US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
barros said:
The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And they claim the garden of eden was in Missouri, that Jesus came to America. There are major fundamental differences in Mormonism and Christianity. While there are various different traditions, beliefs, and practices amongst Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, etc, they still believe the same thing for the most part. They're based on the same materials but with different interpretations. Mormonism is based on a book Joseph Smith came up with when he was bored.
 
barros said:
The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Why Mormons Are Not Christian.

First: Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather in a difference Jesus. This is why most Biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians. Let me explain.

The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. The man-god of Mormonism was made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is."

Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church, made this statement in the second verse of his famous poem entitled, "Man's Destiny":

"As Abra'm, Isaac, Jacob, too, babes, then men--to gods they grew. As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be,-- Which doth unfold man's destiny. . ."

The God of the Bible is not an exalted man. The God of the Bible is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He had no beginning or end and he is a spirit being and never was a man.

Note the clear teaching of the Bible as to who the real God is:

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Psalms 102:26-27, "They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."

Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Isaiah 45:21-22, "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

Jeremiah 23:24, "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."

Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

John 1:16-18, "And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Romans 1:22, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

1 Timothy 1:17, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."

1 Timothy 6:16, "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

Clearly, Mormonism's god is not the God of Christianity who is the God revealed to us in the Bible. The Mormon god is a god formed from the imaginations of Joseph Smith, and in truth is a false, non-existent god or idol.

Second: The Jesus Christ of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

The Mormon Jesus is the son of this man-god. The Mormon Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and according to LDS teaching, he married several of the Marys of the New Testament. He is not, to the LDS church, "God incarnate" as the Bible plainly states. Clearly, the Mormon god and Jesus are not the true.

God and Jesus of the Bible

Orson Hyde, the Mormon Apostle said, "We say it was Jesus Christ who was married in the marriage of Cana of Galilee" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 80).

Brigham Young, said, "When the Virgin Mary conceived the Child Jesus ... He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is His father? He is the first of the human family" (Journal of Discourses, pages 50-51).

Compare this with the Word of God, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Mormons teach that Jesus Christ suffered for sin in the Garden of Gethsemane when He sweat "as it were" great drops of blood. Mormons totally avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ's atonement for sin which was accomplished on the Cross.

Note the following quote from, "What Mormons Think of Christ" (LDS publication, pages 32-34):

"Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much is believed and taught on this subject, however, it is utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation."

It goes further to say that salvation is "conditional on faith, and repentance, and baptism and keeping the commands of God."

I would like to add, yes, it is very true that Christians do speak much of the blood of Christ. Note the emphasis the Bible places on the blood of Christ:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrew 9:14).

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelations 1:5).

The ejection of this Biblical truth by the LDS church shows again it is not a Christian church.

Note that in the following verses the Bible says salvation, which is forgiveness of sin and receiving of eternal life, is a gift of God, and it is not obtained by "works":

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

I am aware that the L.D.S church has several definitions of salvation and several degrees of glory. A good discussion of the problem is found on the Internet at http:CastYourNet.com/LDS-Shock.

The real Jesus Christ is the "only begotten of the Father." He is not one of many sons and certainly not the brother of Satan as the following Scriptures clearly state:

John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Hebrews 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him."

Jesus Christ of the Bible is God Incarnate in Man

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." Jesus claimed to be one with the Father.

In John 14:9, Jesus said to see him is to see the Father.

In John 8:25, 56-59, 18:6,8 Jesus used the Jehovistic "I AM," identifying Himself as God.

In Matthew 22:42-45, Jesus claimed to be the Old Testament "Adonai."

In Mark 2:5-7, Jesus forgave sin, a prerogative belonging only to God.

In Matthew 14:33; 28:9; and John 20:28-29, Jesus asserted Himself as God by allowing men to worship Him.

John 1:3 states that Jesus is the Creator, and Genesis 1:1 states that God was the Creator.

Only those who believe in the real Biblical God and Jesus Christ have the right to use the name "Christian." The Mormon prophets historically have openly ridiculed those who believe in the God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit that the Bible reveals.

One question that I would ask all Mormons is this: "If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?" Would you accept me as a Mormon if I reject Joseph Smith and all the LDS prophets as being prophets of God. If I do not believe in the Book of Mormon or the LDS Scriptures, baptisms for the dead, the temple endowments, the LDS gospel, would you accept me as a Mormon? The answer is obviously, you would not. In like manner, when Mormonism denies the Bible and every Christian doctrine do you think that Biblical Christians should accept Mormons as Christians? Again the answer is very obvious, no we will not. You cannot legitimately claim to be Christians when you refuse to accept what the Bible teaches and what a true Christian believes.

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a "Christian" when Biblically you are not.

Because we love the souls of men and want to see them, too, spend eternity in Heaven with our Savior, we strongly object to anyone proclaiming to the world a false Jesus Christ. We do not want to see anyone miss having their sins forgiven and receiving eternal life, because they were deceived.

