have always liked you, though you stopped speaking to me some time ago, after a certain Catholic scumbag named Clint tried to insinuate that one of my comments was meant for you, and it wasn't.
Sadly, you seemed to take his word for it.
Well, I cannot control what people choose to do.

And I will always pray for you, to come to Christ, His way.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 11:30PM

Margie,

"Your CULT has the blood of millions of Martyrs on its hands, and your blatant lying CAN NOT change that!"

No, the Catholic Church has not. And, you can't provide any proof to the contrary. Except, of course, Martyrs Mirror, which you always try to use as proof for the bogus claim of millions killed.

This would be the same Martyrs Mirror that praises the Catholic Saint, Ignatius of Antioch. It also states that there was Apostolic Succession.

Why don't you believe the part about Saint Ignatius?

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 11:57PM

Truly God knows. And the book Martyrs Mirror is a factual account of Christian Martyrs. Only Papists deny its truth.
And that book only represents a small number compared to the rest that they murdered. For six centuries.
It is the biggest cult on Earth, still deceiving and being deceived, and sadly Nick, you represent it all too well.
I hope God sees fit to open your eyes.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 12:11AM

Margie,

You didn't answer my question, why don't you believe the part about Saint Ignatius?

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:18AM

You are disingenuously inferring that I do not believe something.
I am not into conversing with you.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 12:35AM

Margie,

I have inferred nothing. You have stated, outright, that Saint Ignatius was not a Christian because he taught Catholic doctrines. Although, at other times, you have claimed that the Catholic Church didn't come into being until a few centuries after Christ, which is confusing.

The fact remains that if you are going to use Martyrs Mirror as an infallible source for the bogus claim that millions were killed by Catholics, you have to accept its praise for Saint Ignatius of Antioch.

But, then you would have to admit some Catholic doctrines are true. Like the Eucharist, primacy of the See of Rome, the heirarchy of the Church, bishops being superior to the priesthood, Apostolic Succession, and calling the Church universal, i.e., catholik.

You would rather keep your head in the sand than deal with these truths in any meaningful way.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:54AM

You have a despicable habit, as is common with Papists, to twist the words and intents of others.

Your comment was, why do I not believe the account of him in the book, Martyrs Mirror.

Therefore, you absolutely have inferred that.

And as I said, I refuse to converse with a snake.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 9:58AM

Margie,

"Your comment was, why do I not believe the account of him in the book, Martyrs Mirror."

Perhaps you missed what I wrote, here: "You have stated, outright, that Saint Ignatius was not a Christian because he taught Catholic doctrines."

Now, how can you believe the account as described in the book Martyrs Mirror, and, at the same time, believe what you have written in the past about Saint Ignatius?

Someone is definitely being slippery here, and it ain't me!
God Bless!

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 2:27PM

Listen punk,

I know what I said, and it was that (if this is the same Ignatious), that he actually wrote that Satan wwas going to be redeemed.

Sorry, but maybe in your perverted world, that makes for a Christian, but not in reality.

Got it, snake?

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 11:19PM

Margie,

This is not true. Show me in which letter Saint Ignatius of Antioch ever wrote such a thing.

Think to yourself: Why would your precious Martyrs Mirror write such praises about someone who wrote what you claim he did?
You were referring to Origen.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 12:41AM

It isn't MY precious Martyrs Mirror, it's God's. creep.

And yes, I got the name wrong, above. It was Origen.
So crucify me, as you are wont to do.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 1:19AM

Margie,

"It isn't MY precious Martyrs Mirror, it's God's."

Are you claiming that Martyrs Mirror was Divinely inspired?

"And yes, I got the name wrong, above. It was Origen."

So, answer my original question: Why don't you believe the part about Saint Ignatius?

"So crucify me, as you are wont to do."

Spare me the histrionics. You mock all the true martyrs who were crucified over the centuries, starting with Christ Himself. You are hardly suffering for Christ by making comments on a website.

I am only sharing the Truth of the Gospel, as I know it, with you. I seek not to destroy you, only to inform you of your errors. I have never called you a vile name, or disparaged you in any way. I continue to pray for you, and your family, and wish you and Victor all the best.

You answer with insults. Which is your choice. Christ said that I would have put up with this, and worse, if I was going to take up my cross and follow Him. As I've told before, you can't hurt me. I continue to love you as a friend, as I have for the past two years.

p.s. I will chalk this up as another fact that you have gotten wrong about the history of the Church! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 2:00AM

"Are you claiming that Martyrs Mirror was Divinely inspired?"

What a nasty little creep you are!

It is God's, it is the Truth, and that is why it is God's.

Jesus IS the Truth, remember? Jn. 14:6.

Martyrs Mirror is an historical account of the torture and murder of God's true saints.

You are a liar, who agrees with the perverted Papists, you have said that those blessed saints of God were heretics, just like they said to them before they murdered them.

You are disgusting.

"So, answer my original question: Why don't you believe the part about Saint Ignatius?"

I never aid I didn't believe it, punk.
Now, you need to repent, liar, as liars cannot see His Kingdom.

Nick| 10.16.11 @ 12:11AM

Margie,

"It is God's, it is the Truth, and that is why it is God's."

All revelation ended with the Apostles, so, no, it is not God's.

"Martyrs Mirror is an historical account of the torture and murder of God's true saints."

No, it's not, it's anti-Catholic propaganda. But, if you believe it is true, then you must believe what it says about Saint Ignatius of Antioch. Martyrs Mirror says that Ignatius was a "God-fearing man" and that he "led a godly life." Your "historical" book also promotes Apostolic Succession.

So, you must believe that Ignatius taught Christian doctrine, correct? And if you ever bother to read Ignatius' writings, you'll see that he taught Catholic doctrine, which he learned from Saints Peter and John.

Were you taught, for years, by any of the Apostles, like the Apostolic Fathers were? No, you were not. How presumptuous of you to claim to know more than they.

"You are disgusting."

This is not an argument, just another of your many insults. This is not speaking truth out of love. This is anger, and lashing out, because you have no answers.

"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." - Matthew 5:22

Please, stop putting your soul in danger, Margie.
God Bless!

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 12:41AM

" A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." - John 13:34-35

"Listen punk, [...] Got it, snake?" - Margie

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 12:48AM

Indeed.
Jesus must not have been loving when he said the following to the hypocrites~ the RELIGIOUS Pharisees, which are the same as the Catholic Papists, who also have murdered God's true saints for centuries, and still have never repented of its false teachings:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." Mt. 23:27-33.

You have been had.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 12:58AM

Margie,

You are far from Jesus Christ, as am I. Christ knew the Pharisees' hearts. You don't know mine, and I don't know yours. I do know that you can't even follow His plain commands. All you can do is keep repeating the same wrong assertions.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 1:10AM

What I am repeating, Nick, is the truth.
You just refuse to listen to it.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 1:32AM

Margie,

No, it is not truth. It is propaganda.

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 2:02AM

Well, then you will have a very rude awakening on Judgment Day if that is what you are choosing to hold to.

Nick| 10.15.11 @ 9:48AM

Margie,

No, I will have a wonderful awakening on the Day of the Lord, if I'm still living in this world.

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 2:52AM

" I do know that you can't even follow His plain commands."

Typical Leftist tactic you're pulling there, Nick.
Just like RCV, the other lying hypocrite, who stands in judgment of me, who doesn't even believe the Word of God is inerrant, nor do you, since you cling to the false teachings of Catholicism.

"Oh, you're not loving!" Really? If I didn't love you I wouldn't bother telling you the truth.

You need to get woken up to the fact that what you are holding to is a huge lie.

The real Jesus is the one in the Scriptures, not the false one created by heretics many, many centuries ago.

Nick| 10.15.11 @ 10:01AM

Margie,

You follow the liberal play-book to a tee. Call names, insult, avoid answering the question.

"'Oh, you're not loving!' Really? If I didn't love you I wouldn't bother telling you the truth."

I never wrote that you were not loving, so, I'm not sure whom you are quoting. Also, you can tell your version of the truth without being insulting and disparaging. If you love someone, you don't repeatedly call them names and use perjoratives.

You can be blunt and frank without being derogatory or snide, can't you?
Still love ya'!
God Bless!

Nick| 10.16.11 @ 12:07AM

Margie,

"It is God's, it is the Truth, and that is why it is God's."

All revelation ended with the Apostles, so, no, it is not God's.

"Martyrs Mirror is an historical account of the torture and murder of God's true saints."

No, it's not, it's anti-Catholic propaganda. But, if you believe it is true, then you must believe what it says about Saint Ignatius of Antioch. Martyrs Mirror says that Ignatius was a "God-fearing man" and that he "led a godly life." Your "historical" book also promotes Apostolic Succession.

So, you must believe that Ignatius taught Christian doctrine, correct? And if you ever bother to read Ignatius' writings, you'll see that he taught Catholic doctrine, which he learned from Saints Peter and John.

Were you taught, for years, by any of the Apostles, like the Apostolic Fathers were? No, you were not. How presumptuous of you to claim to know more than they.

"You are disgusting."

This is not an argument, just another of your many insults. This is not speaking truth out of love. This is anger, and lashing out, because you have no answers.

"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." - Matthew 5:22

Please, stop putting your soul in danger, Margie.
God Bless!

Nick| 10.16.11 @ 12:08AM

Oops! Posted in the wrong spot.

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 1:47PM

"But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8 & 9.

You are NOT a brother, you are a liar.
You are selling another Gospel, and you see what God is going to do with you?

He isn't nor will He bless you!

Nick| 10.17.11 @ 12:41AM

Margie,

You didn't respond to one of my points. So, I will repeat some of them. Which is all you know how to do, isn't it?

You follow the liberal play-book to a tee. Call names, insult, avoid answering the question.
You can be blunt and frank without being derogatory or snide, can't you?
Were you taught, for years, by any of the Apostles, like the Apostolic Fathers were? No, you were not. How presumptuous of you to claim to know more than they.

"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." - Matthew 5:22

Please, stop putting your soul in danger, Margie.
God Bless!

Joseph| 10.11.11 @ 6:51PM

The bigoted Mullah Margie returns. Buzz off bigot.

Joseph| 10.11.11 @ 6:52PM

Mullah, tell everybody here that fifty million ,50,000,000, people were killed by the Papists.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 7:09PM

Buzz off, creep.
Read your history, then get back to us.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 7:14PM

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

Joseph| 10.11.11 @ 7:25PM

This is your fellow wackos version of history, buzz off Bigot.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 8:14PM

Margie,

Yes, read the section on the Second Century, page 105, where it says this about the very Catholic Ignatius of Antioch:

"Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, and a successor of Peter and Evodius, was in the service of the church of Christ at Antioch in Syria. He was a very God-fearing man, and faithful and diligent in his ministrations. He was surnamed Theophorus, that is, The Bearer of God, apparently because he often bore the name of God and his Saviour in his mouth, and led a godly life. He was wont to say frequently, "The life of man is a continual death, unless it be that Christ liveth in us." Likewise, "The crucified Christ is my only and entire love." And, "He that allows himself to be called after any other than Christ, is not God." And again, "As the world hates the Christians, so God loves them." A. Mellin., fol. 15, col. 1, from. Iqnat. in EQist. ad Row. et alibe."

What a great testimony of a Catholic Saint. Thank you for the link.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 8:31PM

The truth cannot be changed, no matter what the current Papists say.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 8:48PM

What truth would that be, Margie?

