Video: “I know Mitt Romney is not himself Christian…”
posted at 9:30 am on August 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The things you learn on “Countdown.” Between this and that big dog-on-the-roof expose, this might be her year for a Pulitzer. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Prove me wrong.
Going to or not going to church does not make someone a Christian.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:00 PM
I appreciate your approach. I like the idea of Christianity as faith seeking understanding. I wish it were all clear…but it just isn’t.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Yes, in fact I have deemed myself qualified to go against the consensus: I am able to read and understand both the bible, and the stated beliefs of the LDS church.
The argument by a group of people that “They do not believe exactly as we do, therefore they are not Christians” is inane. I would have no problem if they said “They do not believe exactly as we do, so they are not Christians like us.”
It is like a bunch of Punks looking at another Punk and saying: “he does not have the right spiked hair cut, so he is not punk” - even though he listens to the same music, attends the same shows, and has the same lifestyle.
Here is a question for you: Do you think a Mormon feels he/she could go to another Christian service and partake of the Sacrament?
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM
What level of education do you have, Esthier? How old are you?
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Right, because it’s advisable to tell someone the second best thing he/she should do instead of giving the best option.
Honestly, that’s as retarded as telling someone:
“Hey, Jane, don’t go whoring around for money, it’s better if you just give blow jobs instead since you have a smaller risk of STDs.”
Absolutely intellectually retarded.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
You simply cannot win on the argument itself and therefore have to find a way to insult me. You’re only re-enforcing my theory that you’re five.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Masscon,
I am terribly sorry that the link did not work. As for where I “insulted” you, maybe you should stop whining. I pointed out that you are a jerk to demand that someone reply on your time schedule, and to imply that I was a coward because I didn’t respond to your dictates. That is a perfectly fair criticism.
None of that has any relevancy at all to my age.
Before I get to Mitt Romney’s accomplishments as Governor, everything he has done in his life matters since he is running for President, so for you to say that it doesn’t matter is, gosh, what can I say that won’t “insult” you…”insupportable”?
Mitt’s accomplishments:
One:
Now, I’m off to read your link to Mass Resistance which I predict will be filled with stuff about what a heathen he is, but I could be wrong.
See ya.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM
nailinmyeye, I’m just curious, what’s your take on the theological doctrine that it’s better to be a Satanist than a self-righteous prick?
I’m trying to prove that it isn’t, that being a Satanist is worse, because of things they often do like murder, vs. upset Esthier’s feelings in an argument where she isn’t making sense.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I don’t know why that link is not working.
If you care, go to:
http://www.mittromney.com/Learn-About-Mitt/Photo-Album/Romney-As-Governor/Governor_Romneyxs_Accomplishments
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM
So, since Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but have a different viewpoint …
corona on August 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Ummmm. No comment?!? Ok, one comment:
While I wouldn’t necessarily agree with Esthier’s comment…I also can see her frustration with your over the top rhetoric and consistently calling her stupid. I mean, you’ve pissed me off plenty of times…
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Dang. Maybe the link is too long, as that one got cut off?
Go to http://www.mittromney.com and click on “Our Stories” under “Learn about Mitt”.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM
At least people might like you if you were a Satanist…which might be more than if you were a self-righteous prick.
I don’t know.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Let me just be very blunt, Esthier.
You say you’re a Christian, but that being a Satanist is better than being self-righteous.
You ask me to prove that being a Satanist is worse.
There is no proof you would accept.
Following the anti-Christ, the Prince of Darkness, the source of evil, the inspiration for the Third Reich, for Jeffrey Dahmer, for raping children, and for all that is evil in the world, for disobedience to God according to your religion… is worse than being self-righteous or a “prick” in a debate.
Your point makes no sense and if it really is your position, is beyond revolting.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Muslims don’t even consider themselves Christians. If Mormons don’t consider themselves Christians, then fine, they definitely aren’t.
But it seems there are several people here who are Mormons and do.
The Bible is clear that we can judge if someone is a Christian based on their fruits, which are: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:13 PM
And from a Christian theological point of view, being liked while worshiping Satan is more important?
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Voidseeker, you’ve got chutzpa, I’ll give you that.
I have no idea what they feel about that.
Nice Deb on August 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Of course there is. Go through the Bible and prove that it would rather you were a decent person with a vile attitude and heart than a Satanist.
Prove that the Bible believes wishing people were dead is better than killing that person.
