Thank you, I appreciate your explanation of the Trinity. I had no idea that was the LDS belief. I am vaguely aware of the belief, correct me if I'm wrong, that man can become God. That makes sense to me if God is a perfected man and Christ became so after resurrection.

I was raised Roman Catholic (Vatican I until the age of ten, then RC Lite with the advent of Vatican II.) We were told there is one God with three persons in the one God. This was to be taken as an article of faith. There were so many changes between the two ecumenical councils that it was difficult for my young mind to accept articles of faith. Suddenly there was no Limbo and anyone who ate meat on the following Friday could get into heaven but everyone from the previous Friday on back was condemned to hell for eternity. I assume purgatory still exists.

All I know is there exists a force far greater than I, or any other human, in existence. I can't go a day without appreciating something for which there is no explanation - it can range from being in awe of the sunrise to how was it that everything went eerily correct, when the odds were against it, all day.

Man has free will. He can choose between right and wrong. You don't have to be a humanist to do that nor do you have to follow a specific religion or philosophy.

Religion isn't an argument against God. It's an argument against man, here on the earthly plane, as God.

Revelations.

Do you mean DeTocqueville? I just picked up his book to peruse.

I like the Constitution party, to be honest, platform-wise. The Green party is a non-starter, and I'm a conservative, so the libertarian stance on most social issues is a turn-off for me.

The bigger problem I see is that due to the Twelfth Amendment linking the election of the President and Vice President to a single party, I don't see third-party runs becoming viable. Disappointing.

This is also true for me and most of my friends who are LDS.

Right on the money.

Here here!

No prob. Just thought my personal experience might help.

All religion as constituted currently is anti-survival in that it substitutes faith for reason. Since reason is Man's mode of survival -- A = A. The human race is young and immature, it has not yet evolved to the point where it is able to get along with itself, therefore it must rely on a "higher power" since, as a race, it cannot trust itself or its own power to solve survival. Islam is the ultimate in religion in that it combines the Hun and the Mystic allowing for any heinous act to be justified in that it is sanctified by Allah. The only difference between Islam and Christianity is a matter of degree. The Hun is still there but plays a less prominent role. That doesn't mean that there is no good to find in any religion. Some more some less, but all of them without exception are hangovers from when Mankind was far more primitive and science hardly existed.

The comment with the scripture quotes is very misleading and deceptive. Especially the Luke reference which is quoting a King in a parable. Such tactics are deplorable.

There may be arguments to be made here, but you didn't make them.
You cite two verses, not only out of context but forcing an improper context on them. You say you looked, so you should have seen that the Matthew quote compares peace vs sword in the context of whether someone values other people more than God. You can disagree with whether God exists, or is more important, but that verse does not tell anyone (today or then) to take up sword, anymore than a politician "targeting" an opponent means they are calling for someone to shoot them.
The Luke verse is the tail end of a parable about servants who are rewarded based on how well the manage a king's resources (an Objectivist concept - reward for production). It is not about conflict resolution, and does not tell anyone today to kill anyone. In the time it was written, slaying enemies was normal behavior for a king (if you strike the king, you must kill the king). A statement in a story, expressly introduced as a made up story, that underscores the authority of a king is not a command for anyone in the real world to kill anyone.
For clarity - I'm not arguing against separation of church and state, just against basing your arguments on such poor foundations.

Unnecessary but appreciated. I may track down those books. I enjoy historical reading almost as much as I enjoy sci-fi.

Timeless truism that doesn't favor any one people, race, or religion.

I cannot agree.
The enlightenment never would have occurred if not for Christianity - Charles Martel, the Templars, the Magna Carta. Christianity (as brutal as some powers made it - Kings holding on to their position by using divine right, the Catholic church asserting their influence to assume dominion over all the kings) was fertile soil as people began to become educated (catholics) and the security of civilization reduced threats that fostered the enlightenment (it was only natural, an educated mind with idle time), and not in-spite of the Christian world.

Still, this is just my observation from history.

Hay you said it better and more concise than me. :)

Thanks.

Removed the -1 AJ.

You may actually like (although not agree with) those two books. I found them very interesting and they present facts and arguments around those facts.

As a for instance, The Norsemen, who became the rulers in Normandy and the Normans of Engalnd set up their government based on the government structure given to the Hebrews in Laviticus, even some of the names of offices are derived form these. These books touch on this one lightly, but Cleon Skousan give a talk at BYU way back when, I have a recording, and detailed it all out very nicely. Within that was the idea of self rule....

Anyway they are both books worth a read.

The Mormon church does not believe in just giving things to people in need as a permanent solution. They believe in alleviating a crisis to help someone or a family get back on it's feet. And the person/s helped will always give back in the way of service. Our family was in need once and was helped financially. But me and my children worked off our debt by cleaning the chapel every Saturday for two months.

db: Although I much appreciate your mind and agree with a lot of your postings, you are not a reliable source to compare Christianity to Islam. You are prejudiced, kind if emotional, and unknowledgeable of this issue as proved by the scripture you chose to demonstrate your point. Violence has never been a trait of Christianity except in times of self-defense and to hold off force by others. The Christian Crusades were against Jihadist Muslims of yore and it looks like it may have to happen again. I blieve they are diametrically opposed belief systems.

The insult wasn't intentional. One can't avoid history because history goes against current ideology/philosophy or what one hopes to be true, was all I intended by the statement. facts cannot and should not be erased. No worries about the point taken. I do appreciate your owning up for it. I never intended to insult anyone.

AJ our rectal brain government has for several years pushed away from all of the religious activity that you and I grew up with so we don't offend someone but these same people "government civil servants" our employees want us to recognize ALL of what ever is associated with islam. GWB made me sick when he had a dinner celebrating some dam muslim holiday with a banquet meal after they blew up the trade centers buildings. these missing links will NEVER just get on with their lives and accept that other people have different beliefs. There is no logic trying to make a rational argument. If these missing links were in fact rational they would have been Jews from the getgo..

Well, I am not following some peoples interpretation of the king James bible :) I am following my interpretation and that of many within my religion.

I do not do anything in my life that is not a trade. So perhaps I am incapable of seeing "give up" in any other way. That is quite likely the case. I do not, nor have I ever "given up" something when not for my interest in a trade that I do so. I cannot understand a person who would do otherwise, and perhaps am a bit like Hank in that I know no other way to act.

In my religion it is all about choice, you choose to follow or not, you choose to work towards your religious goal or not. No one is forced to stay, or do anything its all about goals and achievement.

I may have misinterpreted your use of the term as I see it in no other way than a trade of something I want more for something I want less.

Yes, that is true, and much of that is the old Roman state religion. The absorption of Celtic and Germanic traditions and other such and sundry was probably not an agenda, but simply accepted as people of the places and times became part of the church hierarchy. We are talking hundreds of years, dozens of generations, when all you can transfer without writing is about five generations. See also my comments underscoring Cicero. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... I point out again that various schools of philosophy in the ancient world did not persecute and prosecute each other.

in our time, as bitterly as Einstein and Bohr disagreed, no one threw handgrenades into the biergartens of graduate students to settle the argument. People of reason have a better way to find truth.

Let me ask you: Did pizza and spaghetti become American foods because of the influence of Italian culture in our society?

When I cited the rediscovery of pagan culture, I was not referring to Wicca. I said Cicero, and I meant Cicero. In De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) five men discussed religion and no one died. Some denied the existence of the gods, others said that the gods exist but we do not or cannot know them. One realist said, "We know that the gods exist because people have reported seeing them and the senses are valid." It is the open discussion of ideas that was and remains the hallmark of humanism.