Can Romney get the nomination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:comparing the Old Testament based on stories thousands of years old that are to be interpreted and accepted as fables, with the Book of Mormon written a 150 years ago in upstate New York, seems a bit much.

Hate to break it to you, but an awful lot of Christians do not believe that the bible is to be interpreted and accepted as fables. And I'm not sure how a few thousand years makes a particular story more plausible.

[Anonymous]

true, human civilization hasn't changed much the last few thousand years ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comparing the Old Testament based on stories thousands of years old that are to be interpreted and accepted as fables, with the Book of Mormon written a 150 years ago in upstate New York, seems a bit much.

Hate to break it to you, but an awful lot of Christians do not believe that the bible is to be interpreted and accepted as fables. And I'm not sure how a few thousand years makes a particular story more plausible.

Yes - any many of them apparently just participated in the straw poll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:true, human civilization hasn't changed much the last few thousand years ...

Well when was the bible last updated? Oh it hasn't been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:true, human civilization hasn't changed much the last few thousand years ...

Well when was the bible last updated? Oh it hasn't been.

but the book of mormon was written in recent history, so while you can possibly accept parables in the old testament, you cannot in the book of mormon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:true, human civilization hasn't changed much the last few thousand years ...

Well when was the bible last updated? Oh it hasn't been.

but the book of mormon was written in recent history, so while you can possibly accept parables in the old testament, you cannot in the book of mormon.

Maybe you can wave away some of the Old Testament wackiness, but once you are into the gospels you either have to believe in the historical accuracy, or you really don't have much to go on with Christianity. But oh, then there is a problem. The book of Revelation is past the time of figurative writing of the Old Testament. It was written in the first years of the Christian Church. Pretty crazy stuff there.

[Anonymous]

I am not a biblical scholar - I focus on the gospels, and the historical accuracy there is good enough for me. Taking away the miracles, there was a Jesus, there was a Pontius Pilate, the Romans did practice crucifixion, there was a jewish temple, there were jewish cults rising up against the established order, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Book of Mormon, on the other hand, taking away the miracles leaves you with things that simply are not based in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a biblical scholar - I focus on the gospels, and the historical accuracy there is good enough for me. Taking away the miracles, there was a Jesus, there was a Pontius Pilate, the Romans did practice crucifixion, there was a jewish temple, there were jewish cults rising up against the established order, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Book of Mormon, on the other hand, taking away the miracles leaves you with things that simply are not based in reality.

Do you believe that demons possess people and speak through them? Why does this only happen in the movies?

How probable is it that people speak in tongues? When people do this today we think they are kooks. Simon the Sorcerer? Where did his magical powers come from and why do we not see them today? Seeing visions of Moses, Jesus, and Elijah in the sky? Nothing out of the ordinary? A backdrop of historical accuracy does not mean that the biblical story is true.

If you can dismiss Revelation, how do you accept the Gospels of the same time period and authorship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a biblical scholar - I focus on the gospels, and the historical accuracy there is good enough for me. Taking away the miracles, there was a Jesus, there was a Pontius Pilate, the Romans did practice crucifixion, there was a jewish temple, there were jewish cults rising up against the established order, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Book of Mormon, on the other hand, taking away the miracles leaves you with things that simply are not based in reality.

Do you believe that demons possess people and speak through them? Why does this only happen in the movies?

How probable is it that people speak in tongues? When people do this today we think they are kooks. Simon the Sorcerer? Where did his magical powers come from and why do we not see them today? Seeing visions of Moses, Jesus, and Elijah in the sky? Nothing out of the ordinary? A backdrop of historical accuracy does not mean that the biblical story is true.

If you can dismiss Revelation, how do you accept the Gospels of the same time period and authorship?

gospels were not written by the author(s) of Revelation. and what do speaking in tongues have to do with anything? Is that referenced in the gospels? I assume people who speak in tongues are so carried away by the passion of their beliefs that they express it that way. and yeah, I find it kooky and fake, but people can worship as they like.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a biblical scholar - I focus on the gospels, and the historical accuracy there is good enough for me. Taking away the miracles, there was a Jesus, there was a Pontius Pilate, the Romans did practice crucifixion, there was a jewish temple, there were jewish cults rising up against the established order, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Book of Mormon, on the other hand, taking away the miracles leaves you with things that simply are not based in reality.

First off, I don't recall reading of any clear evidence of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible itself. But more to the point, there is certainly no other evidence of walking on water, rising from his grave, or being the Son of God. The fact that these stories were put in the context of reality as the writers knew it does prove their reality.

By the way, I note that you identified Christianity as Jewish cult, but find that more acceptable than the Christian cult of Latter Day Saints?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a biblical scholar - I focus on the gospels, and the historical accuracy there is good enough for me. Taking away the miracles, there was a Jesus, there was a Pontius Pilate, the Romans did practice crucifixion, there was a jewish temple, there were jewish cults rising up against the established order, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Book of Mormon, on the other hand, taking away the miracles leaves you with things that simply are not based in reality.

Do you believe that demons possess people and speak through them? Why does this only happen in the movies?

How probable is it that people speak in tongues? When people do this today we think they are kooks. Simon the Sorcerer? Where did his magical powers come from and why do we not see them today? Seeing visions of Moses, Jesus, and Elijah in the sky? Nothing out of the ordinary? A backdrop of historical accuracy does not mean that the biblical story is true.

If you can dismiss Revelation, how do you accept the Gospels of the same time period and authorship?

gospels were not written by the author(s) of Revelation. and what do speaking in tongues have to do with anything? Is that referenced in the gospels? I assume people who speak in tongues are so carried away by the passion of their beliefs that they express it that way. and yeah, I find it kooky and fake, but people can worship as they like.

Speaking in tongues is in Acts of the Apostles. Did you forget about Pentacost? You can't dismiss Acts without dismissing the gospels. Revelation is debated, but it is either John the Gospel writer or contemporaries of him.

[Anonymous]

Look, Romney is not asking you to convert.

Ask yourself this: are you the religion your parents were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, Romney is not asking you to convert.

Ask yourself this: are you the religion your parents were?

I'm not sure what your point is. If your point is that he is not as conservative as his parents, Romney was a ward bishop in LDS.

If your point is that he's not going to push his religion on us, agreed, but the concern is that he is going to push the morals of his faith on the country.

Personally I don't have a problem with LDS. Fine people for the most part, and I believe in judging people by their works. But Romney is very cagey (well actually very vocal but always changing) about his true values. I don't trust people whose values shift with the political winds, which is why Perry and Romney annoy me.