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 9:20PM

Here comes Nick with the despicable and disgusting round and round game playing.

You're a snake.

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 11:21PM

Margie,

I still love you, my fellow lover of God's Word. You can't hurt me with your words, so, you should stop trying.
May God Bless you, Victor, and the rest of your family.
Yours in Christ, Nick

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:22AM

Nick,

You do not love God's Words~ you try and change them, and side with the deceit that is Catholicism.

You have on more than one occasion tried to make me out to be a liar, along with some of the lowest of the low here, but more importantly~ you reject the Words of God for lies.

And I am not trying to hurt you with my words, I am just telling the truth. You are deceived.

Each time you say you love me, or God bless you, it isn't sincere.
That is how I am judging you, based on what you put forth in our conversations.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 12:39AM

I still love you, Margie, and it is very sincere.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:55AM

Love? I think not.
Deceit, yes.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 2:01AM

Also for the sake of those reading here, if this is the same Ignatious, he taught that Satan would be redeemed.
And THAT is what I pointed out at the time you refer to that we spoke here concerning him.
And THAT is NOT what a Christian would say, think, or teach. Only a man who is deceived. I spoke the truth then, as I do now.
Your trying to obfuscate and paint me as a liar is only putting more nails in your own coffin, Nick the Papist.

RCV| 10.12.11 @ 2:54AM

Margie, the denier of Christ as God, has no standing to discourse on what Christianity is since she is not one herself.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 2:29PM

Listen you flaming hypocrite and lying snake:

I exposed you for the liar and hypocrite you are recently by posting your own lying words.

You say you believe that the Words of God that are written in the Bible are inerrant.

I posted your very words where you say you did NOT believe same.

So go crawl back underneath your slimy rock. You have no authority what so ever to say a word about what I believe or do not believe, punk.

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.

REPENT LIAR!

Margie| 10.13.11 @ 9:28PM

RCV is a blatant liar.
Jesus Christ is LORD.
Repent!

RCV:

RCV| 9.12.10 @ 1:41PM

Margie: the basic difference between our theological views stems from our different understandings of the Bible. You believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God Himself. I don't. My studies over my life teach me that the Bible is a collection of very diverse works: letters, love poems, narratives on the life of Christ, proverbial sayings, Jewish history narratives, prayers TO God. What they have in common is that they were inspired by men and women's yearnings to know God. They were written by human beings. I don't worship a book. That would be idolatry. There is much in the Bible that is just plain wrong, about astronomy, about history, about biology. Human beings are fallible; they get things wrong. Their writings are infused with errors, and with their own ignorant cultural prejudices. I worship God, our Creator, and no one else. I believe with all my being that our Creator was manifest in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The narratives of his life, resurrection and teachings as related in the Gospels written by his followers after his death inform me of his view of the world and how we should live our lives.

RCV| 9.13.10 @ 4:36PM

Gee, thanks for the validation, Nick. I'm sorry if you and I don't see eye to eye on the Bible. It may all be inspired, but it is all translated and written by men, fallible men. It is not inerrant. It has taken me many years to come to that realization, using the brain God gave me, and the discernment given through prayer and study. I believe in God, not in men, none of whom are infallible, including the Holy Father in Rome, to whom I nonetheless look for guidance and wisdom.

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 1:12AM

Yoo-hoo, RCV....?

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:51AM

Margie,

"[...] if this is the same Ignatious, he taught that Satan would be redeemed."

No, that was Origen, not Saint Ignatius, who taught no such thing. Origen might have taught universalism, which I conceded to you, and apologized to you when I found out. Perhaps you, or Victor, missed it.

So, I'll apologized again. It is possible that Origen did teach the heresy of universal redemption, which includes Satan. I was wrong, when I stated that you were wrong, about this one point. Please, accept my apology.

But, even if Origen did teach universalism, the Catholic Church has never taught this error. In fact, those who came after Origen, who claimed such falsehoods, were told by the Catholic Church that they were in error and that universalism was a heresy.

I never "obfuscate" or try to make you look like a liar. I don't know from where you get this idea. I only want to discuss the Word of God and share the Good News of Jesus Christ with whomever may wish to so engage.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.13.11 @ 9:24PM

The Catholic church is heretical, ungodly and destined for the Judgment of God Almighty for its murderous Papacy.

It is a fraud, and the biggest cult on the face of the Earth, teaching the doctrines of demons and leading many, many astray.

You yourself are a prime example of one who is fully given over to believing a false gospel.

I truly hope you repent.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 12:17AM

Margie,

"If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him."

Yes, this is the doctrine taught by the Apostles, like Saints Peter and John, to disciples like Ignatius of Antioch. Who, in turn, taught exactly what Christ taught: The teachings of the Catholic Church.

What doctrine do you claim Saint John is referring to in 2 John 1:9-11?

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 1:05AM

You know full well which false doctrines they are that are taught by Catholicism, Nick. Shall I name just a few of the perversions once again for all to see?

Fine.

LIST OF CATHOLIC HERESIES
And HUMAN TRADITIONS

ADOPTED and PERPETUATED by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE COURSE OF 1600 YEARS

(Compiled by Rev. Stephen L. Testa)

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free.” —Jesus in John 8:32

Notice: These dates are in many cases approximate. Many of these heresies had been current in the Church years before, but only when they were officially adopted by a Church council and proclaimed by the pope as dogma of faith, did they become binding on Catholics.

And doctrine to be true must conform to the Word of God. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)

At the Reformation in the 16th Century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the Religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.

Heresy Date

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310
Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints. 375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted. 394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 593
The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). 600
The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18) 600
The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." 610
The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). 709
The Temporal power of the Popes

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38). 750
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115). 788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850
The veneration of St. Joseph began 890
The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV 965
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV

Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). 995
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3). 998
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079
The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). 1090
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year

By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1st Corinthians 11:26). 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council

The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). 1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). 1220
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia

Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). 1229
The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk

It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. 1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). 1414
The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed

The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Ave Maria, part of the last

It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century. 1508
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible

By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18). 1545
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent

These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). 1546
The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles

True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Galatians 1:8). 1560
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility

This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).

Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILII DEI." -- V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l — Total, 666. 1870
Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church

Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864. 1907
In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools 1930
In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God"

This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2: l-5). 1931
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

CONCLUSION

What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism. Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

Note: Cardinal Newman, in his book, “The Development of the Christian Religion,” admits that ... “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin...” (Page 359).

HERESIES are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called "human traditions" or "doctrines of men". Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times "false teachers" would rise within the Church and bring in "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read 2nd Peter 2:1-3, and 1st Timothy 3:2-5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, for they transgressed the commandments of God by keeping their traditions. “in vain,” He said, "they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:3,9).

The real heretics therefore, are the Roman Catholics and the true orthodox are the Evangelical Christians.

BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4). All true Christians will remain faithful to the religion of Christ as taught in the Bible, and heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 1:30AM

Margie,

"You know full well which false doctrines they are that are taught by Catholicism, Nick."

That isn't what I asked you. I asked what is the "doctrine of Christ" that John is talking about in 2 John 1? I say it is the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is proven by reading the letters of John's disciples, like Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch. What do you claim this doctrine to be?

I can't believe you copied and pasted from Rev. Testa, again. Do I have to show all of the numerous errors that Rev. Testa makes on his website?

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 2:04AM

I just posted SOME of the horendous teachings of your false Religion that are against the Scripture~ and this is what you reply.
As usual.
The truth is not in you.
You need to repent.

Nick| 10.15.11 @ 9:43AM

Margie,

No, you just regurgitated the same false propaganda, from Rev. Testa, that I have refuted in the past. As usual.
I have nothing of which to repent.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 12:56AM

False propaganda, punk?
Your Cult teaches these false teachings~ though you can try to deny it.
You're following a liar, not God.
All of those teachings listed~ your cult indeed teaches, snake.
And everyone who can actually READ knows it.
You are filled with the deceit of Satan himself.
You think that by trying, like your other lying Catholic pals here, that you can change the truth of what Catholicism teaches, or hide it?
It always astounds me that you guys do that.
You say, "oh no! That's NOT what we teach or believe!"
But indeed, it is.
Repent, liar!

Nick| 10.17.11 @ 12:27AM

Margie,

Still can't answer what is the "doctrine of Christ" that John is talking about in 2 John 1, huh?

Again, I say it is the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is proven by reading the letters of John's disciples, like Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch.

What is this "doctrine of Christ," according to you?

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 12:58AM

p.s. PUNK:

Though you try and slander Rev. Testa, and ALL Bible believing Christians, it isn't a matter of HIS saying anything~ it's a matter of truth.
And that list is indeed what your CULT teaches.
Idiot.

Nick| 10.17.11 @ 12:32AM

Margie,

I have not libeled Rev. Testa, in any way. I have proven that he gets simple historical facts wrong. When I pointed this out to you, you threw the good reverend under the bus.

Now you are defending him? Why the change of heart?

Still love ya', Margie.
God Bless!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.11.11 @ 10:42AM

Well,
I grew up Baptist....was licensed as a Baptist Counselor.
I left the Baptist Church at age 26...and sent back the paper-work.
Nevertheless...

Everyone here with an "ear" knows that Ross is an avowed athiest. HE thinks Baptists and Mormons alike are "cults". In fact, he believes Christianity and Judaism are "cults".

You know...over forty years and doing dozens of billions of business with them..... most atheists LIKE doing business with Christians. THEY KNOW THEY THEMSELVES CANNOT BE TRUSTED...BUT SOMETIMES CHRISTIANS AND JEWISH CAN BE TRUSTED.

Interesting isn't it?

When Mormon missionaries come to my door... I always have lemonade for them, and a cool place for them to rest for a few minutes at the very least.

I gently ask them if they have met Jesus via the Holy Spirit. I don't let them get into "theology" until they answer that one simple question.

If one or both answer affirmatively, then we have a nice fellowship. If not...then I try my best to introduce them to Jesus Christ.

Heh...mixed results to be sure.

As a mormon, Mr. Romney believes he is a "God in embryo". He believes he is going to someday be a God of a universe.

Conversely, I just want to "walk humbly with God";
(Micah 6)
Being a future "God" is sorta' like Obama in my mind.
Just my thoughts.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 11:24AM

One thing I do not discuss, but rarely, with my Mormon friends is the belief structure of the LDS church. Many of them have trouble believing that Joseph Smith actually dug up gold tablets that only he ever saw and that only he could translate.

The University of Chicago has one of the actual documents - an old Egyptian text - Smith "translated" into the Pearl of Great Price. The actual translation is anything but that which Smith produced.

Apparently the issue is how one defines cult.

Kingofthenet| 10.11.11 @ 11:49AM

Of COURSE they would have problems if they REALLY thought about, as well as Catholics with some of it's more bizarre aspects and Jew's with theirs, etc. They don't so it isn't a 'problem', Religion is mostly a Social club you are born into and never change.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 12:27PM

King:
"The unexamined life is not worth living".

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:12PM

So. like, religion is just a fraud? And, like, man created God to create man??

Dude...that's, like...soooooooo deep!

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:42PM

Well, King, Judaism provides me with a more clear philosophy than ignoring scum who throw acid into little girls' faces for the crime of going to school. It also doesn't excuse people who cut off three month olds' heads, as you do.

