Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

"OK, so Hillary technically wears Bill's nuts on a little chain..."

WRONG! - She had the "operation!" She wears them in an anatomically appropriate location. That leaves Bill with a flap to keep the sand out of his . . . well, you know.

"A good measure of which candidate will sell out conservatives is to watch who the GOP establishment likes. Only progressive candidates will have the support of the GOP."

All kidding aside, ORS makes this very valid and salient point. Look at the candidates the GOP has given us since Reagan. Not much to speak of. At this point my money is on Rand Paul. Christie is an over-blown progressive. Rubio seemed to have promise, but is showing his progressive side. Palin and Bachmann should remain part of the side-show. And none of the others I've seen from the last cycle get me all giddy and happy.

HotD wrote:"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" isn't Christian?

IIRC They didn't tack the "Jesus Christ" on until the 1970's to better assimilate. And lets not forget you can call yourself whatever you want. MAIG is Mayors against Illegal Guns, but damned if they aren't against all guns.

Anyway, I'm an impartial observer since I really don't care either way, but having actually read their text (as well of course the Christian OT and NT)they wildly diverge from Christianity on several major theological points.

They are as Christian as Christians are Jewish. Which is to say although there is a link, it doesn't go much further than that.

They're basically a new/their own faith so I could not accurately call them Christians; they are Mormons..their own new faith that branched off from Christianity.

Kreutz wrote:

HotD wrote:"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" isn't Christian?

........................
They are as Christian as Christians are Jewish. Which is to say although there is a link, it doesn't go much further than that.

They're basically a new/their own faith so I could not accurately call them Christians; they are Mormons..their own new faith that branched off from Christianity.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There was a time when the Catholics would have said the same about Methodists or Baptists. And there was a time before that when they would have burned them at the stake as heretics. And if you'd ever been at a fundamentalist Freewill Baptist service, you'd know that there are VAST differences of doctrine and practice even among Baptists. I think the Mormons clearly do come under the "Christian" tent.

HotD wrote:

Kreutz wrote:Thats puzzling, while its correct Mormons are not Christians, Obama's record on issues traditionally of importance to evangelical Christians would drive them away in droves.

Edit: More on topic I'm hoping the GOP is smart enough to not even field a candidate against Hillary, they'd be much wiser to focus cash on races they can win, like at the state and Congressional level.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" isn't Christian?

Its not my intent to argue religion, but the argument with the born-again groups against LDS, is a matter of traditional Christian dogma that was originally conceived and instituted by the Roman Catholic Church. This is something that they refuse to fully acknowledge.

Strange, though. Considering that the Protestants originated from the RC Church with Martin Luther circa 1520, I find the hypocrisy disturbing.

The distinction isn't about whom split from whom, but rather about the belief in the nature of Christ. Christians believe Christ is God, the Latter Day Saints do not. At least not in a way that is consistent with the Bible. It's the same fundamental reason that a Jew is not a Christian, although with very different specifics. The modern Latter Day Saint church does claim otherwise to avoid criticism, but they have not revoked their founders teachings which unequivocally state they do not believe in the Christian Christ.

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.

He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Deseret News, Church News section, Salt Lake City, Utah, week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7)

We have a Father; He is in heaven; ...He says that we are His children. ... we actually believe that God the Father is our heavenly Father, that we are His children; and we believe that Jesus Christ is our elder brother—that he is actually the Son of our Father and that he is the Savior of the world, and was appointed to this before the foundations of this earth were laid. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pp. 235-256, February 20, 1870)

Their concept of Jesus is as a exalted man who is actually our physical brother (and consequentially physically God's son), rather than the Christian belief in the Trinity/Godhead. The two are radically different. If Christ is not God, all of Christianity crumbles.


As for Romney, I didn't vote for him because I disagreed with him politically. He's a statist Republican and that's my problem.

dorminWS wrote:There was a time when the Catholics would have said the same about Methodists or Baptists. And there was a time before that when they would have burned them at the stake as heretics. And if you'd ever been at a fundamentalist Freewill Baptist service, you'd know that there are VAST differences of doctrine and practice even among Baptists. I think the Mormons clearly do come under the "Christian" tent.

Catholics and Protestants are theologically similar enough (baptism by water, Trinitarian God, similar beliefs in afterlife etc.) to still be able to share a tent.

Gunderwood hit it on the head; the Mormons have their own tent.

To reiterate I really don't care, I just consider if factually erroneous to call Mormons Christians.

Kreutz wrote:To reiterate I really don't care, I just consider if factually erroneous to call Mormons Christians.

Please expound upon that. Are we speaking of matters of simple doctrine, or something else entirely? As far as I know, this is the only definition that really matters: CHRISTIAN (n): One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If a matter of doctrine, what specifically? The Roman Catholic Church created quite a bit doctrine based upon, well lets face it, some fairly creative thinking. I'm not stating that its wrong, I'm just stating that it has blindly accepted by the church, to include the various protestant faiths, ever since.

If something else, please explain.

gunderwood wrote:......If Christ is not God, all of Christianity crumbles.