And last, keep on topic. We’re talking about a theological discussion and not what makes good citizens.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Wow, this thread went to H-E double hockey sticks, quick.
heatherrc77 on August 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Once again, you are consistent: You don’t make any sense.
Many Muslims have those qualities. Are they Christians?
You just said they aren’t.
So obviously something else determines if you are a Christian.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Posting the statement of faith by the LDS church with a link to their site does not mean I am one.
I must ask have you ever read the Book of Mormon? Do know what the full title actually is?
So you read NT in English and Greek, neither of which was the language of the Bible, or those that lived at the time. And again, different does not mean their status as believers in Christ is negated.
I was raised by a Mormon family, but I am not an active Mormon. I have my own beliefs. Having been around them and actually studying what they believe I can state without a doubt they are Christian, just not like you. And no, I have never done missionary work for the LDS church.
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM
In a sense. At least if you’re liked, it means you’re following the basic fruits of the spirit.
Seriously, Christoph, just go to bible.com and show me where the Bible cares more about your outward actions than it cares about your heart.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:18 PM
nailinmyeye,
“Having faith in Christ includes having a firm belief that He is the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world. It means believing that He is the Son of God and that He suffered for your sins, afflictions, and infirmities.”
Sounds divine, doesn’t it? Then there’s this:
They’ve got a slightly different take on the Trinity, but there it is. Basic Christian dogma.
Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Masscon,
I just found another post to me that I missed.
What difference does it make where I live? Isn’t that a rather, err, provincial statement? Do I have to live in Washington D.C. to know what the President does?
If you disagree with what Mitt Romney says he accomplished with the budget and taxes, why don’t you tell us what is false instead of shouting and carrying on?
Okay?
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 3:19 PM
And what did I write right before that? Oh right, that Muslims don’t consider themselves Christians, that’s kind of a deciding factor there.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Someone may have beat me to this, but Jews do as well. The difference is that neither Muslims or Jews see Jesus as the fulfillment of Prophecy, a Divine Being, and the Redeemer of the worlds Sins. All Christians do - this includes the LDS church and its members.
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 3:21 PM
That was a good synopsis.
I have always been amazed at people who say you can’t judge others.
Him? oh I married him because I couldn’t judge him, he will sober up and get a job someday, he just leave them darn sheep alone…don’t judge him.
right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Belief that Christ is the Son of God and is the Messiah sent to redeem mankind seems like a pretty good basic definition.
Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Really? I know very many people who liked Marilyn Manson and some who like Adolf Hitler?
Indeed, far more people like either of them than even know that many good people are alive.
You’re sick. Just sick.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
AP, when you said this before I snarked at you a little bit (though I meant what I said.) But what with the ‘pricks,’ ‘turds,’ etc. flying all over the place, you and CH may have a point–the fact that one antagonist is not a Christian notwithstanding.
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM
IF YOU ARE LIKED, not if you’re a Satanist. Wow, you seem willfully dense.
It generally works.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Only God and Romney are qualified to comment on that.–Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM —And god ain’t talking.–JayHaw Phrenzie on August 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM
JayHaw Phrenzie,
to faithful mormons, god speaks daily via their church presidency (prophet/profit) and they publish their continuous revelation. The oops factor of a fair-weather god changing his mind influences the mormon psyche. Through no fault of his own, the “I must be perfect in conformity to my mormon (and only true) church” mindset enforces a conflict zone of insanity for voidseeker.
Following Satan is better than following nothing and criticizing everything like a self-righteous prick.–Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Esthier, for goodness sake, that must have come out wrong! Following Satan, KNOWINGLY, is about the worst thing that a person can obligingly choose. Following Satan, unknowingly, is still not better than honestly following one’s own heart and intellect. Before you got upset, you made some good points, so let Christoph’s tongue-in-cheek go.
csdeven, LOL re: $$$
You insinuate a lie as the mormon general authorities certainly are well paid. There is no accounting for all of the faithful mormon tithes and offerings paid to guarantee members’ acceptability, all sent for the in-club to spend as they see fit on themselves. No need to be either defensive or offensive here, just honest. As per local wards and stakes, divinely inspired voluntary church leadership positions certainly benefit those men’s businesses and political clout. And as per what is “taught”, admit that everything MUST align perfectly with CURRENT dictates from SLC–there is absolutely no such thing in the Mormon church as freedom of expression. LOL!!! Church institutional educators are monitored closely–student surveys ask students to rate how well each professor professes mormonism in his work. Look at the excommunications and how intolerantly church courts function.