Sammy| 10.16.11 @ 9:01PM

Ah, but you get your facts wrong. Others did see the plates, as documented in the front of the book. And the old Egyptian text you refer to has never been asserted by the LDS to be the text from which the Pearl of Great Price was translated.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:47PM

And some so-called Christians reject the Word of God and replace it with Darwinism.
And some so-called Christians lie and slander their brethren.. all in the Name of God, eh, Ken?

Jacob | 10.11.11 @ 10:46AM

Yes, I won't disagree with the idea that these may well be false religions. I am not knowledgable about all of the 'religions' mentioned here. My primary interest lies in Islam, as that one seems bent on getting rid of anyone that considers Islam not the way to live. But, there is a valid reason why this religion is as active as it is today. Go to thegoodguise at wordpress and you will find out just why it is that Islam is on the rise to attain world power. Caution: the book that is posted there does not conform to your way of thinking. You must actually consider statements that you have never considered during your lifetime to date. Sorry for that, I'm sure you'll make it through the book, though, and leave a meaningful comment. I mean, if you are reading this then you are a person that cares deeply about the future of mankind; that you are interested in understanding how this is all going to end; that you want to be involved. Enjoy the book and don't worry when it bends your mind into a shape you've never experienced.

astorian| 10.11.11 @ 10:50AM

Can we be honest with each other a moment?

Many modern Americans have gotten used to pretending that all religions are pretty much the same. But in reality, if you adhere to a religion, ANY religion, it stands to reason that you believe the core tenets of your faith are both true AND superior to the tenets of all other religions. Oh, you may be far too polite to SAY publicly "My religion is true and yours is false," but if you take your faith seriously, that's undoubtedly what you're thinking, on a regular basis.

Most Jews are too polite to say "Christianity is bunk," but obviously, they DO believe that, or they'd be Christians! Similarly, most Christians are too polite to say "Mormons aren't real Christians," but that's what most of them believe. The Catholic Church, while not using Reverend Jeffress' inflammatory rhetoric, has also stated that Mormons are not Christians (that's why an Epicopalian, Lutheran, Baptist or Presbyterian who wants to become Catholic doesn't have to be baptized again, but a would-be convert from Mormonism does!)

Now, the facts remains that Jews regularly vote for Christian politicians, and many Christians have voted for Mormon politicians. In the end, most people judge politicians on their views and their abilities rather than on their faith. Speaking as a conservative Catholic, I'd sooner vote for a Mormon, Jew, Muslim or agnostic who shares my political views than for a Catholic who doesn't. If Dennis Prager, a Jew, ran for office against a Catholic like Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo or Nancy Pelosi, there's no doubt I'd vote for Prager. And if Mitt Romney is the 2012 GOP nominee, I'll probably vote for him, despite many misgivings (which have nothing to do with his faith).

That doesn't mean I have to pretend Dennis Prager's religious beliefs are the same as mine; they're NOT! Nor is Mitt Romney's faith the same as mine. And that's okay- I wouldn't be voting for either man as Pope! I'd be choosing each man to do a particular job with a particular set of duties.

I'd love everyone to be a devout Catholic, but I've never asked my dentist my barber or my car mechanic if he/she is Catholic. Why would I? That has nothing to do with the job.

If Reverend Jeffress fears that, once in office, Mitt Romney would go back to being pro-abortion, that's a valid concern, and a valid reason to oppose him. On the other hand, if Romney CAN be trusted to implement a conservative agenda, even Southern Baptists should be willing to vote for him.

It's all about the JOB!

John Navratil| 10.11.11 @ 12:35PM

astorian,

Well put! Continuing of the theme, I don't concern myself too much about any candidate for President's statements toward the MAKING of laws. The President isn't in the business of writing laws, just signing them. While the President has the ability to introduce a bill (which you and I don't have), that makes him number 536 in the law making process. The candidate's views are important considerations as it suggests what sort of law he will sign or veto, but his pen cannot go above the signature line.

As you say, it's all about the job.

POST American| 10.11.11 @ 10:52AM

----IF one wishes to be Mormon, or
Freemason, that's their freedom certainly.

What's NOT right is infiltrating OTHER
churches, might we add, genuinely scriptural
Christian churches, for the purpose of
subversion ---as is the case with virtually
the ENTIRE American Christian establishment
(over 90% of even Baptist leadership is,
incredibly, MASON!) ---that IS an issue.

Just week's ago televangelist CON-job,
and, so we now learn, 33rd degree Freemason
Pat Robertson even green lighted the dumping
of a spouse with Alzheimers. NOT ONLY
spitting in the face of scripture 'One Man, one
woman --ONE LIFE' doctrine ---BUT as much
as opening the door of the Mason's 'fave'
op -----EUGENICS for expediency.

----WHY IS THIS NOT BEING TALKED ABOUT?

----------------------WHY???????-----------------------

Add to this the longstanding,
deadly sinister drives for 'ECK--you--MEN---ick--ALL' control ops that have a church now, wishing tax free status, being commanded NOTto talk about 'certain topics' ---and even to follow monthy 'guides' as to what to preach and discuss.

Further, we have to contend with clergy
being recruited by our Globaist hijacked government ------to SPY on their parishoners!

---------------THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.--------------

----------WHY IS THIS NOT BEING SPOTIGHTED??????

Mike Hawk| 10.11.11 @ 1:37PM

Well guys, a full moon nigh. Can you tell?? P-A is out and as looney as ever. He should be fun tomorrow.

George S| 10.11.11 @ 10:56AM

If Mormonism wasn't an issue then why get sore at Jeffress?

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 10:59AM

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is unquestionably a Christian sect. It has an Arian tinge. So does Coptic Chrisitianity. The Arian belief is that Jesus Christ was not co-equal with God, but was created for the purpose of redeeming mankind. Arianism was a broadly-believed viewpoint in early Christianity, and has recurred several times over the centuries. It is considered unorthodox and heretical, but it is within the Christian tradition and has persisted for at least 1800 years. So it may be error, but it's not cultish.

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 11:03AM

There have been two ecumenical councils convened to deal with Arianism. One was the Nicean Council of 325 A.D. The other was the Council of Chalcedon after that. The Coptic Christians and the Maronites did not accept the holdings of those councils, and they are considered legitimate Christian sects.

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 11:10AM

The hoo-hah over Mitt Romney and comments on his Mormonism is coming from people who have no concern about the Christian religion, and are only interested in blackening the name of people who have historical justification for disagreement.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 12:03PM

The Roman Doctrine of (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus):

• “There is but one universal Church...., outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 1:01PM

The Roman Catholic has recognized since the 4th Century A.D. that debate about doctrine is welcome and healthy. There are concepts that are not raised by scripture that are valuable to Christian dogma, such as the existence and nature of the Trinity. Some recognized Christian sects, such as Unitarians, do not believe as the Catholic Church does in a three-pronged Trinity. The Bible does not answer the question of the nature of Christ's divinity. So while the Church may be universal, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only legitimate Christian Church. Even putting the Protestants aside, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church for at least 1000 years.

The claim that, by virtue of a papal bull, all humans must be subject to the "Roman Pontiff" is arguable. While the Pope is held (by the Roman Catholic Church) to be infallible on matters of faith and morals, that principle has only arisen since the bishop of Rome was acknowledged to be the supreme leader of the Roman Catholics, and, as previously stated, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Christian church that is recognized as legitimate.

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 1:10PM

The great value of the Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox versions of Christianity is that the priesthood is vested with the authority to interpret scripture, so that a recognized dogma and a well-regulated belief system can emerge. For Protestants, evey man is his own priest, empowered to interpret scripture in his own way. Naturally, this impedes the development of dogma, which is the reason why so many Protestant sects have emerged since the Reformation.

But nothing in the New Testament requires there to be one way of Christian worship, and in fact many diverse ways of Christian worship that advance the message of redemption and churchly principles that advance redemption seem to be a good idea.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:50PM

WHY do you need a Priest to "interpret scripture"?

Can you read?

And WHY do you trust them to interpret it in a way that is honest and accurate, as opposed to a way that suits their purposes?

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 2:07PM

In early Christianity, priests were needed to interpret scripture because most Christians were illiterate and could neither read nor write. One would think that bit of knowledge would be fairly self-evident.

The rise of Protestantism is significantly due to the invention of printing.

The priests were trusted because they administered to the worshipful in a host of ways, including, in many places, working as the political leaders during the early Middle Ages. So they got the trust of the people and earned it, to boot. Until about the 13th Century, the priesthood in the West (the Roman Catholic priesthood) was highly trustworthy. They even ran the universities, which were an invention of the Catholic Church. People understood the priesthood as serving the peoples' interests when they were serving their own, since until after the period of the Scholastics, the Catholic priesthood's service of their own interests lay in serving the interests of the people; that was how they obtained redemption.

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 2:42PM

Also, of course, until the invention of printing, books were printed by hand. The religious orders did the printing, so they tended to print by hand the religious books and not the secular ones. The exactitude and precision of the religious orders was (and still is) highly respected, since no monk or priest wanted to make an error in printing out God's revealed word.

Of course, since books were hand-printed, there were not a lot of them, so if Joe the Peasant happened by some miracle to become literate, he still wasn't going to go down the corner library and pick up a copy of the New Testament to read for himself.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:22PM

Your reply would make some measure of sense if:

The "illiterate" rabble actually had a chance at an education, or a choice of choosing to "believe" what Priests said, or didn't say.

That's probably NOT self-evident...

NOR is the idea that a Priest would EVER tell an illiterate, uneducated individual any idea that contradicted scripture, would he??? Or is that too cynical to ask??

The rabble had no choice as to who served their "interests".

Nice try...

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 6:16PM

While I recognize the temptation to believe that Western life has always been more or less like what we know now, life in the West was a bit desperate on the intellectual front for the first 900 years or so after the sack of Rome.

Much intellectual progress was lost; there were huge gaps in Western knowledge. A great deal was preserved by the monks, but much was lost forever as the barbarian hordes overran the West and destroyed everything in their wake.

The ordinary people were not taugh literacy because many of their secular leaders were also illiterate, the church having much of the material for learning and the secular world revolving around martial prowess, thinking that intellectual life was somehow for the third son, not the first or second.

The church did not spend a great deal of time educating the populace first, because that was not their job. Their job was to help the people they served to obtain salvation. Secondly, not all religious figures, including the local priest, was necessarily literate either. Interpretation of scripture came from the councils and filtered down to the bishops, then to the locals.

Joseph| 10.11.11 @ 6:55PM

One reason, Doc, is so you don't have everyone with a Bible having his own interpretation of what it means, and then accusing the rest of having a false religion, and not reading the Bible correctly. Religious anarchy.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:53PM

So "dogma" is a good thing???

I'm not a Catholic...I'm not a Protestant, either...But I don't interpret scripture in my "own way".

I read it, and I endeavor to understand it. And if I don't understand it, I read it again. And if I still don't understand it, I'll ask someone whose opinion I trust, and discuss it with them.

I would NEVER rely on a priestly class to interpret it for me, and simply accept their conclusions.

That's not only intellectually lazy, it's dangerous.

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 2:09PM

Many Roman Catholics who are not intellectually lazy are perfectly willing to leave scriptural interpretation to the priesthood.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:23PM

Sorry, but your statement is 100% contradictory.

If one is NOT intellectually lazy, then why would one be "willing to leave scriptural interpretation to the priesthood"????

If there's ONE thing to NOT be intellectually lazy about, wouldn't it be salvation??

