Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins)
			Archive

Posted by: B J Sikes ® 12/10/2002, 11:56:19 Author Profile Mail author

I could go on and on about their fairy tail beliefs (many of which, few members even know about, it is so embarrassing to the church!)... Moronism teaches that God was once a man, and that man may become a God (through moronism, of course). Mormons are taught that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob with his wives having spiritual children. They believe that Jesus and Lucifer (Satan) were once spirit brothers, had a big ol' war in Heaven and the only reason we worship Jesus is because he won. Interestingly enough, the spirit beings that did not fight valiantly for God come to earth as blacks, while those who fought valiantly come to earth as whites. Until very recently, blacks could not be priests because they were of course "spiritualy inferior". They also once taught that Mary was not a virgin and had sex with Joseph, while Jesus was a polygamist and was married to Mary Magdelene, Martha and the other Mary. And did you know all of those pastey, blue-eyed natives of Utah are actually native americans? Yup, it's true. According to mormon doctrine, some Israelites departed from the Middle East about 600 BCE, before the time of the Babylonian captivity and arrived in America. A patriarch Lehi had two sons: Nephi (from whom the Nephites descended) and Laman (from whom the Lamanites descended). The two tribes lived in a state of continuous feuding and warfare. Eventually, the Lamanites exterminated all of the Nephites circa 385 CE, and became the ancestors of present day Native Americans. God gave to Native Americans their "red skins" in order to visually separate them from those who continued to follow God's commandments and teachings. Why our mormon friends do not still have red skin is a bit of a mystery. Jesus even came to America after his resurrection where he performed miracles, delivered a sermon similar to the Beatitudes and selected twelve disciples from the Nephite tribe. And none of this would have been known to those clueless scientists and historians if it had not been for Joseph Smith, who came up with these revelations with the help of magical "seer stones" which he found with a diving rod. At the age of 14 Smith received a visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ who both told him all churches are wrong, their creeds are an abomination and the professors of those creeds are corrupt. Despite the church's best attempts, absolutely nothing has EVER been dug up to support Joseph Smith's claims... it's as if he DREAMED them up! Imagine that! In fact, the one piece we do have which Joseph Smith used was rediscovered in 1967 -- The original papyri, allegedly written by the hand of the Old Testament Prophet Abraham, and used by Joseph Smith to translate the Mormon scripture Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, it has since been shown to be an Egyptian funeral text, called a "Book of Breathings" written some 1500 years after Abraham's day! Even the mormons admit Joseph Smith was a little hard to swallow, but they support him 100% as a prophet! The Mormon publication, "The Doctrine of Salvation, V.1." on page 188 states that "Mormonism so-called stands or falls on the history of Joseph Smith. For either he was a prophet, with divine calling, name and empowerment, or he was one of the greatest charlatans the world has ever known". If Joseph Smith was a true prophet from God, then his prophecies should have come to pass. However, there are plenty of cases where they did not. For example, Joseph Smith claimed that before 1891, and before he reached the age of 85, Jesus Christ would return. Well, Joseph Smith did not reach the age of 85 - he was murdered on the 27th of July 1844. And we know that Jesus Christ didn't return before 1891, bringing an end to the present world order. Smith prophesied in 1832 concerning the American civil war that the British would get involved and the war would extend to all nations. Smith also predicted the demise of the government of the state of Missouri which had displeased him - still waiting for that, too. Well, I could go on for a much longer time.... but I do not want to further embarrass our mormon friends here! Praise! Nathaniel P. Robbins Related link: True Christians Unite!

| Recommend | Alert

Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message

Mormonism according to Nathaniel Robbins
Re: Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins) -- B J Sikes		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 12/10/2002, 19:28:36 Author Profile Mail author

It seems that you agree with what Robbins says so this will be valid for both of you. I just will say two things: 1) you know very little about what LDS actually teach and believe as a people based on what you said 2) Your criticism of the LDS religious view leaves your view completely out in the dark. You must be aware of the many contradictory moral teachings, unfulfilled prophecies, and anti-scientific content of both Bible as well as general official Orthodox Christian dogmas. I wouldn't be so quick at judging and thrashing a group of people just because your worldview appears to you to be better, or real. In fact, to me this betrays an attitude that stands in direct contradiction to basic Christian tenets. TV Modified by The Vines at Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 19:29:41