“If your eye offend thee, pluck it out”–truth is a two edged sword that slices both ways.
At this point, if you are so fortunate as to have your eyes opened to the truth, let it set you free as Jesus said rather than fearing truth and its consequences.
As per MITT ROMNEY, ye gads, even the mormon church never condoned abortion. The mormon god, with his many wives, created/creates through sexual intercourse the spirit children that are born as humans on earth. Mormons are to bring as many of those spirit children into mormon homes as possible in order for those children to be born “under the covenant” that would seem a security blanket unless one truly understood the implications of blood covenants.
As per Jesus’ conception, BY taught & mormons believe that Mary conceived Jesus via sexual intercourse with God the Father. God the Father has his own body of flesh and bone, as does Jesus, and last but not least, the Holy Ghost will get his physical body after all of God’s other spirit children get theirs. JS taught that as man is, god once was, and as god is, man may become–still current mormon doctrine/scripture–sales pitch via 19-year-old boy salesmen/missionaries who never preach their mormon gospel in 3rd world countries to non-christian populations–but are sent to convert christians to mormonism. The mormon brethren have honed their skills and do double-speak better than anyone.
Christoph makes many a good and true point re: mormonism.
As per my 100% pedigreed 6th generation mormon family, I love them dearly but know better than to trust their sense of justice. As elsewhere, in the mormon world, who matters depends entirely upon status as much today as it did 150 years ago on Sept.11th. As per that recommend requisite, “Are you COMPLETELY honest with everyone at all times?” Only God knows all, and like everyone, mormons have the hardest time admitting their own failings.
So, as far as I am concerned, each person’s faith is their own link with God. God has the power and the will to touch the heart of a mere Mormon to repent and follow Jesus Christ. Whether the individual chooses truth is a matter of faith and will, as faith without works is dead. As a nation, in God we trust, e pluribus unum, and as Christians, Kyrie eleison.
maverick muse on August 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Yup.
Jaibones on August 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I can tell you that there would be no problem for them to do so, as the sacrament done in any Christian faith is partaking of the bread & wine/water to remember the body and blood of the Christ given as a sacrifice for us; the LDS sacrament being the same.
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Tongue-in-cheek?
I think the woman is disgusting. She said it adamantly about ten times, I believe her.
She believes in getting along rather than being good. Being liked rather than being righteous. Following Satan and being popular rather than making a stand and being disliked.
I really dislike her. Don’t speak for me.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM
maverick muse, who is this Mormon god? Can you recommend source material?
Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 3:31 PM
What does it matter? Either you’re a Christian following God, or you’re not.
God doesn’t care about our deeds or self-righteousness, after all, who was it that Jesus hounded on most while here? The truly evil people like the man nailed on a cross next to Him, or the religious people who believed in their own self-righteousness?
Sorry, I suppose I should have called him a “white-washed tomb” instead, but it felt too outdated.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:33 PM
You could not misunderstand me more if you tried.
Self-righteous is not to be confused with actual righteousness. Making a stand is not to be confused with being a prick for the sake of being a prick.
And no, I do not agree with getting along rather than being good as I believe the two are not mutually exclusive the way you seem to believe. Though for the record, being a prick is also not the same as being good.
Are these basic words lost on you completely?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Not really wanting to dance at this party, but I’d like to comment on this:
Of course you remember that JC flung that epithet at the religious leaders of that day for their hypocrisy. Whether we agree with Christoph or not, he’s not being hypocritical.
“I’ll give you the last word.”
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 3:37 PM
So, if you consider yourself good-looking …
corona on August 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I’m LDS, and I’ll admit it. Let me try to explain a few things here. First, Christoph has lied a few times in this thread (blatantly misstating the facts), so I don’t regard him as credible. Anyone who deliberately lies about facts in an attempt to smear someone he hates (as clearly he hates Mormons) is simply not credible.
Now, to Mormons not being Christian. It begs the question, what kind of Christian. It’s not a surprise to anyone that we are not followers of the Nicean Creed, or other creedal formulations. I would suggest, though, that neither were the early Church fathers.