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 6:20PM

A person who is not intellectually lazy may accept the interpretations of someone he accepts as an authority, particularly in an area, like religion, where interpretation so easily falls under criticism, as the exchanges here amply demonstrate.

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 2:18PM

Yes, dogma is a good thing; it helps people to accept a system of worship that they find regular and reassuring.

Aside from that, dogma seems to be desired by people, as they tend to develop all sorts of dogmas in all sorts of areas of belief and have done so for thousands of years, and are still doing so.

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:24PM

I think you're confusing "doctrine" with "dogma"...

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 3:53PM

Doctor Right,

The words doctrine and dogma are synonymous.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:12PM

Have you heard about the dyslexic atheist who maintains there is no doG?

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 6:21PM

Thank you, Nick, for making it unneccessary for me to respond.

Joseph| 10.11.11 @ 6:56PM

So are we to accept your opinion and the opinion of your friedn that you trust to state what the Bible means?

W| 10.11.11 @ 7:10PM

All the arguments and points you raise are discussed at length in Karl Keating's book, "Catholicism and Fundamentalism, the attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians."

Every point your raise a an equally valid counterpoint, such as the meaning of rock that Nick stated. You do interpret the Bible your way, and that is not a criticism, just a fact, because there are many who disagree with you, and their points are backed by reference to the Bible also. And you use the Protestant bible that Martin Luther put together by rejecting parts of the pre existing Bible that did not fit with his theology.

These arguments about theology will not be resolved to anyone's satisfaction here on earth. But we can still debate and discuss it in a rational manner.

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:00AM

Terrorism and Mormonism:

Necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri:

SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2008
Tar and Feathers

“Rigdon… made a new translation of the Bible, in which prophecies of the coming of Joseph Smith and the nature of The Book of Mormon are inserted in the 50th chapter of Genesis and the 20th chapter of Isaiah respectively…. the church was “persecuted”… on the 25th of March 1832 Smith and Rigdon were tarred and feathered at Hiram….In 1836 the Kirtland Safety Society Bank was organized (in accordance with a “revelation” to Smith)…. In March 1837 Rigdon and Smith, the secretary and treasurer, were charged with violating the state law against unchartered banks, and they were convicted in October…. In November the “bank” suspended payments and… Smith and Rigdon left the state for Missouri…. [After a] determined attempt to depose Smith… there was organized… a band… bound to secrecy under penalty of death, and formed to punish all who opposed the Church and its supreme head. Numerous crimes and outrages were attributed to them…. On the 4th of July 1838 Rigdon preached his “salt sermon” … urging his hearers to wage “a war of extermination” on those who disturbed them…. and necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri…. There seems to have been no secret about Smith’s cohabiting with other women…. he had a revelation expressly establishing and approving polygamy.” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 843-844, 1926)

Sammy| 10.16.11 @ 9:11PM

Good heavens, you are quoting an encyclopedia nearly a hundred years old? From London? Get some solid historical sources ... please!!

"Charged with" does not equal "did", for example. Nor did Rigdon make a new translation of the Bible ...

Bill| 10.11.11 @ 11:08AM

Considering Lilburn Boggs, both as a private citizen and as governor of Missouri, set himself the task of exterminating the Mormons and destroying all evidence of their existence, it really isn't all that surprising that Brigham Young would have advocated killing him. After all, Boggs chased the Mormons out of their properous digs in Independence, Missouri, and Nauvoo, Illinois, and forced them across the plains to the Great Salt Lake Valley.

Kingofthenet| 10.11.11 @ 11:35AM

Basically these Candidates are saying, you can be Gay if you want...But I prefer you weren't and it's not ideal. Great message to sent to a young gay person. Very Passive-Aggressive.

David W| 10.11.11 @ 11:47AM

I live in Texas, I have a mother who was Baptist and I was raised Presbyterian. My brother, who became a Baptist, has some of the same "cult" feelings about Mormons. I've read some stuff about the background of the Mormons and I don't necessarily follow the "post-Jesus" part.

However, I don't care that Romney is Mormon. I wouldn't care if he were Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Snake Handler or other (Muslim I would have grave reservations however). I care that Romney is a RINO. That Romney has flip-flopped on issues not because he believes he was wrong but in order to win election. That the health care system of Mass was the "foundation" for Obamacare (based upon what I've seen today). I care about the content of his character. That is why I can't support Romney (unless he gets the nomination and then I'll have to, just like I had to support that loser McCain).

Paul from SA| 10.11.11 @ 11:48AM

Suddenly, a candidate's religious beliefs are not an issue? Since when? Since now, because it's Romney, the GOP establishment's choice. Listening to the commentators on Fox News Special Report, you can tell they want Romney's beliefs to be off-limits and for any talk of religion to be considered intolerable. They repeated the poll results showing 68% of Republicans don't care about a person's religion. I guess I'm not one of them.

A person's religion is important to me, as a voter. Each candidate should be questioned about it and voters should use that information to help decide whom to vote for and vote against.

Romney's religion is super-important for the GOP insiders to defend. Otherwise they wouldn't all be attacking Perry over this.

W| 10.11.11 @ 11:50AM

This is just what the Republican Party needs, a religious war. This will really unite the social conservatives, the moderates, liberals, economic conservatives, tea party, etc. to defeat Obama.

I agree that we should not be offended by a rational and respectful dialogue about religions. But this is a political campaign where the primary issue is cut spending, cut taxes, and fight terrorrism. The religion of the candidates has nothing to do with these issues, unless some religion favors high taxes and runaway spending.

It doesn't matter whether the Baptist minister believes he is correct in the use of the word "cult" because the voters will understand the word "cult" in its everyday use as something weird, and not research its true historical meaning.

There is no right or wrong in such a religous debate because each believes his religion as the "right" one. There is nothing wrong with this, but we should realize that ultimately our belief is based on faith in what we believe. None of us can "prove" it because the bottom line is faith.

There is absolutely nothing to gain by this debate, it will hurt each candidate, and only help Obama. The MSM loves to see this religious war on the Right because they believe we are all yahoos anyway. They did not question Obama's membership in Rev Wright's church, or the beliefs of Rev Sharpton and Rev JesseeJackson.

Let's focus on beating Obama and leave the religous debates to our private discussions.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 12:20PM

Such a conflict will damage the GOP and its chances next year. Opposition to Romney needs to be based on his politics not his religion. This debate will only serve to divide the Conservatives from the GOP, as if the party isn't good enough at that. How individual voters choose to evaluate their candidates and on what basis they grant their support is a personal question. Romney has enough issues of a policy nature without this particular issue being raised. Why would the GOP consider nominating someone to the left of McCain? Remember how that candidacy worked out?

fitley| 10.11.11 @ 2:30PM

W| 10.11.11 @ 2:33PM

I understand you oppose Romney and respect your opinion. I am undecided between Romney, Perry, and Cain among the frontrunners. I would prefer Santorum and maybe he will gain some traction.

McCain was not a good candidate, but to be fair to him, the stock market crash in September 2008 killed his chances. He reacted by suspending his campaign for a few weeks while Obama kept up the attack. Also, Bush hurt him because Bush did nothing to explain and defend his Iraq and Afghanistan policies.

But it appears the choice will be Romney and Cain,and maybe they will both be on the ticket.

Anybody but Obama (ABO) is acceptable.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 3:01PM

Hi W:
We are presented with a historic opportunity to consolidate Conservative gains across the country, and what we are given is a candidate of the GOP moderate/left. I simply cannot understand why we would turn to those who have opposed the Conservative Movement since its beginning.

ABO? Perhaps but there is little point in trading Leftist for liberal. What will history say when the GOP gets a generations worth of blame for the failures and disaster that is the Obama agenda? If the end result is to be the same, and under "moderate republicans I believe it will be, should not the actual progenitors get the blame?

W| 10.11.11 @ 7:20PM

Al,
I wish I had a good answer for what to do. Unfortunately we are always forced to compromise to elect a Republican who we hope is more conservative that the Democrat.
Look at Bush 43. He ran as a conservative, but he signed the Kennedy No Child Left Behind Act that greatly expanded the Dept of Education that conservatives want to abolilsh. He signed the McCain-Feingold Act that limited free speech during elections. He invaded two countries without a formal declaration of war which he could have obtained and should have obtained to put the Dems on record. He expanded Medicare to include a drug benefit. He tried with McCain/Graham to pass an amnesty bill. On the conservative side, he appointed Alito and Roberts.

As for Reagan, who is the gold standard, he appointed O'Connor, whose decisions have kept alive affirmative action and abortion.

But look at the alternative: Obama with a Dem Congress led by Pelosi and Reed. Obamacare, the deficit, regulations, Holder, etc.
It does seem discouraging but we have to elect the most conservative candidate who can win.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 7:52PM

Yes W:
The incrementalism is and has been our undoing. Statism takes two steps forward and now and then we move one step back. Can this glacier melt or is our doom already written? I too do not know what to do, but I do fear the day will come when we, like Cato, decide whether to live under Ceasar or die in opposition.

Kingofthenet| 10.11.11 @ 12:02PM

Religion is a social club you are born into. Most people stay in the one they are born into and think it's swell, some leave and find other social clubs that fit their needs better, others who are TRULY enlightened, throw off the yoke of religion entirely. The MOST successful clubs in retaining members are the ones who are the most Demanding(Fundamentalist) or most Life encompassing(Jew's, Islam). To be a Mormon, Jew or Muslim is not to simply go to Church for 40 minutes on Sunday like Catholics, but to live EVERY aspect of your life for your 'Chosen' people, day in and out. It reinforces the bond with the club and makes you feel REAL special.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 12:24PM

Born into my friend? I daresay I differ with you on that one. One should examine ones belief structure and premises just as Socrates taught us. Christianity is the central institution of "Western Civilization" and it is that civilization alone which views personal Liberty as of great value. Long dissertation follows if only space and time were not limited. "Choose you this day whom you will follow..."

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:46PM

King, FIVE Jews just won the Nobel Prize in the Hard Sciences this YEAR ALONE.

Maybe our culture is a little special, as none other has contributed so many discoveries from so few people.

Dave| 10.11.11 @ 12:04PM

Robert Jeffress, and many others, show their complete ignorance when they refer to the differing churches of Mormonism as "mormonism". He and others are simply too stupid to understand the differences, or they intentionally malign all the churches in the hopes of generating votes.

Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance voted in Obama with racism's help.

aware| 10.11.11 @ 12:32PM

It is the cult of Statism that ought to be worrying you. That and the mentality of the Hive.

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 2:55AM

And then there's the cult of anarchy!

Jeamar| 10.11.11 @ 12:47PM

What does Jeffers mean by being part of "historical Christianity." That would mean small groups of people meeting in their homes or in the public fields. Or does he mean one of the first organized Chrisitan churches, Catholicism, in which case Baptists are also disqualified.
We then come to one of the main reasons such groups call Mormonism a cult supposedly because they worship Joseph Smith. That makes as much sense as saying Protestants worship Martin Luther, John Calvin or John Knox.
The 1st Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ [where did they get that name] of Latter-day Saints is,"We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. The llth, of 13 states, "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.

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 1:37PM

Actually, it doesn't. No Protestant holds that Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc holds any sort of authority that Mormons claim Smith does.

Also, the first article leaves out several core principles about God that Mormons believe - namely, that He ISN'T the Ultimate Creator of all things everywhere, or that Christ and the Holy Spirit are also God.