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE
Re: Mormonism according to Nathaniel Robbins -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/10/2002, 22:35:32 Author Profile Mail author

Joseph Smith, got his new religion going by writing a book known as The Book of Mormon. The book was much too dull to make it as a novel. Mark Twain called the book "chloroform in print" so it was marketed as a new bible! H-E-L-L-O? Having quite a flair for publicity, Smith pretended to have translated The Book of Mormon from a pile of gold plates dug out of a glacial hill in upstate New York with the help of a resurrected man no less! The BOM purports to tell of lost tribes of Israelites and others floating to South America, some in giant barrels, others in a boat. Arriving in America, they all turned into Indians, (now we know why the indians had big noses) built cities, fought wars, received a visit from Jesus Christ after he couldn't make a go of it in Palestine, and finally killed each other off in A.D. 421. Shortly before the fatal fight a colossal battle allegedly waged at Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, a person (angel) appropriately name Moroni buried some “golden plates” for Josepth Smith, its founder, to find with his magic “seer stone!” Now the comedy begins. Joseph Smith claimed he had a magic "seer stone," a stone with which he could see inside hills and beneath the surface of the ground to inspect for buried treasurers and enchantments! The seer stone became transformed into the biblical "urim and thummin" with which he later claimed he could "translate" any language, including "reformed Egyptian," the imaginary language in which his Jewish Indians supposedly had written their history. A locked box held what Smith claimed to be the gold plates bearing this reformed Egyptian Chaldee Jewish American Indian history. Are you believing this thus far? If so, the Golden Gate Bridge is still for sale! Sitting in one-half of a room divided into two sections by means of a blanket hung from a rope, Smith would pretend to be translating aloud from the golden plates and would dictate The Book of Mormon to his secretary Martin Harris. Harris sat on the other side of the blanket, afraid to peek at the plates for fear he would be stricken with the plague, or the scab, or hemorrhoids, and the botch of Egypt. LOL After many days of such inventive labor, 116 pages of manuscript had been written. All of it supposedly translated by divine guidance by means of the magical seer stone! This is the foundation of the BOM (Book of Morons) and if you take any further time reading it in its entirety, then you are more lonely than we thought. Who in the hell in their right mind would believe this story? LOL!! You’ve got to be pretty gullible to swallow such a history! Our history of Mount Sinai and Moses, Noahan deluge, parting of the Red Sea, the celestial impregnation of Mary, et al, is certainly more plausable than the Book of Mormon. What a joke. There’s a sucker born every minute! Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening a cultural Christian! Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Take a very careful look in the mirror Sir!!!
Re: A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 12/11/2002, 00:57:00 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I MAKE SURE TO DO IT EVERY MORNING AND EVENING
Re: Take a very careful look in the mirror Sir!!! -- TLC		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/11/2002, 11:13:29 Author Profile Mail author

I have to take good care of the scars I got back in Nam. Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian Modified by BroDThomas at Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:28:16

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Brother Dave Thomas: Pathetic Bigot
Re: A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Mensch ® 12/11/2002, 02:48:05 Author Profile Mail author