So the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that has since been perpetuated, is more important than the message conveyed by Christ?

gunderwood wrote:As for Romney, I didn't vote for him because I disagreed with him politically. He's a statist Republican and that's my problem.

I was hoping that just a statist politician would be the problem, not merely a statist Republican.

You got your wish though. Obama remained in office.

My thinking is that god and christ are two different entities,for want of a better word

HotD wrote:

gunderwood wrote:......If Christ is not God, all of Christianity crumbles.

So the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that has since been perpetuated, is more important than the message conveyed by Christ?

I'm not Catholic. Christianity isn't limited to Catholicism, either.

HotD wrote:

gunderwood wrote:As for Romney, I didn't vote for him because I disagreed with him politically. He's a statist Republican and that's my problem.

I was hoping that just a statist politician would be the problem, not merely a statist Republican.

You got your wish though. Obama remained in office.

LOL. Your tolling sure is fun.

I didn't vote for the statist Democrat either.

HotD wrote:Please expound upon that. Are we speaking of matters of simple doctrine, or something else entirely? As far as I know, this is the only definition that really matters: CHRISTIAN (n): One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If a matter of doctrine, what specifically? The Roman Catholic Church created quite a bit doctrine based upon, well lets face it, some fairly creative thinking. I'm not stating that its wrong, I'm just stating that it has blindly accepted by the church, to include the various protestant faiths, ever since.

If something else, please explain.

Not simple doctrine, LDS deviates so wildly from the core Christian beliefs I mentioned earlier you really can not call them Christians. They're a separate religion with superficial ties to its mother-faith of Christianity, just like "Judeo-Christianity". The former begat the latter and became something new in the process.

The fact they have their own religious text completely independent of the Bible should be kind of a hint to what I'm saying btw.

dusterdude wrote:My thinking is that god and christ are two different entities,for want of a better word

Sabellianism, died out around 300AD IIRC.

gunderwood wrote:

HotD wrote:

gunderwood wrote:......If Christ is not God, all of Christianity crumbles.

So the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that has since been perpetuated, is more important than the message conveyed by Christ?

I'm not Catholic. Christianity isn't limited to Catholicism, either.

From the positions you take, I presumed that you're protestant. From whom do you think the protestant faith received the dogmas related to Christ? For that matter, who chose and placed the various books of the Scriptures together into the form they presently exist? Lest not forget the varous versions of the same, rewritten to pose a particular view.

Just so that we're clear, Christianity isn't limited to organized and/or structured religion either. Its just my personal belief, but having one's Christian faith in one's heart and acting appropriately as such, is head and shoulders above what morals, doctrine, and dogma that wasn't ever spoken or otherwise hinted, by the one that was the authority upon the subject. The genius of Martin Luther, to whom we owe a great debt......it that he believed that anyone should be able to read the Scriptures for itself, and not have it read unto and interpreted unto the masses.

HotD wrote:

gunderwood wrote:As for Romney, I didn't vote for him because I disagreed with him politically. He's a statist Republican and that's my problem.

I was hoping that just a statist politician would be the problem, not merely a statist Republican.

You got your wish though. Obama remained in office.

gunderwood wrote:LOL. Your tolling sure is fun.

I didn't vote for the statist Democrat either.

Well, you didn't previously state that, so I wasn't sure. LOL. Your tolling is equally as amusing.

Though a large reason why I did vote for him in the general election, is that I listened and saw how much he incorporated Christ and his teachings into his everyday life, to include his political life. The only other candidate from the last presidential election I knew to do such, was Ron Paul.

I could care less about the religious propoganda that was perpetuated by the Christian hard liners. The message of Christ is infinitely more important than those who are blindly convinced of the message from those who interpreted it.

Kreutz wrote:Not simple doctrine, LDS deviates so wildly from the core Christian beliefs I mentioned earlier you really can not call them Christians. They're a separate religion with superficial ties to its mother-faith of Christianity, just like "Judeo-Christianity". The former begat the latter and became something new in the process.

The fact they have their own religious text completely independent of the Bible should be kind of a hint to what I'm saying btw.

Not only doctrine, but that of dogma.

The traditional Christian beliefs were founded by the Roman Catholic Church, that were and are almost universally accepted by the Protestants. The Scriptures were put together by the same Roman Catholic Church, which included some writings, and rejected other historical documents that could be argued to be as equally compelling. Are you seeing a pattern?

LDS still accepts the Scriptures as the (inspired?) word of God, but accepts not only the Book of Mormon as an instrument of teaching, but also has another named, 'Doctrine and Covenants'. So it would be more accurate to use plurality when referring to the writings of LDS.

Kreutz wrote:

dusterdude wrote:My thinking is that god and christ are two different entities,for want of a better word

Sabellianism, died out around 300AD IIRC.

From the conversation upon the thread, I would argue the opposite.

HotD wrote:Well, you didn't previously state that, so I wasn't sure. LOL. Your tolling is equally as amusing.

Since you obviously don't understand the definition of a troll...