The LDS claim, to the best of my knowledge, is that we are Christians in the same sense the early church members are. Our beliefs fit right in with people like Clement of Alexandria. If we are not Christian, as defined by the rest of modern Christianity, then I suggest they also claim Clement, St. Ignatius, and others are not Christians either (they clearly didn’t believe the creeds either, since they preceded the creeds).
The fundamental problem with those claiming Mormons are not Christian is that their definition of Christianity is almost wholly based on the creeds, not the Bible. Mormons have for a long time been able to support their positions from the Bible. It’s clearly a valid Biblical interpretation. But to those who are conditioned to read the Bible solely through the various creeds, Mormonism is not Creedal. It IS Biblical, though.
Thus, we LDS claim to be Christian, just not Creedal Christians. If you insist that someone has to obey the Creeds to be Christian, then you are simply elevating the decisions of the councils to scripture (and in the process, doing the exact same thing as you accuse LDS people of doing, having extra biblical scripture).
So are Mormons Christian? If your definitions allow people to not believe the creeds but rather the Bible, then yes. If you require belief in the Creeds to determine whether you are Christian, then I suggest that “Christianity” started roughly 300 AD and there were no Christians before that.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Danish! Not provincial at all. Living under a government, and reading about it, are night and day. Your refusing to answer pretty much proves you don’t live anywhere near Mass.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/
I knew it! Your whole opinion is based on what Mitt Romney SAYS he accomplished. Damn! If I tell you I sell pigs that fly, are you going to buy one?
I’m done. Vote blindly for the pretty face. If he wins, and you’re still around in a few years I’ll get to say, I told you so.
All I did is try to warn you.
Have a good day.
Masscon on August 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
That’s nice, but it’s neither here, nor there.
The Catholic church would have a problem with them partaking at one of our masses, but you probably know that.
Nice Deb on August 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I have said WAY more than I intended on this thread, and pretty much think that nothing more will be fruitful, but I wanted to address this:
Actually, Greek is the language of the NT, and Hebrew, for the most part, is the language of the OT. While Jesus may have spoken Aramaic, the New Testament was, as a point of fact, written in Greek. I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here.
I said in a comment above that I would not call them Christian, but I would say that they are a sect with a faith derived from, but also different from, Christianity.
I have not read much of the Book of Mormon. Tell me though, what was the traditional Mormon teaching on John 1.1? The word was God, or the word was of God? That’s where me and the missionaries who used to come to my door would get hung up. That pesky “Jesus is God” thing.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Those are the first words you said in a long time that made any sense.
Unfortunately, you also have those other words outstanding, that are abhorrent. You can’t defend them. You should say, “I was wrong, being a Satanist is worse than…” and if you like, clarify that the other thing is bad too.
But if you’re going to say being angry in a self-righteous sense, or even acting like a prick and unreasonably self-righteous, is worse than following Satan there’s no defense for that as maverick muse pointed out. None whatsoever.
So, to be consistent with my belief of good over evil whether it’s a violent man or a woman with a despicable philosophy, I will despise you as long as you cleave to them and have no respect for you whatsoever.
If that’s fine with you, it’s fine with me too.
But let no one tell me I don’t dislike you and what you stand for because I do.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM
True, but He also said it because they were satisfied in their own righteousness and made every attempt to show that off when possible.
It’s literally with that sentiment that I call him a prick. I literally mean that he believes himself to be self-righteous while believing in nothing and insulting everyone so much like the religious leaders of Jesus’ time.
Had I been a better Christian I would have only said “Only God and Romney are qualified to comment on that.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM”
But I’m not a better Christian. I’m one who lets arrogance annoy me much more than it should.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I don’t hate Mormons. You’re completely wrong.
I’ve said this several times and even like Mitt Romney. I have friends who are Mormon and they know my views about their church; they also know I like them as people.
Example of where I lied?
I’m sure I’m wrong on a detail or two; I have no doubt about it, in fact. I’m not a Mormon scholar.
But I know enough to know that your founding prophet was a blatant liar and a fraudster.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Actually, my issue has little or nothing to do with creeds. It has everything to do with the traditional, orthodox position of such early believers as Jesus or Paul that Jesus was God.
The earliest of church fathers held the divinity of Christ, as is evidenced in the Biblical text.
And, what of that extra-biblical revelation? How is that, um, biblical?
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM
If the Bible is true, your prophet is one of the false prophets predicted in it. I know you believe what you believe and I won’t change your mind.