One can sample Brother Dave Thomas's degenerate commentary at -- http://pub49.ezboard.com/ftruechristiansunitefrm1 -- where he serves as board moderator (and I use that term lightly). Here's a disgusting taste: WORLD KIKE POPULATION DROPS BY 300K, PRAISE GOD! BrotherDThomas To my fellow True Christians, Ever since the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible became a full time Christian (New Testament), He certainly has had no room for the Heeb’s that inhabit His earthly planet! Now we read with joyfulness, that this faction is diminishing in numbers! And who said that prayer doesn’t work? To peruse this Godly event, go to the following url. www.haaretzdaily.com/hase...ntrassID=0 One verse that always stands within the forefront regarding these unwashed and bearded primitives, is the following, to wit: “For ye brethren, became the followers of the churches of god which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have the Jews” ‘who both killed the Lord Jesus’ and there ‘own prophets’, and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men” (1Thessalonians 2;14-15) With specificity, we all know that the Kikes “please not God” and “run contrary to all (Christian) men”. Now they are getting the revenge of our most merciful and ever forgiving Christian God, praise! In the name of the hung Savior. Brother D. Thomas always enlightening the cultural Christian! And this is just as repugnant: WHY SHOULD TRENT LOTT APOLOGIZE FOR THE TRUTH? BrotherDThomas My fellow True Christians, Once again, the LIEberals are trying to inflict more damage upon the logic and reasoning of our Republican elective. Trent Lott, a fine Christian indeed, was chastised for making a remark at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party, where he said, paraphrasing, that this country would have been better off if ol’ Thurmond was elected in 1948. Well, it would have been! Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat” at the time and was a staunch supporter in keeping our, ah, what’s the politically correct term at this time, “African Americans”, from using our toilet facilities, restaurants, drinking fountains, riding in “front” of the buses, going to our white schools, etc. In other words, he was for SEGREGATION plain and simple! 2+2=4. So, reducing it to its irreducible primary, Trent Lott supported the views of Mr. Thurmond, at the time, when he stated that we would be better off today if Mr. Thurmond was elected. How else can one interpret this remark? Duh. All I know, albeit, is that I wouldn’t have had to sit next to a 300 pound “black woman” on the flight back to the west coast last week, with her two little “flap jacks” suckling on her huge milk farms, and with another in the oven. Totally disgusting. I should have been flying over this woman as she rode in the “back” of a Greyhound Bus on interstate 80! This would have been the case if Strom Thurmond was elected in 1948. We can only dream. For the full story, go to this url; story.news.yahoo.com/news...thurmond_6 Brother D. Thomas always enlightening the cultural Christian! Modified by Mensch at Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 02:52:33

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Brother Dave Thomas: Pathetic Bigot
Re: Brother Dave Thomas: Pathetic Bigot -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/11/2002, 04:22:21 Author Profile Mail author

You can't discredit his argument through an ad hominen argument. So far, you have only attacked the poster himself, instead of the actual argument he has presented. This does not invalidate his points about a lot of Mormonism being purely made up for self-promotion of the Smith's image. Until you attack the argument itself, I won't be convinced that what he says is not true. I hope that no-one else is convinced either. (This is what critical thinking does to people)

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

You're new here Nik, aren't you?
Re: Re: Brother Dave Thomas: Pathetic Bigot -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Mensch ® 12/11/2002, 08:30:30 Author Profile Mail author

Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference. If you weren't new, you would know that over the past many months I've done more than my fair share of responding to attacks on, and criticisms of, Mormonism. You would also know that Bro. Thomas's post is far less argument than it is caricature and mockery. He isn't looking for intelligent discussion. Can't you see that? I think pretty much everyone else on this board does. I won't "argue" with Bro. Thomas for the same reason I don't argue with members of the Flat Earth Society or with the lunatic on the corner with the sign that tells me I'm going to Hell: It would accomplish nothing and I have better things to do with my time. You would also realize that Bro. Thomas's comments are mostly tiresome, well-worn, cut-and-pasted drivel from Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian websites -- much like the site Bro. Thomas moderates. If you are truly interested in responses to (or "attacks" on) his "argument" -- some might even call it his ad hominem! -- (and you really aren't interested in a response, are you Nik?), then here are some websites for you: http://www.fairlds.org/home.html http://www.mormonfortress.com/ http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mormonis.htm http://www.mormonhaven.com/ansindex.htm http://www.shields-research.org/ http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/index.html http://answertofellowshipchurch.homestead.com/ http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html By the way, have you read any of Bro. Thomas's tripe? Can you really trust anything he would say after reading that? By all means, please stay convinced that what Bro. Thomas says is true. But, if you are consistent, I assume you also remain convinced that Bro. Thomas's observations on African-Americans and Jews are also correct? Remember, the man who doesn't recognize a fool when he sees one, is one himself. As for me, I will keep my idiot filter in the "ON" position. (This is what dealing with imbeciles does to people.) So, please spare me your sanctimonious, paternalistic bullshit about your critical thinking, and try to convince Bro. Thomas to do a little critical thinking for himself. Modified by Mensch at Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 08:32:22