Jeamar| 10.11.11 @ 2:01PM

The 1st Article leaves out core principles that other religions think are essential to their concept of God. Many Christians I am friends with do believe that the above mentioned during the Reformation did carry authority from God Himself.
The main point is letting each religion determine what is essential for its believers. Obviously there are "many houses in this mansion." What I am interested in is a candidate's position on government policy and his/her personal integrity.

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 2:45PM

Authority in a sense, but Mormons take that several steps further, in stating that Joseph Smith more or less sits in judgment with god. No branch of Christianity states such. There is no equivocation there.

Jeamar| 10.11.11 @ 4:52PM

Where did you hear this about JS sitting in judgement with God? My family connections are LDS but this is news. I suppose theological discussions should be carried on elsewhere but I am curious. Any source for this?

Ryan| 10.12.11 @ 11:41AM

I know at times it may not be the "official" stance, but it was something that Brigham Young preached.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinereso.....heaven.htm

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 2:59AM

The Religion of Catholicism didn't begin for a few centuries after Christ's Resurrection.

They soon got to the habit of putting to death genuine Bible believing Christians, and Jews as well for six centuries, never repenting of their false doctrines that led them to do such a thing.

So, in truth, it is Catholicism which has disqualified itself, and is a cult, as well as Mormonism.

Anything that teaches a different gospel than the one Jesus taught in the Bible, is not of God, and cannot be called Christian.

Kingofthenet| 10.11.11 @ 12:48PM

I was an Agnostic for a while, a lapsed Catholic. I had some doubt's and didn't bother to look deeper into them, better to keep an open mind on the subject I thought. Than one day I decided that was the Cowards way out, I looked DEEP, read everything I could(On both sides) and came to the ONLY conclusion my REASON would allow, Religion is BS, start to look deeper, see what makes sense to YOU...Free yourself from the guilt and shackles...Start Here:

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

JR| 10.11.11 @ 2:54PM

Yea King free ourselves from the guilt. Wait thats what sociopaths do, oh well.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:59PM

Religion IS BS, you are correct. God despises it as well.
Do you not know what the God of the Bible actually requires of you?
It is this: To abide in Christ. Jn. 15:9.
It isn't about Religion, it IS about a relationship with your Creator.
And that is the crux of the entire matter!

Bill| 10.12.11 @ 3:18PM

I don't know about religion, but I would advise keeping in mind that there IS a difference between Christ and the Christian Church.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:47PM

Yes, King, and now you support the mass murder of Jews. How enlightened.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 2:09PM

Fascinating conversation. After two thousand years we still ask the same question Pilate asked Jesus, Quid est Veritas? How very sad.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:01PM

Yes, and Pilate asked that question of Jesus, "What is truth?" when Truth was standing right in front of him.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.
Praise His Holy Name.

John II| 10.11.11 @ 10:45PM

And praise Marge too. Damn. You tell it like it is, woman. I await your return to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. There's much work to do!

Where's Occie when we need him?

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:31AM

No~ no praise for me, but for Jesus. Remember the verse about how He delights in saving the lowest of the low?

Well, that's me.. I know what a horrible sinner I am, and the older I get, the worse my flesh gets. Everyone's does. Sin kills us, as it dwells in our members, as the Bible says.

There's only one Way of escape from it, and we all rightly deserve Hell.
Yet, as the verse says:

"While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." Rom. 5:6.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:53PM

I believe that as a Righteous Gentile, Margie is going to Heaven. She knows where I disagree with her, and respects it, because I hold her beliefs in DEEPEST respect (I had MANY devout Christian GFs at TCU, and married a goodie). And, when her tail is not twisted, she is a sweetie.

Otherwise, as a man married to a temperamental, brilliant, and GOOD woman, I recognize the type and unlike the rest of you, I know where the limits are. That's why she never screams at me. I also recognize my frailties and moral errors. Unless pushed by an idiot, I try not to slap and cut at people. Indeed, you can probably name the two guys I routinely cut, and realize that I regularly compliment others whenever possible.

I love your stuff, John II.

somnolence| 10.11.11 @ 2:26PM

John Paul II was a great man, but during his papacy Mormon baptism was condemned. This is hysterically bold, considering The Inquisition, the many concubines of past popes, etc. I've reached the point that I really don't give a damn if the U.S. President is pious, an agnostic or atheist, or a devil worshipper. Religion is a matter of personal choice, although I will agree someone ultimately does have the right to condemn a religion if they agree with my walking out of a church if that invocation is delivered from the pulpit. I wouldn't abide by a theocracy for one minute. I believe Lincoln probably had it all together, as far as church attendance and personal religion was concerned, by not becoming a member of any congregation. The one "religion" I'm wary of at the moment, other than Islam, is Jehovah's Witnesses. When I was active duty in the Air Force I had problems with them knocking on my door delivering The Watchtower, as many don't respect the U.S. flag. But ultimately all of the current candidates meet the personal religion test for me. That should be the least of our worries.

John II| 10.11.11 @ 10:50PM

Actually not too many concubines because there really weren't too many degenerate popes. It warms my heart, however, when folks attack the papacy with such relish: the implication is that the slightest blemish in a 2000-year line is enough to condemn the whole line; yea, even the Church's enemies demand and expect perfection from Holy Mother Church. I reckon.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:36AM

No, John II~ it isn't a matter of personalities, it is a matter of doctrine.
The doctrine caused the Papacy to murder Bible believing Christians.
The doctrine was and still is not biblical, and it has never repented of teaching false doctrine.
That's just the simple truth.

And God never demanded perfection from anyone~ He does command us to obey His Words though, and His Doctrine, according to how it is written in the Bible.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.

As an excellent teacher, you yourself know that words mean things~ how much more His Words? He takes it very seriously when we follow a different gospel, not His own.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 11:04AM

Margie,

"And God never demanded perfection from anyone~"

"Be therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:48

"As an excellent teacher, you yourself know that words mean things~ how much more His Words?"

Yes, how much more indeed. Although, we must follow all of His Words.

"He takes it very seriously when we follow a different gospel, not His own."

Yes, He does. Physician, heal thyself. Christ's Church awaits your triumphant return, Margie.
God Bless!
Yours in Christ, Nick

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 2:34PM

Christ's church already has me, Nick. It's you that needs to come to Him, His Way.

You are following a man and not God.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:51PM

Margie,

I thought that God "never demanded perfection from anyone"?

Margie| 10.13.11 @ 6:06PM

Better tell that one to the Vatican then, and your pedophile "Priests", kiddo.

Nick| 10.13.11 @ 7:41PM

Margie,

Whom shall I inform at the Vatican?
I don't know any so-called pedophile priests, so, I can't help you there. Do you know any?
God Bless!

Margie| 10.13.11 @ 9:20PM

Whom shall you inform at the Vatican?
Anyone at all. They have been teachers of a different gospel, and NOT that of Jesus Christ from the very beginning.
It is why they have been the evil protectors of the continuous pedophile "Priests", as the entire world now knows.
You mentioned the Scripture~ now get to it, hypocrite.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 12:02AM

Margie,

"They have been teachers of a different gospel, and NOT that of Jesus Christ from the very beginning."

Saint Ignatius of Antioch was taught by Saint John the Apostle and was appointed the third bishop of Antioch by the first, Saint Peter the Rock.

Ignatius knew more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ than either you, or I, will ever know, because he was taught by the Apostles.

You would be wise to read his writings, and those of Saints Papias, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome, as well. They were all taught directly by the Aposltes and protected in their teaching by the Holy Spirit.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 12:35AM

You would do well to repent of following a fraud, namely the "Pope."

As I said, the Catholic Religion is a huge cult, who teaches doctrines of demons, and has led astray millions upon millions of people since its beginning. It does NOT teach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
YOU sir, have been utterly had.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 12:52AM

Margie,

But, you have not refuted one fact that I have written, because you can't. All you can do is write the same wrong assertions, and repeat them over, and over again.

I chose to believe the men who were taught by the Apostles, and the Church they protected and handed down to us. Not anti-Catholic propaganda found on the internet.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 12:56AM

You play games unceasingly, and I answer you not according to them.

What you call propaganda is truth.
What you call Christianity is false Religion and a different gospel, not that of Jesus Christ.

YOU have been shown, from the Scriptures repeatedly and for years how they are false, yet you refuse to listen to the written Words of God in the Bible.

You're a liar, Nick. I have conversed with you here for a couple of years, using Scripture to refute the false teachings of your cult.

May God have mercy on you.

Nick| 10.14.11 @ 1:41AM

Margie,

"YOU have been shown, from the Scriptures repeatedly and for years how they are false, yet you refuse to listen to the written Words of God in the Bible."

I have been shown no such thing. I have constantly corrected your many errors, as I have done in this thread, yet again. I, also, instantly recognize when I have made mistakes, as soon as I have discovered them.

"I have conversed with you here for a couple of years, using Scripture to refute the false teachings of your cult."

You, personally, have disagreed with the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, you have never refuted one teaching from the Scriptures, because none of Her doctrines contradict the Word of God.

Thank you for the prayer, I appreciate it.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 3:14AM

"You, personally, have disagreed with the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, you have never refuted one teaching from the Scriptures, because none of Her doctrines contradict the Word of God."

An all out BLATANT lie.
LOL.
And I won't even bother to pull the probably hundreds of Scriptures I've quoted here in refutation of false doctrine.. some of which are in this very thread.

In fact, I just posted a large number of them, with Scripture proving them false, and as usual, you completely and utterly disregarded them.

The ONLY thing you are interested in is setting snares for me personally.
You are a like a snake, along with your other Catholic pals here who try and do the same thing. The Pharisees did it constantly to Jesus, with whatever He said or did.. and Catholics that are bought and sold into this cult do it to Bible believing Christians.

I'd say it's not your fault, but you are choosing it~ choosing false doctrine over Scripture.

I hope you repent (have a change of mind).
But that has to be granted by God.. repentance and the opening of the spiritual eyes is His doing.

Nick| 10.15.11 @ 10:15AM

Margie,

The Scriptures that you wrench out of context to try to disprove the teachings of the Catholic Church, only do so, in your own mind. And, I disregarded your copy and paste job from Rev. Testa's website, because I have already shown you that his assertions are riddled with errors.

How have I set "snares" for you? I ask straight forward questions. Is it my fault that you trust authors who repeatedly get the historical facts wrong?

I hope that you do your own research and stop relying on the anti-Catholic propaganda of others. Try reading the Apostolic Fathers for yourself, not what others have written about them. Usually twisting the Father's words to fit their anti-Catholic bias.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 4:15AM

"I chose to believe the men who were taught by the Apostles, and the Church they protected and handed down to us."

That's your problem. You choose to believe liars.
You need to repent, and believe THE GOSPEL OF GOD. Mk. 1:15.

"Men who were taught by the Apostles" did not necessarily teach the truth, and brought in the heresies of Catholicism that are still being taught today.
These same heresies are what caused them to (in the Name of God) torture and murder millions of Bible believing Christians, for six centuries.

You can be like a Holocaust denier if you wish, and apparently you do wish, but it's the truth.

And Christianity was not "passed down" by physical means, but by the Spirit of God, to ALL who received Him, who believed in His Name. Jn. 1:12 & 13.

His Word is based on truth, not on personalities.
Christians base their lives on His Words, not what men teach.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.

Nick| 10.15.11 @ 11:14AM

Margie,

"'Men who were taught by the Apostles' did not necessarily teach the truth, and brought in the heresies of Catholicism that are still being taught today."