But nothing will alter the facts that are true one way or the other. One of us is wrong. I believe it is you.
I believe you are following the teachings of a man who was, at his heart, selfish, human, and dishonest more than the norm.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM
nailinmyeye asked:
It’s both, really. Jesus IS God, or to be more accurate, He’s divine. He’s not God the Father (as is clearly evident in the Bible), but He is the creator of heaven and earth, and is fully divine. He prayed to His Father, and His Father (temporarily) abandoned him, so they are NOT the same person; yet Jesus is God, and our Savior and Redeemer. God Himsel came down from heaven to redeem us, as the Book of Mormon teaches.
The Book of Mormon is subtitled “Another testament of Jesus Christ”. As such, it is literally chock full of stuff showing and teaching Christ as our Savior, Redeemer, and fully Lord. I have always found it curious that people bash the LDS church for having the Book of Mormon, but only rarely the actual contents and teachings of the bool–after all, the entire point of the Book of Mormon is the bring people to Christ. Kind of hard for Christians to argue against that.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM
You mean the parts of the Doctrine and Covenants the church quietly dropped after Joseph Smith’s prophecies failed to come true?
Or is that another one of my lies, Vanceone?
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Hey, your prophet was a fraud. (Oh, there’s lots more.) Let’s talk about it. And this missing D&C prophecies… it’s all great
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Well, true. But I’m still hung up on just who Mormons believe Jesus is. Is that explanation you just provided yours, or the LDS’s. And, does the LDS believe in a Trinity - one God in Three persons? Or, does your “separate persons, both gods” equate to more than one God?
Also, how is it more accurate to say Jesus is divine, rather than God?
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Sorry, for some reason I thought I was talking to voidseeker. My bad.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
This has been my point all along. I can’t help it if you’re just not understanding that.
Theologically, I can.
A society is generally better off with people who are full of their own self-righteousness, but Christianity is not.
I don’t mean momentarily. I mean as a state of being, and yes, the Bible supports me there.
Seriously, I feel much better about myself so long as you don’t respect me. Don’t believe the feeling isn’t mutual either.
I’ll let people tell you whatever they want to tell you. It’s still a free country despite what the libs believe.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Considering they believe God was once a man and there are many Gods with different planets and we (me, not you, because I have a Johnson and am special) can become Gods ourselves if only we will but follow Elohim’s will, don’t you think this is a rather retarded question?
They’ve said drastically different things at different times on this score from their supposed prophets of God… yet it’s all kinda moot if there are thousands of Gods or millions…
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yep. You’ve not backed off from your comment about following Satan, Esthier, so my dislike for and distrust of you is official.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I’m not quite sure how Christoph grew such a hatred for a man who’s been dead (killed by a mob of so-called “tolerant Christians”) for over 150 years. But he specifically stated (here-Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 11:03 AM) that Joseph Smith killed 2 men, which is a lie. He brings absolutely no proof that Joseph Smith is evil.
However, and I’m sure this will make you smile, Christoph, your screeds against him just are a further proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He stated that and predicted that his name would be hated and held up for scorn and derision. Glad to see you are fulfilling that prophecy! Good work!
Nailinmyeye: What about extra-biblical revelation? Surely you don’t think God cannot speak anymore, do you? Just because after the Revelation of John we didn’t get anything more for 1700 odd years doesn’t mean we never will or never did. Don’t forget, between Malachi and Matthew is over 400 years. And don’t forget that Moses also said you shouldn’t add to scripture, yet we have almost all of our scripture after that.
Besides, why would anyone be upset by hearing MORE of God’s word? Especially meant for this day and age–after all, the Church faces different issues now than Peter and Paul did.
If you think about it, the Book of Mormon is perfectly positioned as a proof that God and Christ exist, and are still alive. It refutes the Atheist positions that the Bible, etc. are just tribal and mythological stories of a superstitious time and people. The fact it came out in our day is a sign that God still loves His children.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 4:01 PM
They’d have a problem with me partaking in a mass too just because I’m not specifically Catholic.
The problem people have with it is that it adds to the Bible and purports to be the word of God, something that seems in doubt.
And if Jesus did come to America, why didn’t He also go to Africa and other parts that likely heard little or nothing about Jesus? Why America?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Christoph: If you think the LDS church is the only one to have different statements/revelations/changes during its history you would be mistaken. Pretty much every faith on the planet has had them, and I know of no Christian sect that exists today that has not experienced the same.