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Thumbs up to you , Mensch!
Re: You're new here Nik, aren't you? -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 12/11/2002, 08:51:26 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Way to go, Mensch!
Re: You're new here Nik, aren't you? -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl! ® 12/11/2002, 08:54:47 Author Profile Mail author

Nice to see you again! Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I'm with you 100% Mensch!
Re: You're new here Nik, aren't you? -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 12/11/2002, 16:53:18 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Mensch! Welcome back, and thanks for dropping in! I found your post to be a welcome breath of fresh air! There are people and posts -- not a few of which we've seen here, some quite recently and by frequent posters -- which are quite undeserving of respect and are perfectly suitable targets for sharp language and mockery. For the record, Nik isn't really isn't one of them and in my opinion has done pretty well in his short time here, although his specific post to you was, also in my opinion, ill-considered and misdirected. I tend to sympathize with comments made by Woody Allen's character in Annie Hall. To the best of my recollection, he responds to a woman who has asserted that the best and most effective response to bigotry is a sharply worded editorial in the New York Times by saying that an even better response involves a baseball bat. This board has seen its share of posts which are more deserving of a virtual baseball bat than a polite editorial reply. I commend you for your ability to recognize them. Best regards, - Martin Modified by Martin at Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 16:53:35

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Bro. Thomas surely gets a lot of your attention.
Re: You're new here Nik, aren't you? -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: jesse ® 12/11/2002, 23:19:37 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Does that make any difference to my point?
Re: You're new here Nik, aren't you? -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/12/2002, 02:17:35 Author Profile Mail author

Go back to what I said, and unless you have selective reading, in no part have I ACTUALLY SAID THAT I THINK HE WAS RIGHT. Once again, someone has seemingly missed the point. It doesn't matter if what he said is true or not; if you are unable to argue against it, then don't say anything at all. He may be, in your eyes, a bigot. He may spew 'tripe'. But does any of that affect the argument itself? I say NO. Let's take this false reasoning to another level. Suppose Hitler had come up with superstring theory. Would string theory be a load of 'tripe' just because Hitler was anti-Semitic, super-patriotic, and ruthless in dealing with opposition? NO. My original statement still stands: until you argue against his points, instead of pointing out his shortcomings, I won't accept your dismissal of his argument. Tell me why he is wrong in saying the BoM was entirely made up. Tell me why Joseph Smith wasn't just interested in self-promotion and ego-boosting. Don't waste your time telling me what you think about him, or that he is full of contradictory 'tripe'. Such arguments are purely flawed, and you will get nowhere by arguing against the arguer rather than the argument itself. Whilst he might just be talking shite, I have seen no actual proof that he does except for anecdotal evidence. Show to me where he is wrong, and I will join you in your viewpoint that what he is saying is wrong. 'Even if we are wrong, it is important to know WHY we are wrong.' -Stephen Hawking "So, please spare me your sanctimonious, paternalistic bullshit about your critical thinking, and try to convince Bro. Thomas to do a little critical thinking for himself" 1)I don't actually know what sanctimonious and paternalistic means. 2)I suggest you also do some critical thinking. Doing so will make you realise that your argument against me was also ad hominen, and therfore fundamentally flawed. If you don't believe it is fundamentally flawed, go ask a teacher of A/S Critical Thinking. He should tell you that it IS. Modified by Nik at Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 03:39:47

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Your point is well taken...
Re: Does that make any difference to my point? -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 12/12/2002, 05:02:33 Author Profile Mail author

...but its intentions are wasted on the likes of BJ. Save it for someone who *seriously* makes a claim that is ridiculed immediately. Don't defend a jokster's right to post imflammatory disinformation. > Tell me why he is wrong in saying the BoM was entirely made > up. Tell me why Joseph Smith wasn't just interested in > self-promotion and ego-boosting. Don't waste your time telling > me what you think about him, or that he is full of > contradictory 'tripe'. Such arguments are purely flawed, and > you will get nowhere by arguing against the arguer rather than > the argument itself. Whilst he might just be talking shite, I > have seen no actual proof that he does except for anecdotal > evidence. Show to me where he is wrong, and I will join you in > your viewpoint that what he is saying is wrong. The posts aren't designed to be argument, but mockery. They don't need to be responded to. There are many on the board, including myself, who would be happy to respond to and discuss these points, *if* they were presented in a less than ridiculous format. BJ has a history of this type of trash, and it isn't worth sifting through the post to find a legitmate claim or a point to disagree with. If you believe everything in BJ's post (which I doubt), then there isn't much point in going on. But, if you see a few things you would like clarified or debated, post them yourself in a serious format, and you will get a response. Don't ask us to waste our time with sensationalist trash like this (and I assure you, this is what it is; however, I won't waste my time proving it). BJ has lost credibility here among believers, unbelievers, mormons, ex-mormons, etc., with good reason. Don't waste your time defending him/her (who posts under multiple names with the pretense of having concurring opinions). It isn't worth it. -Dan Modified by nofaith at Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 05:03:43