No, this would be impossible because Christ said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.'" (Matthew 28:18-20)

Now, Christ knew that the Apostles were going to die before the "close of the age," so, He couldn't have been referring to only the Apostles and disciples here. Christ was referring to His Church, which He has never left, just like He promised. I'm sorry that you don't believe what Christ said.

Christ also promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever:

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:15-21)

Again, it saddens me that you don't believe Christ when He made these promises.

"You can be like a Holocaust denier if you wish, and apparently you do wish, but it's the truth."

Holocaust denier? Really? And you claim that I use left-wing tactics? Nancy Pelosi or Keith Olbermann couldn't have said it better themselves!

"And Christianity was not 'passed down' by physical means [...]."

Wrong. It was preached, first and foremost, not written in a book. That came later. It was preached to "faithful men" who were to "teach others as well" (cf 2 Timothy 2:2). And, Christ promised that He and the Holy Spirit would be with these faithful men forever. It is a shame that you refuse to believe Christ's Words.

"Christians base their lives on His Words, not what men teach."

This is a strange comment. Christ sent the Apostles and disciples out to teach the entire world to make "disciples of all nations (see Matt. 28, above.) If Christians were not to be taught, Christ's Words make no sense. This is why He left the Church.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 12:48AM

Oh please you little twerp.
What I said was, that LIARS and heretics, those who teach unbiblical teachings, and NOT what Jesus and the Apostles taught are not to be followed.

You're the idiot who rejects the Bible, not me!

Repent, liar.

Nick| 10.16.11 @ 11:57PM

Margie,

I love the Bible, and try to learn more from it every day.

And, here is what you actually wrote:

"His Word is based on truth, not on personalities.
Christians base their lives on His Words, not what men teach."

You may have meant something different, like you claim, but, it is not my fault that you don't write more clearly.

I agree with your premise, though. We just disagree about who are the "LIARS and heretics." Christ and the Holy Spirit protected those who were taught by the Apostles, as He promised in Matthew 28 and John 14, and He protected their writings. You refuse to believe the actual Words of Christ, which is sad.

I hope and pray that you see the Light someday.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 12:51AM

Get right with the God of the Bible Who says this:

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.

Nick| 10.16.11 @ 11:59PM

Margie,

Will you ever explain what you believe the "doctrine of Christ" is, in 2 John 1:9-11?

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 12:39PM

Furthermore, deceitful one:

It is THOU who says that the book, Martyr's Mirror is "prpaganda", yet you are defending one of the Martyrs written within its pages.

Hypocrite!

You have also openly said that the Martyrs written within its pages were heretics, in agreement with their murderers, the Papists.

Hypocrite! Yet you now try and defend one of them, and try and twist like a snake and say it is ME who doesn't believe its pages.

And by the way~ WHO put him to death?

And Mt. 28:18-20 doesn't apply to false teachers, sweetheart.
It doesn't apply to men who called themselves Catholic and taught perverted things like prayer to the dead, transubstantiation, forbidding of Marriage (and everything else on that list I posted).

No, these men are perverts, and have received their just rewards. And those teachers who still teach them are in line to receive theirs.

No way are you or anyone else that twists the Word of God going to escape His Judgment.

You've been had.
Not only have you been had, but you have joined yourself to the same lying spirit of Satan and have become an EXPERT accuser of the brethren!

As to what I said concerning Holocaust denier, you SNAKE~ I said you are like one because YOU have said with your OWN mouth that the Holocaust of MURDERS by YOUR CULT is "Propaganda"~ and that God's true saints and Martyrs were heretics.

Therefore, to be in agreement with those who murdered them, you are a liar like them, and WORSE than a Holocaust denier.
For these Martyrs were murdered in the Name of God, by YOUR perverted Cult.

Repent. lying Papist!

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.

Nick| 10.17.11 @ 12:19AM

Margie,

"Yet you now try and defend one of them, and try and twist like a snake and say it is ME who doesn't believe its pages."

It is you who has claimed that Saint Ignatius of Antioch was not a Christian and taught things contrary to the Word of God, and at the same time, claim that Martyrs Mirror is historically accurate. That is hypocritical.

It is also lazy. You obviously never read the part about Ignatius, did you? Have read the whole book, or just the anti-Catholic parts?

"And by the way~ WHO put him to death?"

The Romans, by order of Emperor Trajan.

"And Mt. 28:18-20 doesn't apply to false teachers, sweetheart."

Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Timothy, Titus, Clement of Rome, and Irenaeus were not false teachers, honey.

"As to what I said concerning Holocaust denier [...]."

Yes, just as Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, Micheal Moore, algore, and their ilk do.

Please explain the "doctrine of Christ" John is talking about, in that quotation.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.16.11 @ 1:50PM

God does NOT bless liars, nor those who preach another Gospel. His Words, not mine:

"But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8 & 9.

Repent, liar!

Nick| 10.17.11 @ 12:22AM

Margie,

It is not I who is preaching a different Gospel than the Apostles, I assure you. Saint Paul was referring to those who would deny the teachings of those sent by the Apostles and their successors.

I hope and pray that you see the Light, so you will not "be accursed."
God Bless!

fitley| 10.11.11 @ 2:26PM

The best part of the story was the end where you imagine Perry speaking and he doesn't sound like a hillbilly. We all have that dream. I love that dream.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 5:08PM

Apparently you react to Texas accents the way I do to Jersey or NY ones. Doesn't mean the speaker is without ideas.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:54PM

Keep in mind that many people thought by his accent that Lincoln was stupid, too.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 3:04PM

"[I]t's hard to understand why [Jeffress] continues to try to inject religion into the Republican primary with his repeated attacks on Mormonism, going from calling it a "cult" to mentioning it in the same breath with Islam, obviously implying it is a threat to the nation."

How does mentioning Mormonism alongside Islam "obviously imply" to anyone except fools that it's a threat? Jeffress also mentioned Hinduism and Buddhism in that same sentence, so unless Americans are so stupid as to consider any non-Christian faith a threat, your assertion makes no sense whatsoever.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 3:31PM

Were Perry's "strong Christian values" responsible for him only inviting Christian speakers to the rally he organized? Isn't his taking the helm of a blatantly Christian rally a violation of separation of church and state? (There was a solitary Jewish rabbi who spoke, but he was a "Messianic Jew," i.e., a believer in Christ, who prayed that "tens, even hundreds of thousands of Jewish people in the last decades have come to their Messiah. And so Lord we pray for the revival around the world and for Israel to come to their own Messiah.")

Perry's exclusionist religious views may be a strong selling point with some social conservatives, but it won't exactly win over many independents or moderate Democrats.

Joe D.| 10.11.11 @ 3:41PM

Mr. Ross, since it appears you are not a practising Christian, I have to educate you on the truth. Mormonism is a cult like Jehovahs witness. These con-men Joseph Smith and Charles Russell have mislead people for generations for the truth. These people are now in hell. Now what is more important keeping people out of hell for eternaty by standing for the truth or worrying about our 70 odd years on earth.

Now I do not think an interview from a pastor which is not Perry's pastor of 2o years is going to hurt the GOP any more than the current perception. Just because we know/believe, by the facts, the Mormonism is a cult and those that practise it are not Christian and will not go to heaven does not mean someone is going to beat them up or kill them in the name of Alla. So Mr. Jefferies was not comparing the religions only making a point.

So please don't lecture people on what they can or can not say. That is for the other side, the PC liberal/socialist side.

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 6:42PM

Joe, I am a barely-practicing Jew.

Again, I might agree with you on Mormonism, but that is not the point.

I didn't say what Jeffress CAN or CAN NOT say.

I said that if his goal is to beat Barack Obama, he should say that stuff in his church, not in front of every liberal network's TV cameras.

You guys are getting into a debate over the merits of Jeffress's words which is essentially irrelevant to my point.

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 7:47PM

Mr. K:
Your point is that we are - once again - shooting ourselves in the foot. Yes indeed and The Left is hoping for more while stirring the pot. It is after all what the GOP does best. Thank you for making the effort.

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 11:08AM

Mr. Kaminsky,

"You guys are getting into a debate over the merits of Jeffress's words which is essentially irrelevant to my point."

Then don't falsely claim that Pastor Jeffress was attacking Mormonism. He wasn't. It would have taken 10 minutes close scrutiny of his remarks and subsequent explanations to discover this fact.

Next time, do some due diligence, okay?

Joe D.| 10.11.11 @ 3:51PM

A couple of other things. First Mr. Jeffress is a Pastor and as a pastor he answers to God for everything he says and does. He is not suppose to be a politician and out to please the most people so he can get elected. He is out to please God and get as many people in heaven as possible.

Finally, being a Christian and excepting the Bible as truth is not small minded. The Bible and Christ is how we know the tennats of Mormonism is wrong and a cult. I take exception, as most Christians do, with this bigotry that has crept in to this once great Christian society.

somnolence| 10.11.11 @ 3:58PM

Suppose I was to say that the Baptists are a "cult"? Now I personally don't believe that, but if I ever encounter a Baptist who insists that Mormonism is a cult I won't hesitate to say "no more than your religion". There, I do hope that I pissed somebody off for what it's worth. I'm so tired of this crap. Perhaps ALL organized religions are really cults. I hope all you anti-Mormons find your devil under the woodpile somewhere between your house and Salt Lake City. For crying out loud!

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:12PM

Why and what if?
To that I say this: the Bible is the standard. At least it is for genuine Christians.
Religion is one thing, and following Christ is another. Christians are followers of Christ, and to be a Christian you must follow His Words. There is NO other way you can call yourself a Christian!

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's Who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.

I'm talking definition of Christianity, not choice of Presidential candidate.

somnolence| 10.11.11 @ 4:06PM

I'm so glad that Joe D. knows who is in "hell" and who isn't. You must be Gabriel's right hand man.

somnolence| 10.11.11 @ 4:10PM

Indeed, all this anti-Mormonism may drive me solidly into Romney's corner if I detect too much of it at some moment next year. Right now I support Cain, but all you religious nuts just keep on fanning the flames. If Romney is the nominee I won't hesitate to vote for him. Endorsement would be another matter, but my vote he would receive.

diviz| 10.11.11 @ 4:30PM

If only there were some sort of a Wall seperating church and state so that people would disregard extraneous view points that bear on the private life politicians rather than their public duties.

Simon Templar| 10.11.11 @ 4:35PM

Ross, maybe you could explain to me why one pastors opinion out of 310 million people in the US is the last thing the Republicans need?

It is funny, I have never seen a headline like this in a liberal magazine. There is no, "Reverend Wright is the last thing The Democrats need."

You are buying into and promoting the idea that conservatives and Republicans have to be perfect, have to apologize and explain themselves for everything, and are inherently vulnerable and non-deserving of power, rule, and political sovereignty. Stop it.

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 5:03PM

Simon,

Because that is the one pastor that every media outlet will rush to in their desire to save Obama.

I made the Reverent Wright point already: The media is out to get the GOP and they were out to elect, and now protect, Obama.

I did not say anyone has to be perfect, but those who want to beat Obama have to recognize that it is not a level playing field.

Jeffress should say those things to the people who attend his church, not to CNN or MSNBC.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 6:39PM

"Jeffress should say those things to the people who attend his church, not to CNN or MSNBC."