Jesus said that He alone was the truth, the way and the life.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

Belief in the real Jesus Christ is the only way a man can receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life. The LDS, church in presenting a false Christ is, in fact, leading souls away from salvation and the real Jesus. They reject God's truth and substitute another Jesus who does not exist and cannot save. Only those who believe in the Biblical Jesus Christ will go to heaven when they die. Those who put their trust in a false Christ will be eternally lost. Every true Child of God knows this, and that is why we try so hard to point men away from false churches, prophets, gods and Christs, that they may find God's true Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved.

Let God speak for Himself by His Word.

Matt. 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 14:10-12).
 
Herman Cain always does well in polls when you discount name recognition, he won't be a major threat when the primary votes happen.

I still think that Perry and Bachmann will split the crazy extreme vote and Romney is going to just walk into the presidential race.

Bachmann will start off strong in Iowa, but it won't carry on for long
 
New York City mayors always think they can be President because they've been the mayor of New York City. It's when they start traveling, exploring a Presidential bid, that they realize that the rest of the country isn't nearly as impressed with New York City as New Yorkers are. Even with the 9/11 factor, Giuliani's campaign fell flat on its face.
 
Excal said:
New York City mayors always think they can be President because they've been the mayor of New York City. It's when they start traveling, exploring a Presidential bid, that they realize that the rest of the country isn't nearly as impressed with New York City as New Yorkers are. Even with the 9/11 factor, Giuliani's campaign fell flat on its face.
Click to expand...

And I can't express in words how happy I was that reptilian bastard bombed. Absolutely hated that prick, he definiely stood up post 9/11...go gotta give him his props for that. But afterwards he became a complete patsy for fecking FoxNews.

It was like, Roger Ailes told him to fart and he farted, he told him to smile and he smiled.
 
urgh, that is really cringey.
Low understanding of the subject and cannot coherently form an argument.

Reminds me of Dubya's tribal sovereignty answer.
 
Drainy said:
urgh, that is really cringey.
Low understanding of the subject and cannot coherently form an argument.

Reminds me of Dubya's tribal sovereignty answer.
Click to expand...

He's very good at dodging the actual question, wonder why debate moderators and opposing candidates don't trip him up on that
 
Perry seems to have suffered from the same laziness that got Palin as far as she went with the VP nomination. This belief that cutesiness, an 'aw-shucks, I'm just a real American' persona, and that appearing as a simple, everyman outside of the elite spehere that operates in Washington will get them elected. When in actual fact you need to have a solid grasp of the issues, be able to simply communicate your position, and deliver a stump speech with conviction and fire up the voters to have a hope of winning.

When you get to the big stage you get found out eventually if you haven't got the smarts or the ability. It happened to Fred Thompson and Giuliani last time. The press kind of gave Palin a pass early on because they simply couldn't believe the depths of her dumbness. They aren't making the same mistake with Perry this time, and Romney is cleverly going all out on Perry at every opportunity to try and wrap up this nomination quickly. I think Ron Paul will cause him more problems in the long run than Perry since a lot of the base are quickly realising that Perry will be chewed up by Obama in a one-to-one, so are holding their nose and going with Romney who has a very good chance of attracting moderates and matching Obama.
 
Grinner said:
Perry seems to have suffered from the same laziness that got Palin as far as she went with the VP nomination. This belief that cutesiness, an 'aw-shucks, I'm just a real American' persona, and that appearing as a simple, everyman outside of the elite spehere that operates in Washington will get them elected. When in actual fact you need to have a solid grasp of the issues, be able to simply communicate your position, and deliver a stump speech with conviction and fire up the voters to have a hope of winning.

When you get to the big stage you get found out eventually if you haven't got the smarts or the ability. It happened to Fred Thompson and Giuliani last time. The press kind of gave Palin a pass early on because they simply couldn't believe the depths of her dumbness. They aren't making the same mistake with Perry this time, and Romney is cleverly going all out on Perry at every opportunity to try and wrap up this nomination quickly. I think Ron Paul will cause him more problems in the long run than Perry since a lot of the base are quickly realising that Perry will be chewed up by Obama in a one-to-one, so are holding their nose and going with Romney who has a very good chance of attracting moderates and matching Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is laziness that trips up these candidates, rather just lack of background for broader subjects as it relates nationwide or worldwide. He's only recently signed up for this and has had to quickly catch up on subjects he's never dealt with. As you point out it catches up with lots of candidates eventually. Having said that I'm surprised he tripped up on a question that is clearly to do with his own state and record. He should have been prepped for that. Talk of Christie joining the race. He'll give them all a run for their money but it may be too late for him to get the nominee. One thing is for sure, the republican base don't want Romney but they will likely end up with him.
 
Christie would eat Romney for breakfast!

He'd be mad to jump in though. If the repub base is sour on Perry they'd positively foam at the mouth when they hear Christie. He's nowhere near conservative enough for them. I'm starting to think Palin might just go for it...not because she wants to be POTUS...because she sees a way to get paid gigs for the next decade or so for a bit of campaignin'. She doesn't actually want the job since it's way too hard and boring. But with Perry slipping there is room for an ideologically pure nutter to seal the nomination and get a sky-high profile and lots of attention.
 