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Your point is well taken...
Re: Your point is well taken... -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 12/12/2002, 05:59:34 Author Profile Mail author

Hi Dan: I have to agree. The worthless tripe that these sooth sayers offer over and over is akin to eating left over old mashed potatos over and over. It's like listening to broken record that continues to spout the same worthless tune. Glad to see you back with us. TLC

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Apology
Re: Re: Your point is well taken... -- TLC		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/13/2002, 02:09:07 Author Profile Mail author

For wasting time. Mind you, you can't hold ignorance against me, can you? I hope not. Less ignorant for this experience, Nik.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Apology
Re: Apology -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 12/13/2002, 02:50:27 Author Profile Mail author

Nik; It's called learning. It never stops if you are intelligent. Good for you! TLC

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Yes!
Re: Does that make any difference to my point? -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 12/13/2002, 07:32:14 Author Profile Mail author

Nik writes: "Suppose Hitler had come up with superstring theory. Would string theory be a load of 'tripe' just because Hitler was anti-Semitic, super-patriotic, and ruthless in dealing with opposition?" YES! Hitler would have had any number of ulterior motives for his claims, as well as being sure that the idea corresponded to his own Christian-Mystic-Magic belief system and wouldn't be "poisoned" by any co-called "Jewish science". Because we know of Hitler's past, we are perfectly justified in rejecting any and all of his claims by virtue of their authorship alone -- in other words, there are cases when ad hominem arguments are not only acceptable, they are required. Only if someone untarnished by Hitler's agenda and who has a reputation for defending truth against assault were to advance the same position should we be open to accepting it. You and JAK and Vines have this shallow, utterly unrealistic, and over-idealized hallucination that the message can always be extracted independently of the person and the medium and that therefore no ad hominems are ever tolerable. But that's just not true! McLuhan brought that to our notice many years ago. One legitimate thing we can learn from modern humanities is that man and message are inexplicably integrated. Just as BJ Sikes can't be separated from her hateful Christian-antiChristian messages, neither can yours or anyone else's be treated as if the words exist in some kind of neutral ether. A final word on ad hominems: There is an unbridgeable gap between insults and ad hominems; they are nothing alike, although many people are too ignorant or confused to grasp that simple distinction. People need to try to come to understand the difference. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Yes!
Re: Yes! -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/14/2002, 04:49:57 Author Profile Mail author

"You and JAK and Vines have this shallow, utterly unrealistic, and over-idealized hallucination that the message can always be extracted independently of the person and the medium and that therefore no ad hominems are ever tolerable." I never said that. If you read the character attacks thread properly, I clearly state that many ad hominens are in fact a good way to argue.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Side point
Re: You're new here Nik, aren't you? -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/13/2002, 05:17:11 Author Profile Mail author

Do you know me? Do you have any knowledge of the person I am? Have you been in contact with my friends, to find about me? NO. So I would appreciate it if you didn't start slating me as a fool who spews bullshit. Don't make infantile judgements on people you know nothing about. I suggest you go away and think of better ways of arguing with people, rather than dismissing their ideas because of many instances of crap or calling them fools.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

You bring it on yourself by defending trolls
Re: Side point -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 12/13/2002, 05:20:50 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Defendin trolls merits insults? Maybe in your mind
Re: You bring it on yourself by defending trolls -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/14/2002, 04:51:34 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Don't twist my words
Re: Defendin trolls merits insults? Maybe in your mind -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 12/14/2002, 05:44:10 Author Profile Mail author