Ross, that's your perspective. But Jeffress has a different set of priorities. As he sees it, God has given him, at least for the moment, a much more visible pulpit from which to preach the evils of following Mormonism and perhaps to bring more souls to Christ, which is far more important (in his view) than any earthly concerns about mortal politics. This is doubly meaningful when the audience is made up of CNN and MSNBC viewers who, in his view, are in even greater need of hearing God's truth than, say, the blessed true Christians who watch the High Holy Faux News.

This is what happens when folks want to inject religion into the political arena--it comes back to bite them in the ass. But they keep doing it.

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 6:43PM

Maybe. But at the end of the day, I bet Jeffress would much rather elect Romney than Obama. And if that's the case then he should stay this stuff in private, or in his church, but not on TV.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 6:54PM

Wouldn't that violate the commandment to proclaim the Gospel throughout the land? Certainly Jeffress might prefer that Romney win in '12, but God's preference that he use every opportunity to debunk false prophets and save souls. You're asking him to put secular concerns above spiritual ones, but if he did that it would be a betrayal of his mission to save souls. "For what does it profiteth a man if he shall gain the whole world, and loseth his own soul?" and all that.

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 7:38PM

I just don't buy that Jeffress would somehow be doing less than his pastorly duty by not getting in front of every TV camera.

John II| 10.11.11 @ 11:09PM

Yeah--right. But you have to admit this much, Ross, or you wouldn't be a practicing writer, ferchrissake: Prudence is the mother of the virtues, not the king.

Or . . . words to that effect. This is really weird. I haven't been in an argument like this since graduate school, and I'm in no mood to be bested by a semi-secular Jew. Return to the faith of your fathers, Ross, and THEN see what you think!

And now back to "The Jeweller's Shop" (1990), in which Burt Lancaster does penance for his title role three decades earlier in "Elmer Gantry" (1960). What the hell is it about getting older that makes some people wiser?

martin j smith| 10.11.11 @ 4:44PM

I am neither pro or anti Mormonism applicable to Romney or any one else. But, I do care about Romney's being honest about his political agenda. I do not trust the push by the Republican Establishment forcing Romney on us. That is what I oppose.

somnolence| 10.11.11 @ 5:16PM

I hope that Palin doesn't endorse anyone. Christie's endorsement today tells me that Romney has a sense of desperation due to the surging Cain.

Robert Small| 10.11.11 @ 6:40PM

Isn't it ironic that the pot (the good pastor) is calling the kettle (Mormonism) black, and we have conservatives on this forum defending him. No offense, but seeing one religious faction declaring supremacy, both morally and theologically, over another religious faction is like a two-year-old arguing with another two-year-old that his scribble-scrabble painting is far more artistic and beautiful than her scribble-scrabble painting. Religion is a quirky thing, for absolutely no empirical proof exists for its miraculous, physical-law-transcending underpinnings; rather, by definition, religious followers rely on faith, and that's all well and good. To this agnostic, it's dangerous to fall into the trap of saying your faith -- which can't really be tested by anyone else -- is better than the faith of someone else. You're playing a game of cards without the use of cards, so why act like you have a full house when you can't really prove it? A Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian claiming a Mormon is not a Christian is one thing; it's brave of him to suggest that someone who believes in the divinity of Christ, but may have a different spin on the details, is somehow not a Christian, when each "real" Christian faction retains important distinctions from its brethren. But the real ironic damage is done when one of those "proper" folks calls a Mormon a cult follower. No offense, but calling the Mormon dude a weird cult follower while simultaneously bowing down and devoting your life to an invisible force and claiming submission to it (someone you've never met apparently died for you, and if you don't believe in him, you're screwed; you must pray X times a day for Y reasons; etc.)... it doesn't much help your case.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 7:05PM

Christians defend the truth, actually, it isn't a matter of personality.

And Christians don't go by blind faith, but by faith in the Son of God, Who proves Himself true and real to those who come to Him.

And we don't just believe in thin air, or in some fantasy, but the evidence for God is all around you.
Knowing Him personally, or rather being known by Him is nothing short of amazing Grace, and without Him we would all be destined for Hell.

"But if one loves God, one is known by Him." 1 Cor. 8:3.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will not cast out." Jn. 6:37.

John II| 10.11.11 @ 10:55PM

Whoa. Again, Marge, you are already a Catholic, er, with only a few slight adjustment. Don't fight it, woman. Return now to the all-embracing bosom of Holy Mother Church.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:39AM

John II, there's only one bosom I want~ Jesus'!

Robert Small| 10.12.11 @ 10:58AM

Thus the religious conundrum. You claim you defend the truth, and that the "Son of God" is your proof. No proof exists for his being the "Son of God" or having died for your sins, other than a "divinely inspired" book that, whoa, mortal humans wrote after having dictated it over long periods of time. (I presume the inconsistencies btw the oral tradition and what was actually written down were also divinely inspired?) I'm curious as to the "evidence of God" -- where exactly is it?

I guess, by your logic, I'll be "destined to Hell" -- a hell I don't believe in, a hell that, incidentally, not all Christians believe in! Are they, the non-hell-believers, part of cults too?

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 11:12AM

Mr. Small,

Reason can only take you so far. Then you need faith, which is a gift from God. You have to ask for it, and mean it. Try it sometime. You will be amazed beyond words at the results.
May God Bless You and Keep You.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 9:51PM

Robert,

Jesus tells us we need to be "regenerated from above" (Jn. 3:3). He explains that it's a spiritual birth, being born of God's Spirit.

He says in the same chapter that everyone's born once physically, but in order to see the Kingdom of God, we must be born of His Spirit.

You see, God IS Spirit:

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Jn. 4:24.

It is probably a new concept to you, but nevertheless, a true one.

Wouldn't you want to know if there's a way for you to be saved from Hell, to which the World is heading, apart from Christ?

You see, because of the fact that Christ died for the Sin of the World, He deserves our devotion, and our very lives in His service.
And He makes it easy, because He is pure love:

"Take My Yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Mt. 11:29.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:59PM

Mr. Small,

Please tell me of a truly secular State (and Israel does not count, come on) that has an above replacement birthrate and is mostly agnostic and secular. Examples of such states which can be defined as secular are Greece, France (more practicing Muslims than Catholics), the UK, NZ (from personal experience--and their birth rate is 2.1 due to the more religious Maori), Denmark, etc.

Has to be above 2.1. Turkey doesn't count, either. Play fair. I will wait. Use as a source the CIA Factbook. (Time given while failure commences)

Therefore, secularism is antisurvival. That is all ye need to know.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 6:47PM

What's really amusing about all this is that Mormons are among the most conservative people in the U.S. I could understand getting into a dumb pissing contest with, say, Episcopals who elevate gays to the priesthood or Unitarian Universalists, because you won't lose many GOP votes from that quarter. But aside from Southern Baptists, I don't think there's a religious group that votes more consistently Republican that the Latter-Day Saints.

God must love Obama to keep blessing him like this.

Brian B| 10.11.11 @ 9:02PM

The author of this article is correct, this is a political distraction. However, the question has be asked in what world view is this an issue? I have actually met Pastor Jeffress several times and spoke with him on each occasion. He was the Pastor of the Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, Texas at the time and I attended services there. I can honestly say he is genuinely one of the nicest and kindest people I have ever met. However, with that being said, he is a man with a heart for God. He does not care a bit about political outcomes beyond his service to God. He made the statements he made purely from the perspective that peoples souls and if the have a personal relationship with Jesus is far more important to him than ruffling feathers. He has and always will speak truthfully about the Bible and Jesus. That is what he did and he is loosing no sleep over it. On the flip side of this coin we have this article in which the world view of the here and now and political power is of concern. Something tells me that Pastor Jefress is no a bit concerned about it, as would any person who loves Jesus. I think Gov. Perry falls into that category. I do not see them changing their view points due to this criticism. In fact, this criticism is only more proof to them that they were right to begin with in this instance.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 9:24PM

Well, apparently, Perry disagrees that Mormonism is a cult.
No Christian would say that.

Spambalaya| 10.11.11 @ 11:14PM

Margie, who are you to judge Perry's relationship with Jesus Christ?

John II| 10.11.11 @ 11:21PM

Can't we all just hug one another and be nice?

And now back to "Friendly Persuasion" (1956), in which Gary Cooper plays a Quaker who feels like a Mormon. Anthony Perkins plays his usual flummoxed self.

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 10:00PM

JohnII, I wish I had had the luck to be your student.

RCV| 10.13.11 @ 4:58AM

And I as well...

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:40AM

That's what Christians do, Spammy. It's what you do everyday too.
You have done it here towards others.
Think about it.

POST American| 10.11.11 @ 10:47PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

"Understand, since the 1950's
the entire Vatican has been completely
infiltrated by Freemasonry."
-MALACHI MARTIN
(Catholic Scholar)

"---Well over 90% of the American
Baptisty leadership ---is now full-blown
Freemason. That's the REALITY."
-WILLIAM STILL
(scholar/ doc film-maker
"The Money Masters')

IF one wants to be a Mormon and/or Freemason
---that's their affair.

It's when the matter of deeply coordinated,
deeply funded, long term infiltration of
other, shall we say genuinely Christian
churches takes place ---we run into problems.

The Social Darwinist 'benny violent' agendas
---to say nothing of ritual worship of Lucifer
--in in NO way, shape or form compatible
with Chrisitanity. Christ himself pointed
out one can NOT serve 2 masters.

The core obsession with 'selective breeding'
and EUGENICS is devastatingly clear.

AS the INTER-national USURY--TREASON
and EUGENICS OP steps into the light
----------------------UH-------------------------
we'd say, this is NO time to be equivocating
on just where Christ Almighty stands on
the matter of defilement within the temple.

THUS, it's urgently crucial at this
moment is to CLEAN OUT your churches.

AGAIN, if the bennies and rectum worship
is too entrenched ---GET OUT and start your
own. Keep it small. Keep it REAL.

From Arminian heretics and 33rd degree
Freemasons Pat Robertson and Billy Graham
--across the boards ----the infiltrations are
legion and utterly UNDENIABLE.

--STOP BALKING.

You know what this means and what you
need to do.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:44AM

Say, POST American,

All one has to do is stick to the Bible, seek His wonderful Face in prayer, and get with those who do the same, and they will be truly safe from ALL deceit.

Jesus says:

"My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's Hand." Jn. 10:29.

wayne| 10.11.11 @ 10:57PM

....about the only thing missing from this CCC (Cu Clux Christian) event was that the participants left their white sheets at home!

John II| 10.11.11 @ 11:14PM

Actually, about the only thing missing from this thread is your head, which is currently stuffed up your ass.

(I've been waiting for days for an opportunity to say something like that. Thanks, wayne.)

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 11:15AM

Ha-ha!
Good one, John II.
All of your other comments have also been superb.
God Bless!

Bill| 10.12.11 @ 3:15PM

Wrong; I carry my white sheet in my back pocket at all times, just to be sure I have it when I need it.

BackToBasics| 10.11.11 @ 11:28PM

Jeffress did Perry no favor. I think he acted alone. I've known Southern Baptist pastors. I think the great majority of them would back Perry. Many Southern Baptist pastors are quite in line in with the Republican Establishment in their political leanings and Perry is sufficiently establishment to get their backing. They'd pick Perry over the other evangelicals such as Cain or Bachman. Yet if Perry dropped out, based on what I've experienced, I think many would throw their allegience to Romney rather than Cain or Bachman. I think many would prefer a Mormon establishment candidate to an evangelical conservative one.