He's a fat bastard. Not sure how he expects to win the race for the nomination...fatty.
 
niMic said:
What's the precedent on when it starts getting too late for new candidates to jump in? I've been hoping for a Palin run.
Click to expand...

Not sure there is a precedent but I heard that in about 2 more weeks there will be no more additions. At some point you simply can't get the infrastructure in place for all the primaries.
 
Phony Fear Factor
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The good news: After spending a year and a half talking about deficits, deficits, deficits when we should have been talking about jobs, job, jobs we’re finally back to discussing the right issue.

The bad news: Republicans, aided and abetted by many conservative policy intellectuals, are fixated on a view about what’s blocking job creation that fits their prejudices and serves the interests of their wealthy backers, but bears no relationship to reality.

Listen to just about any speech by a Republican presidential hopeful, and you’ll hear assertions that the Obama administration is responsible for weak job growth. How so? The answer, repeated again and again, is that businesses are afraid to expand and create jobs because they fear costly regulations and higher taxes. Nor are politicians the only people saying this. Conservative economists repeat the claim in op-ed articles, and Federal Reserve officials repeat it to justify their opposition to even modest efforts to aid the economy.

The first thing you need to know, then, is that there’s no evidence supporting this claim and a lot of evidence showing that it’s false.

The starting point for many claims that antibusiness policies are hurting the economy is the assertion that the sluggishness of the economy’s recovery from recession is unprecedented. But, as a new paper by Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute documents at length, this is just not true. Extended periods of “jobless recovery” after recessions have been the rule for the past two decades. Indeed, private-sector job growth since the 2007-2009 recession has been better than it was after the 2001 recession.

We might add that major financial crises are almost always followed by a period of slow growth, and U.S. experience is more or less what you should have expected given the severity of the 2008 shock.

Still, isn’t there something odd about the fact that businesses are making large profits and sitting on a lot of cash but aren’t spending that cash to expand capacity and employment? No.

After all, why should businesses expand when they’re not using the capacity they already have? The bursting of the housing bubble and the overhang of household debt have left consumer spending depressed and many businesses with more capacity than they need and no reason to add more. Business investment always responds strongly to the state of the economy, and given how weak our economy remains you shouldn’t be surprised if investment remains low. If anything, business spending has been stronger than one might have predicted given slow growth and high unemployment.

But aren’t business people complaining about the burden of taxes and regulations? Yes, but no more than usual. Mr. Mishel points out that the National Federation of Independent Business has been surveying small businesses for almost 40 years, asking them to name their most important problem. Taxes and regulations always rank high on the list, but what stands out now is a surge in the number of businesses citing poor sales — which strongly suggests that lack of demand, not fear of government, is holding business back.

So Republican assertions about what ails the economy are pure fantasy, at odds with all the evidence. Should we be surprised?

At one level, of course not. Politicians who always cater to wealthy business interests say that economic recovery requires catering to wealthy business interests. Who could have imagined it?

Yet it seems to me that there is something different about the current state of economic discussion. Political parties have often coalesced around dubious economic ideas — remember the Laffer curve? — but I can’t think of a time when a party’s economic doctrine has been so completely divorced from reality. And I’m also struck by the extent to which Republican-leaning economists — who have to know better — have been willing to lend their credibility to the party’s official delusions.

Partly, no doubt, this reflects the party’s broader slide into its own insular intellectual universe. Large segments of the G.O.P. reject climate science and even the theory of evolution, so why expect evidence to matter for the party’s economic views?

And it also, of course, reflects the political need of the right to make everything bad in America President Obama’s fault. Never mind the fact that the housing bubble, the debt explosion and the financial crisis took place on the watch of a conservative, free-market-praising president; it’s that Democrat in the White House now who gets the blame.

But good politics can be very bad policy. The truth is that we’re in this mess because we had too little regulation, not too much. And now one of our two major parties is determined to double down on the mistakes that caused the disaster.





http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/krugman-phony-fear-factor.html?_r=2
 
Now Perry is advocating direct US military involvement in Mexico, what is he going to come up with next?
 
So what do we think about the speculation whirling around Chris Christie? I'd like him to run because moderate republicans should not be effectively shut out of the primaries and see their party dragged far to the right.
 
Team Brian GB said:
So what do we think about the speculation whirling around Chris Christie? I'd like him to run because moderate republicans should not be effectively shut out of the primaries and see their party dragged far to the right.
Click to expand...

Fat chance.
 
Raoul said:
Fat chance.
Click to expand...

:lol:

He's fat, and I wouldn't vote for him. While not necessarily related to one another, I don't think the president should be someone who can't put down the fork to save his own health. Plus, if something bad happens, who are we going to be left with when tubby gets excited and has a heart attack or passes out when he's out of breath? What temptations would he ignore for the benefit of the country when he can't ignore the cheese cake for himself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.