I didn't say it was merited, I said you brought it on yourself. Cause and effect has nothing to do with justification. When you do A, B happens. It doesn't make B right. But unless doing A is really important to you, you can avoid B by stopping A. -Dan

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I thought we stopped the Critical Thinking
Re: Don't twist my words -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/16/2002, 01:57:09 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

On infantile judgments
Re: Side point -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Mensch ® 12/15/2002, 04:41:12 Author Profile Mail author

Don't make infantile judgements on people you know nothing about. Looks like you are misreading posts again, my British friend. I judged only your words, not you, although I did warn you that the man who does not recognize a fool is a fool himself. As you finally recognized under JAK's topic, above, my first post constituted observations about Bro. Dave Thomas, not an argument in response to his caricature of Mormonism. If I argued anything, it was in the subject line, i.e., that BDT is a pathetic bigot, a fact I don't think any reasonable person can deny. Misreading my post as an ad hominem argument in support of Mormonism, you responded with a condescending, pedantic post about critical thinking. It was your post that I referred to as BS, not you. Now that you have admitted that your response was based on a false premise, wouldn't you agree with me? Modified by Mensch at Sun, Dec 15, 2002, 04:52:06

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

YOU IGNORANT MILKSOP
Re: Brother Dave Thomas: Pathetic Bigot -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/11/2002, 11:49:42 Author Profile Mail author

I can only assume that your kindergarten response above is in frustration of having to come up against my knowledgeable and well versed Godly analysis of the news. Without fail, we will continue to smite your brethen with the almighty sword of God's Word and sound reasoning! Essentially, your post speaks for itself, on how infantile and arrogant you actually are. A sad representation of a pseudo-Christian demeanor. Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian Modified by BroDThomas at Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:58:38

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Mensch the Mollycoddle
Re: YOU IGNORANT MILKSOP -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Mensch ® 12/15/2002, 04:49:49 Author Profile Mail author

I wear your insults as badges of honor, Dave. Someday you just might learn that real men love all their neighbors, not just the ones they deem worthy.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Puuuullleeese Folks!
Re: A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl! ® 12/11/2002, 08:57:52 Author Profile Mail author

Please read the last line of BroD's post. "There's a sucker born every minute." Bro is BJ's troll counterpart. Pay attention and read the profiles! Vicki Modified by Jersey Girl! at Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 08:59:00

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Are there any doubters left?
Re: #16957 -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl! ® 12/11/2002, 11:52:52 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

NOW YOU LISTEN UP, JERSEY MAID
Re: Puuuullleeese Folks! -- Jersey Girl!		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/11/2002, 12:18:43 Author Profile Mail author

Your lack of mental astuteness disallows you to comprehend the most simple of syllogistic logical deductions relative my and sister Bette's posts. Because of this FACT, it will allow you to continue in masturbating your mind into feeling good regarding your blasphemy and slanders. But, our Christian God has seen, without a doubt, that you’ve committed this sin, and will continue to watch you insidiously spread your Devil Speak amongst your brethren of like mind. BLASPHEME! Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Re: Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins)
Re: Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins) -- B J Sikes		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Nik ® 12/11/2002, 02:01:43 Author Profile Mail author

"Moronism teaches that God was once a man, and that man may become a God (through moronism, of course)." Moronism? If that isn't deliberate, then it's certainly quite a funny coincidence.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I love the gaffe, deliberate or not!
Re: Re: Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins) -- Nik		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Bahman ® 12/11/2002, 03:03:07 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

YOU WAIT........!
Re: Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins) -- B J Sikes		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Yoda ® 12/11/2002, 08:11:02 Author Profile Mail author

published soon it will be....."THE BOOK OF YODA" Followed by "A Man, A Prophet or...just a Muppet" Then by "The Muppet King" also published will be.."Living with a Cranky OLD Muppet" by R2D2. M.T.F.B.W.Y Yoda

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

B.J.
Re: Mormonism (by Nathaniel P. Robbins) -- B J Sikes		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Ramona ® 12/11/2002, 22:59:33 Author Profile Mail author