If toward the end of the primaries it came down to Romney and Cain, it would be interesting to see who Jeffress would back. If it was Romney I would not be surprised.

BackToBasics| 10.11.11 @ 11:46PM

To clarify a little more, it's not that Jeffress wanted to hurt Perry. I think there was a little panic in Jeffress based on Perry's drop and perhaps even some of it was because of Cain's rise. Making such statement was not well thought out in any event to say the least.

POST American| 10.11.11 @ 11:56PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

ALWAYS IMPORTANT to remember,
the Ku Klux Klan was founded by the
Pope of Freemasonry, the former Confederate
general and double agent, Mr. 'Order Out
of Chaos' ---close friend of fellow Mason
Karl Marks ---the 'CON-trolled dialectician'
Lucifer adoring WIZ himself
----------ALBERT PIKE...

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 12:48AM

Don't worry Post American.
As my Grandmother used to say, "It'll all come out in the wash."
LOL.

I am being sarcastic, of course, lest anyone think I'm agreeing with you here.

You say things but don't explain them.
What if someone doesn't know what Free Masonry is? I don't, and don't want to or need to know.
The Lord Jesus Christ keeps me safe because I trust in Him.
How about you?

Bill| 10.12.11 @ 3:12PM

I always SUSPECTED that Albert Pike was at the bottom of it!

Only 1 Truth (only one Savior)| 10.12.11 @ 1:06AM

When any pastor says: "Mormonism, islam, taoism, confucious, hinduism, budha, and the lot are false doctrines that only deceive and lead to ruin" well....that pastor is 100% correct.

And American people know this.

No, not the Ross Kaminskys who live in the sheltered worlds of their media landscapes. A man who has never worked the soil with his hands. Wouldn't even know what animal husbandry is. He doesn't do roof work. He cannot fix your plumbing problem. He cannot identify basic woodshop tools and their purposes.

Oh, but he can get all excited about what a Christian pastor says.

Because the Ross Kaminskys think they're smart. Even though Ross has no god except himself. And he is so delusional as to not know he is on the personal road to Hell.

Personal arrogance does not the mind inform, Mr. Kaminsky.

Nobody to blame but yourself for your own stupidity. Your own ego that won't let you fall to your knees and worship God Almighty.

That is your own undoing; that is why you don't have a mind or a writer's hand that is worth following.

Please stop pretending.

Spambalaya| 10.12.11 @ 8:33AM

"Personal arrogance does not the mind inform, Mr. Kaminsky."

Winner, unintended irony prize of the week.

Brain Chingo| 10.12.11 @ 6:54PM

No, what we don't need is Barack-Lite Romney.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.11 @ 8:10PM

Folks
I just got a book today on my computer...
"BEAUTIFUL OUTLAW"

(Margie, I will buy it for you. Read the reviews at amazon)
I read it today. I haven't had so much fun since my days at Baylor sitting at the feet of Christian masters.

Margie| 10.12.11 @ 10:07PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAg2NDcOt4

Stan Baggett| 10.12.11 @ 8:10PM

How did he imply that Mormonism is a danger to this country, Ross. By mentioning it in the same sentence as Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism? Really? Really? That's a reach. I agree that it might not have helped any GOP candidate but the man answered the question with his heart and unashamedly. There is only one savior: Jesus Christ. The other religions don't recognize him as that. Hence, they are false religions. Some may not want to believe it or admit it but it's true.

Dan| 10.12.11 @ 8:31PM

Theologically, I completely agree with Jeffress; however, I am voting for a president, not a religious leader, and candidates are wise to take this line (as a Christian, I would be downright uncomfortable doing what Santorum, etc. are doing in saying that Mormonism is Christianity, and they should not feel obligated to do so).

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 10:01PM

G-d Bless, Nick.

Nick| 10.13.11 @ 12:09AM

Happy Sukkot, Occam.
Shalom and be well my friend.

RND| 10.13.11 @ 3:13AM

I am curious as to how people arrive at pivotal decision, their key choices in life.

What informs their minds and inner souls when making a key decision?

Shouldn't it be troubling to you that a well educated businessman from a very successful and rich family, a man who has travelled the world, met so many big leaders in business and government, shouldn't it trouble you that he

that he believes in utter baloney?

Choosing your personal faith is not like choosing where you will vacation this coming summer.

If a reader here has not sat and tried (desperately) to listen when those Mormons come around to share their views....well, what have you been doing?

Where have you lived?

Those Mormon boys and their bicycles are everywhere.

Yes, they are young. Young and deluded. So I've tried mightilty to listen kindly to adult Mormons present what they believe. Multiple times.

And: It's hokey.

You can listen for hours while offering them something cool to drink. Listen for hours -- and get nothing but nonsense gibberish.

And you're willing to trust a man that claims

What a man claims as his faith is more important than the schools attended, jobs held, even wife chosen.

It is very revealing.

And, please, it is not like there are not other options. Romney or Hunstman are not all there is out there.

This is a serious issue. If Mitt Romney has chosen Mormon belief as that which he carries in his soul, then:

He's placed his 100% backing of Mormonism for the salvation and care of those he holds dearest like (I would hope) his wife and children.

Sorry, that is not good enough for me.

I cannot trust a man who'd admit to being part of a grand cult. And who is so foolish as to pass that cult on to his own children.

There is a lot about Mormonism that no one here seems to know. I think that not one poster
above has lived more than 10 years of his or her adult life in northern Utah or southern Idaho as a non Mormon.

We can thank the pastor from Dallas for raising what should be a foundational question about Mitt Romney's (or Huntman's) qualifications. Any candidate's qualifications.

It is the most important question of all: What do you believe? What informs your soul?

I say any follower of Mormonism is severely mentally deficient or has willfully chosen evil. Especially one as old as Mitt. He should have ample life experience to know what is truth.

(Plus if Mormonism is so good....Harry Reid? Okay, bad argument, I know. Ted Kennedy, Dukakis, Pelosi, and the Cuomos claim to be Catholic)

POST American| 10.13.11 @ 5:56AM

--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------

----Take back your space.

START by throwing out your mind control
TVs and those mercury filled, flicker rate
and eavesdropping enabled---RED China
manufactured, UN mandated, flourescent lights.

THEN clear the Freemasons and their chumps
out of your churches --along with the
Rock--ef--L--O subversion op
'Council of Churches' fronts.
Likewise, the 'Clergy Response'
government informers.

-------------------THERE YOU GO!---------------------

Bernadette Jacobson | 10.13.11 @ 8:39AM

Who or why does Rev. Jeffress think he is the only person to decide what religion another person is? He sounds to me a great deal like the Pharisee's of Jesus time who were the only people Jesus had contempt for;they held them selves up as a paragon of virtue and scorned others.

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 12:53AM

He didn't "decide what Religion another person is."
He knows what the Religion of Mormon is, and he rightly called it a cult.

Seth Chodosh| 10.13.11 @ 2:25PM

".... Obama's attendance at the anti-Semitic Wright's America-hating church ...."

The CONSTANT pandering on the extreme right-wingnutz sites, in using the un-substantiated term "anti- semitism" when ever they want to..with out any proof of such, is fairly revolting...and quite disrespectful of the real and actual anti-semitism which can be documented among many far-right-wing groups...and dare I say, among many readers of this particular site...?

As a Jew... I rarely give any credence to the wingnutz shrill accusations of anti-semitism, UNLESS THEY CAN QUOTE--CHAPTER AND VERSE--and not just "quote" BUT provide ACTUAL VIDEO DOCUMENTATION of their claims.

The Right Wing, in this Country, have been traditionally and historically much more anti-semitic, then their ""claims against the left being so

Margie| 10.13.11 @ 6:19PM

Dear Sir,

The Rev. Wright's own words speak for themselves.

And as to the blatant anti-semites that post here, they don't get away with it much, because people like me and other Christians and conservatives blast the daylights out of them, and for a couple of years now.

What you call "far Right groups", are really and truly Leftists. Rev. Wright falls into that category.

Us Right Wing Christians (in the true sense of the word) are some of the best friends the Jewish person could ever want to have, believe me.

The one and only living Messiah, Christ Jesus has made us believers into spiritual Jews.
And now, we invite you back into His fold.

Seth Chodosh| 10.13.11 @ 10:35PM

Margie:

I you and your ilk are " the best friends the Jewish people can ever want to have"..then... The Gawdess SAVE US ALL... save your "living messiah" crap for Church, please..and ya know what you can do with your "invite"?.......

Margie| 10.14.11 @ 12:51AM

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God." Jn. 3:18.

porno | 10.19.11 @ 7:06PM

wow du går du din vej tilbage, jeg jeg, at jeg

can bonomo love me back | 2.24.12 @ 4:06AM

I absolutely reject your request. Let Margie do the requesting, not you. I have no respect for you or any other Rightist, save for sincere minarchists, and will show you no respect. thanks

The American Spectator

Political Hay

False Religions and Real Distractions

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (427) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Moe Blotz| 10.11.11 @ 8:44AM

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 1:40PM

Patrick| 10.11.11 @ 1:51PM

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 2:07PM

Roy| 10.11.11 @ 5:36PM

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:40PM

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 7:26PM

videos | 2.18.12 @ 9:49PM

sikiş | 2.18.12 @ 9:45PM

Ivan Ivanovich| 10.11.11 @ 8:45AM

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:23AM

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:11PM

business | 2.18.12 @ 9:52PM

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:07AM

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:38PM

bebek | 2.18.12 @ 9:54PM

Alan Brooks| 10.11.11 @ 5:26PM

TrueBlue| 10.12.11 @ 11:12AM

Sean| 10.11.11 @ 8:53AM

KennesawJack| 10.11.11 @ 9:05AM

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:16AM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:34AM

KennesawJack| 10.11.11 @ 11:04AM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 12:50PM

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:30PM

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:14PM

KennesawJack| 10.11.11 @ 9:38PM

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:23PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 12:02PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 12:20PM

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 1:57PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 2:21PM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 2:51PM

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 4:34PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 5:20PM

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 5:34PM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 12:51PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 2:09PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 2:52PM

Boar Hunter| 10.11.11 @ 2:14PM

JimP| 10.11.11 @ 4:02PM

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:20AM

Brian61| 10.11.11 @ 1:56PM

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:21PM

Patrick| 10.11.11 @ 1:58PM

Dan| 10.16.11 @ 8:38PM

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 9:06AM

C Smith| 10.11.11 @ 11:27AM

Ryan| 10.11.11 @ 12:03PM

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 9:08AM

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 9:29AM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:48AM

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 12:31PM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 12:52PM

Al Adab| 10.11.11 @ 1:58PM

Ross Kaminsky | 10.11.11 @ 4:54PM

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:24AM

Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 9:27PM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 10:39AM

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 12:08PM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 1:03PM

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 2:45PM

Doctor Right| 10.11.11 @ 3:12PM

canuckistani| 10.11.11 @ 4:35PM

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:28PM

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 4:45PM

Jack in Wi.| 10.11.11 @ 6:37PM

Quartermaster| 10.11.11 @ 7:33PM

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 8:41PM

Nick| 10.11.11 @ 9:18PM

RCV| 10.12.11 @ 2:44AM

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:19AM

Doctor Right| 10.12.11 @ 9:28AM

Nick| 10.12.11 @ 10:17AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.11 @ 7:27PM