User Profile: Alex


Member Since: May 11, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [5] November 24, 2014 at 8:17pm


    Don’t mention it. It is just that I see some of the same culprits that misrepresent my church’s views also attacking the Catholic Church. I know what they do, so when I read them tearing down the Catholic Church, I am a bit incredulous. I’ve read enough of the Church Fathers to know that there are things Evangelicals don’t know that they don’t know, or at least don’t want to admit. Like you, I come from a faith tradition that is comfortable with authority being vested in the church, not the scripture.

    It is an irony that those who put together the Bible more closely resembled the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in doctrine than the Evangelicals, even though it is the Evangelicals that proclaim themselves the champion of the Bible. I know that Catholics and Mormons don’t see eye to eye on everything, and in that sense we can agree to disagree. I’m ok with it. However, as I see it, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have more of a leg to stand on than the Protestants and their offshoots.

    In saying that, I don’t mean any harm to the Protestants. I have learned a lot of good things from them. I have evangelical friends whose perspective I value greatly. I don’t appreciate the argumentative nature of some of them.

  • [9] November 24, 2014 at 6:08pm

    Those of you out there that are Catholics don’t need to worry as far as I’m concerned. You aren’t losing the argument here. In fact, you are winning it. For heaven’s sake, you’ve even got a Mormon like me defending you under my breath. I know better. In a strange irony, Via Dolorosa and others like him are the best thing that could happen to you. It gives you a chance to make your arguments which, to me, are quite reasonable. Via and others like him are throwing out logical fallacies and vicious invective left and right. Hardly convincing.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] November 17, 2014 at 1:26pm

    Since when did the completion of the Bible mean that God was no longer going to reveal Himself to man? Please show me that scripture. While individuals can shut out God, the Bible itself certainly doesn’t put the kibosh on revelation, visions, visitations, prophesy, healings, miracles, etc.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 17, 2014 at 10:58am

    Bill Clinton complains that the Democrats don’t have “a fairly coherent economic message”. I would beg to differ. The economic message was loud and clear. The truth is that Barack Obama IS liberal economics at its best. The progressives fantasize about doing what Barack Obama does. You will notice that they were behind everything he did. Liberals, progressives, leftists, Marxists, etc. ARE Barack Obama. They can no more divorce themselves from Obama than they can from themselves. It is just that when everything they advocate creates disaster, they blame every cosmetic reason for their lack of success rather than the real reasons. Their economic policies are a disaster, regardless of how they try to dress it up in intellectual sophistication.

  • [1] November 10, 2014 at 5:03pm

    Interesting. Could you provide some documentation on this?

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] November 10, 2014 at 4:20pm

    I do nothing more than quote a passage from Jesus in the New Testament and I get a thumbs down. Nice.

  • [-1] November 10, 2014 at 3:47pm


    It would be impossible for the Church to be His bride in the same way a literal woman could be. The allegory of Christ being the bridegroom and the Church being the bride doesn’t preclude Christ Jesus also being married to a woman, since one is a metaphorical relationship and the other not. Why could both not be true?

    Indeed, by being married to a woman, He would be able to fulfill the command that was given in the beginning to “leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). Also, we have from Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

    It seems reasonable for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent to show us the way, would also have experience with the most basic and sublime of human relationships: the family. There is nothing in lawful righteous marriage that would take away anything from the divinity of our Lord.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] November 10, 2014 at 3:20pm

    Matthew 19:4-6
    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] November 10, 2014 at 3:10pm


    We both know that the Gospels weren’t written to be a biography of Jesus Christ, but rather to give testimony of His teachings, of His eternal sacrifice, and of His divinity. Large parts of his life were left out, not because those years didn’t exist, but because they weren’t central to the purpose of the testimony given. They weren’t written to give every detail of His life.

    Now I respect that you don’t believe He was married and had children. I have no way of proving you are wrong. By the same token, however, you don’t have any way of proving He WASN’T married. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] November 10, 2014 at 2:27pm

    This text may indeed be wrong, but not because it says that Jesus was married and had children. The 400-500 years after the event alone is the reason to give it secondary status.

    The truth is, the Bible doesn’t clearly tell us one way or another whether Jesus was married and had children. Its just not there. I don’t have a problem with anybody BELIEVING that Jesus Christ wasn’t married nor had children, but to say that the Bible says he wasn’t married is to reveal your ignorance of the Bible. Plenty of Christians WANT that to be the truth, but wanting it and knowing it are two different things.

    So when the question is asked whether Jesus was married and had children, the correct answer is, “I don’t know.”

    Responses (6) +
  • November 10, 2014 at 2:12pm

    Sorry, but the Book of Revelation is not being added to with this finding.

  • [6] November 6, 2014 at 11:26am

    The big difference between how we see racial issues and how the left does, is that to us, racial equitability occurs quite naturally when we focus on merit and not denying natural law. The left, on the other hand, want an unnatural racial demographic outcome right up front before any merit can be shown. Many think that they are being nice and broadminded by fixing these artificial racial outcomes, but the reality says something completely different. The merits of Mia Love speak for themselves. She is not an oppressed minority. She is a worthy representative for the citizens of Utah. A bunch of old white men voted for her.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] November 5, 2014 at 3:33pm

    Speak for yourself and the incompetent President you elected for us. Mia Love came to this position naturally by her merits. Obama came to his office by the white guilt of you and your party had. I have no white guilt. I would never vote for her if I couldn’t get behind her views.

  • October 31, 2014 at 12:04pm

    I don’t know how they could possibly know which archangel I am like, but why not give it a go. I got Michael. When I get to the other side, we’ll have to get together.

    In reply to the post Which archangel are you?

  • October 23, 2014 at 10:55am

    As I was taking the quiz, I kept saying to myself, “Please not Jar-Jar, please not Jar-Jar…” Gratefully I got Yoda. Talk about relief!

    In reply to the story Which Star Wars Character Are You?

  • [4] October 21, 2014 at 11:26am

    I got George Washington. I have a lot to live up to!

  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 11:37am

    The 501(c) provisions prohibits endorsing candidates, not saying something that has political ramifications. Everything you preach could conceivably touch on politics in some way.

  • October 16, 2014 at 2:35pm

    Me three.

  • October 15, 2014 at 12:54pm

    The Third Archon,

    Preaching against homosexual behavior is not a violation of 501(c) requirements. They have no obligation to prove they’re not guilty.

  • October 15, 2014 at 12:51pm

    The Third Archon,

    Preaching on homosexuality is not a violation of the 501(c) definition.

123 To page: Go