Why in heavens name would anyone be interested in your clearly false, pseudoknowledge? In reading a post on your own forum, you state that "real jews" are not blonde. How ridiculous a statement. Jews come in every skin shade of brown dear, from light porcelain to ebony. And, we also represent every hair color. Or did you forget your blonde Jesus, also a Jew? Conversion to "christianity" only took place after politics got involved with the religion, had it happened in recent times would be considered reformed judaism. Ramona

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

RAMONA, A GODLY ANSWER FOR YOU
Re: B.J. -- Ramona		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/12/2002, 14:04:59 Author Profile Mail author

RAMONA: Why in heavens name would anyone be interested in your clearly false, pseudoknowledge? D-MAN'S GODLY RESPONSE: Your indubious infantile ingnorance had just been confirmed. Sister Bette's post contained well known FACTS. Period. If you fail to realize that, you're either a plain retard or a filthy liar. In either case, you're a sinner, and God hates you. Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Psalms 5:5 "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." RAMONA: In reading a post on your own forum, you state that "real jews" are not blonde. How ridiculous a statement. Jews come in every skin shade of brown dear, from light porcelain to ebony. D-MAN'S GODLY RESPONSE: The REAL Jews are NOT blond. Your pink-buble-gum-chewing friends who "converted" to Judasism due to persistence of your JAP bimbo friends are not REAL Jews. The real Jews, the ones who killed Jesus, and blasphemed the Lord, are the nasty, crooked-nosed, ugly people with dark skin and dark hair. The Camel Jockey Arabs who wear diapers on their heads are the only people who could compete with them in the "Who's the Ugliest Nation" contest. Here's what the Holy Bible says about the kikes: Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." Mt.23:31 Jesus says "the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Mt.8:12 Every skeptic and nonbeliever (of course, we can include the jews) has "an evil heart of unbelief." Heb.3:12 Whoever denies "that Jesus is the Christ" is a liar and an antichrist. 1 Jn.2:22 Christians are "of God;" everyone else is wicked. 1 Jn.5:19 Every nonchristian is "a deceiver and an antichrist." 2 Jn. 7 RAMONA: Or did you forget your blonde Jesus, also a Jew? D-MAN'S GODLY RESPONSE: Jesus was not a Jew! He was a Christian! The very fact that He didn't look like a Jew should tell you something about the filthy kikes. IN CONCLUSION: Your frustration, and disgustingly apathetic deportment, is only too evident because of your ostentatious lack of discursive faculties and communicative adroitness. I'd love to see you try and refute it! LOL! Probably look a lot like colored folk trying to swim! Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Jesus was no Christian
Re: RAMONA, A GODLY ANSWER FOR YOU -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 12/12/2002, 21:20:59 Author Profile Mail author

Bro T; All learned and knowledgeable people know for a fact, that Jesus was a Jew! Jesus was no more a Christian than Karl Marx was a communist. Official Christianity did not exist until 313 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine declared it the new Roman religion. It was also he who established Dec. 25th as the birthday of Jesus based on an ancient Pagan holiday. Jesus was born in early spring as I understand. You can pretty much thank the apostle Paul for keeping Jesus' teachings alive and if not for him alone, Christianity most likely would have died a relatively quick death. The Jesus that I understand to have existed, would be absolutely apalled at your ignoramic attitude, arrogance, and especially your blatant obvious bigotry. His teachings were in absolute contrast to the hate spouting trash that you have so ignorantly voiced here. You had better hope that you don't have to face him in the very near future. He won't like what he sees. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes on judgement day. I hope you have a good flame retardant suit on. Metaphor: Standing in a church doesn't make you any more a Christian, than standing in a garage makes you a car. Grow up! Modified by TLC at Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 23:02:07

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

JESUS WAS NOT CHRISTIAN? BLASPHEMY!!!
Re: Jesus was no Christian -- TLC		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/13/2002, 00:10:25 Author Profile Mail author