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

The thread was about how McCain and Romney are RINOs and why many people on this forum keep voting for them anyways. You started the whole because he isn't Christian nonsense. No one in this thread has slammed Romney because he is Mormon. All that was stated is that Mormonism really isn't part of Christianity, with explanations as to why. If an atheist decides to follow the "teachings of Christ" because they consider it "good" of their own evaluation, that doesn't make them a Christian. ...at least any more than Christians are Jews because they believe in trying to keep the 10 commandments. There's no intended slight or name calling or bigotry. That's all you.

Take a chill pill and re-read the thread. You're dragging this thread so far off topic it's not funny anymore.

The real problem is that based on Romney's governorship, there is precious little that would be different if he won vs. Obama. At least we don't own this mess.

I have little to add beyond what Gunderwood said.

Romney sucked as a person, not because he is LDS and the party machine that chose him as their nominee for being "electable" really needs to lay off the LSD.

gunderwood wrote:

HotD wrote:Well, you didn't previously state that, so I wasn't sure. LOL. Your tolling is equally as amusing.

gunderwood wrote:Since you obviously don't understand the definition of a troll...

Though you didn't state "troll(ing)", instead you conveyed the word "tolling". If you would have correctly articulated the word "troll", I would have addressed your comment immediately.

gunderwood wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

gunderwood wrote:The thread was about how McCain and Romney are RINOs and why many people on this forum keep voting for them anyways. You started the whole because he isn't Christian nonsense. No one in this thread has slammed Romney because he is Mormon. All that was stated is that Mormonism really isn't part of Christianity, with explanations as to why. If an atheist decides to follow the "teachings of Christ" because they consider it "good" of their own evaluation, that doesn't make them a Christian. ...at least any more than Christians are Jews because they believe in trying to keep the 10 commandments. There's no intended slight or name calling or bigotry. That's all you.

Take a chill pill and re-read the thread. You're dragging this thread so far off topic it's not funny anymore.

The real problem is that based on Romney's governorship, there is precious little that would be different if he won vs. Obama. At least we don't own this mess.

Actually,the thread is entitled, "How many of you voted for him regardless?" As the word 'him' isn't specified, I didn't take it to mean that McCain and Romney were RINOs, but rather entirely something else. Get a grip already.

I started the subject upon Romney and the ultra hard core Christians that wouldn't vote for Romney, simply for the fact that too many know-nothings still don't consider LDS to be 'Christian', and because they confuse the teachings of Christ, with that of the dogma of their religion. I see that its fairly prevelant here as well.

Actually, the real problem is that based on people's refusal to at least acknowledge that Romney has a long and proven ability to effectively manage money if left to his own devices. What again is the largest problem facing this country today? The economy? Congratulations, though the country voted for Obama. Welcome to another 4 years of his do-nothing crap.

There's was no perceived intended slight or name calling or bigotry before your last post. So why don't you take your own advice and take a pill before rereading my posts. Be sure to have an open mind as well, as you're certainly not funny.

Way off topic, but based on the arguments here, it sounds like some of you would say that Copts and Gnostics are not Christians. That's... off-base.

In any case, the topic has gone way off base. I didn't vote for either clown in the last election.

If god talked to christ when he was living on the ground,was jesus having hallucinations?

Mindflayer wrote:Way off topic, but based on the arguments here, it sounds like some of you would say that Copts and Gnostics are not Christians. That's... off-base.

Copts? Yes.

Gnostics? No.

I'm not a theologian but I'm reasonably certain the whole divinity of Christ thing is reasonably a requirement of Christianity.

HotD wrote:Though you didn't state "troll(ing)", instead you conveyed the word "tolling". If you would have correctly articulated the word "troll", I would have addressed your comment immediately.

Thank you Captain Obvious who can't comprehend a typo on an informal communication method.

HotD wrote:Actually,the thread is entitled, "How many of you voted for him regardless?" As the word 'him' isn't specified, I didn't take it to mean that McCain and Romney were RINOs, but rather entirely something else. Get a grip already.

Did you even bother to read the OP quote or linked article before spouting off your LDS BS? Apparently not, because "him" was VERY specific. You're trolling again...made sure the 'R' made it in this time so you hopefully can't continue to derail the thread with useless nonsense.

HotD wrote:I started the subject upon Romney and the ultra hard core Christians that wouldn't vote for Romney, simply for the fact that too many know-nothings still don't consider LDS to be 'Christian', and because they confuse the teachings of Christ, with that of the dogma of their religion. I see that its fairly prevelant here as well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with McCain saying he'd have a hard time choosing between Hillary and Rand for 2016. If you desire to discuss that, you should start your own thread.

HotD wrote:Actually, the real problem is that based on people's refusal to at least acknowledge that Romney has a long and proven ability to effectively manage money if left to his own devices.

No, the real problem is you didn't bother to read the OP, or at least comprehend it, before starting your trolling.

HotD wrote:What again is the largest problem facing this country today? The economy?

Yes, and Romney proposed nothing but the same Keynesian policies as Obama. No practical difference. Anyone who told the truth never made it out of the primary because the truth hurts. We're broke and spending more money isn't going to solve anything.

HotD wrote:you're certainly not funny.

Wasn't trying to be. I was trying to get the thread back on topic and away from the TROLL.

Sorry all, but apparently this has become post your LDS conspiracy theory or anti-Christian rant due to the trolls.