TLC: All learned and knowledgeable people know for a fact, that Jesus was a Jew! Jesus was no more a Christian than Karl Marx was a communist. Official Christianity did not exist until 313 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine declared it the new Roman religion. D-MAN'S GODLY RESPONSE: You must be a product of public education as you ignorance of historical and biblical FACTS is rather obvious to the knowledgeble and the learned. Christianity started with Christ, and existed LONG BEFORE IT BECAME 'OFFICIAL'. "Official Christianity" got nothing to do with True Christianity, which is the belief is Jesus's teachings and the rest of the Holy Bible. TLC: It was also he who established Dec. 25th as the birthday of Jesus based on an ancient Pagan holiday. Jesus was born in early spring as I understand. D-MAN'S GODLY RESPONSE: For once you're correct! That's why True Christians do not celebrate this pagan holiday. After all Santa did not die on the cross for our sins! TLC: The Jesus that I understand to have existed, would be absolutely apalled at your ignoramic attitude, arrogance, and especially your blatant obvious bigotry. His teachings were in absolute contrast to the hate spouting trash that you have so ignorantly voiced here. D-MAN'S GODLY RESPONSE: You couldn't be more wrong. But I wouldn't blame you. Your erroneous opinion is a result of lack of decent education, and ignorance of the scripture. As a True Christian, I follow ALL of Jesus's teachings, as written in His Printed Word, the Holy Bible. You need to get yourself a copy of the Holy Bible, KJV 1611, of course, and study it meticulously every day. If you're so out of favour with the Lord, that you cannot afford yourself one, you can read it at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm. Maybe then you'll glean the FULL, rather than partial meaning of Jesus's teachings. Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

C's
Re: JESUS WAS NOT CHRISTIAN? BLASPHEMY!!! -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Fer-de-lance ® 12/13/2002, 02:44:15 Author Profile Mail author

This is directed more to others as bro. Tom is just joking around. TLC is correct that Jesus was not a Christian. The Bible states it explicitly. Two points for any Christian out there who can guess where.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: C's
Re: C's -- Fer-de-lance		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 12/13/2002, 03:00:51 Author Profile Mail author

Acts 11:26 And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. After Christ was already dead...

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

JESUS WAS NOT A KIKE
Re: Re: C's -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: BroDThomas ® 12/13/2002, 04:22:51 Author Profile Mail author

This came up not so long ago when me and an esteemed colegue of mine, Dr. Fred Neiman, were discussing if women have souls. Our discussion ended with a disagreement on the women, but we both agreed that Jesus was not a kike. He could not possibly be a Jew, since He condemned them for their sins over and over. So if He wasn't a Jew then what was He? Brother D. Thomas Always enlightening the cultural Christian Modified by BroDThomas at Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 04:51:59

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: JESUS WAS NOT A KIKE
Re: JESUS WAS NOT A KIKE -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Fer-de-lance ® 12/13/2002, 05:08:11 Author Profile Mail author

"but we both agreed that Jesus was not a kike. He could not possibly be a Jew, since He condemned them for their sins over and over. " Woudn't it be [in your own just-for-fun trolling prejudiced world that denies women of souls (hehe) and so forth] just like a sinning hypocritical Jew to condemn and sell out his brothers? According to your criteria, wouldn't his hyperbolic condemnation of the Jews just in fact, prove that he was one of them? aha...you might not be serious, but you have to admit, within your own unserious logic, I got ya.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Jesus the circumcised Kike
Re: JESUS WAS NOT A KIKE -- BroDThomas		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Ramona ® 12/13/2002, 05:15:15 Author Profile Mail author

Matthew 5 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ->That would be about Jesus the Kike. The man Obedient to The Law. Acts 10 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ->That one would be Peter the Rock Kike, and of his obedience to Kashrut/Jewish dietary law 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. ->This would be about Paul the Kike Ah but, you will never believe Jesus words, for you are not interested in Jesus, you want a God of your own creation. You want a Savior that looks like you and speaks like you. Jesus the Jew, spent his early childhood in Northern Africa, not Sweden. You would be the first out nailing the "kike Jesus" to the cross. Or, you would celebrate the Kike Jesus death in the "ovens," at Auschwitz. Ramona - Yet another Kike, that looks at your religion through your example and is grateful not to be a member. I'm sure Jesus would second my statement.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Re: no faith and Ram.
Re: Re: C's -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Fer-de-lance ® 12/13/2002, 05:20:28 Author Profile Mail author

That is the exact scripture I was thinking of. I was hoping to see if any of the "christians" would come up with it, but that's ok. ; ) I agree with Ramona's evidence too.

| Recommend | Alert