If all that is needed for a faith to not be true is the mistakes by the humans that are part of it, you have made the best case for Atheism ever. Congrats.
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM
My world is shaken, Christoph. I was so hoping to you’d like me.
You really sound as melodramatic as the liberals.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Christoph, Are you calling me a girl?
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Vanceone,
I don’t believe that God speaks in the same manner today as God did to the apostles and prophets. I do not believe that God speaks in such a way as to bring about another Testament, especially one that contradicts the first one.
What evidence do you offer that it is from God?
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Vanceone, before you call me a liar again, which is getting tiring, have you heard of John Taylor?
He was the third prophet of your church, anointed by God, after Brigham Young.
In the History of the Church published, well, by your church, your prophet Taylor said:
There are varying accounts of how many were dead and injured, but, the prophet of God, John Taylor says he believes two died.
So F off and stop calling me a liar, cultist.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:12 PM
LOL - I thought you were. I remember you showed great common sense and I guess in my fantasty brain I imagined you a girl to balance the horrible image of Esthier.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:13 PM
I don’t.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Esthier,
Actually, just the sacrament of communion, which you have to be a trained member to receive. As for the rest, you can hang out at Mass all you like.
Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Nailinmyeye, I’ll try to explain a bit better. There are two problems Christians have to resolve. One is, the Bible has numerous statements about God is one, there are no other Gods, etc. The second is three beings are clearly labled divine: God the Father, God the Son (or Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost. On it’s face, those two statements are irreconcilible.
This issue has been contentious throughout all of Christendom history (and indeed, caused the Orthodox brances to split from Catholicism, I believe). The creedal solution was to do the 3 in 1, part of some mysterious “substance” and “essence” and so forth. I can’t explain it, nor do I think it can be explained, thus all the “it’s a mystery” bit most Christians have to resort to. The best I understand it is that God has, basically aspects, that He manifests Himself as (one minute, it’s as God the Father, the next as Christ, and so forth). I’m sure that’s wrong, but that’s the best I can imagine traditional creedal theology.
Of course, that substance, etc explanation is very difficult to understand and in fact is not found in the Bible. What the LDS church believes, and I think is safe to say the earliest Christians believed as well, is simply this: Jesus is the Son of God, literally. He is not God the Father, nor is He the Holy Ghost. All three are seperate, distinct beings. That satisfies the second condition of the Bible–we have three divine beings.
How, then, are they “One God?” For the Bible teaches that they are One, after all. The answer is in John 17, the great intercessary prayer. There, Jesus is praying to His Father. He prays for the disciples to become one, even as He (Jesus) and the Father are one.
Clearly, Christ did not mean that the disciples would become merged into one “substance” and person or something like that. Thus, being “One” means something else.
We believe it means that they have one mind, goal, and unity. They act as one. Each of their actions would be the same. Thus, we pray to the Father (one member of the Godhead), in the name of Christ (the second member of the Godhead), yet, our answers, God’s work, etc. is usually performed through the Holy Ghost (the third member of the Godhead).
I hope that helps explain a bit more. Anything else would really require citation to a much more in depth treatise than what I can provide here in the comments.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 4:16 PM
I will vote for the candidate that best mirrors my views.
I am a Christian yet I do not wish to live in a theocracy. I do not trust the hearts of men and neither did Christ. The bible says, “The whole head is sick and the heart deceitfully wicked”. (Isaiah 1:5) Men would screw it up pretty quick.
Christoph has spoken truthfully.
Several years ago I met a family through my church. Husband, wife and three children. The husband was a union electrician and traveled all over the country as was necessary for work. He was sent to work in Utah for a bit and while he was there he became involved with the LDS. Not long after his “conversion”, a couple of LDS members came to visit his wife and children here in NY. They came to “enlighten” them and offer them a chance to join the church. The wife refused.
Long story short, the husband left his family. Packed his bags and headed back to Utah. The church told him that he “should not bare an uneven yoke”.
I won’t tell you about the misery this caused his wife and children.
So now you tell me LDSr’s……..
If you’re “christians”, why would this man be told that he was “baring an uneven yoke” by staying with his NON-LDS wife and kids????
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Please Please Please, Why bicker about religion?
I am sure that we can all agree that wonkette is beyond butt ugly. Is it just me or is that sausage collar marks on her neck? Is there any footage of her sneaking up on an unsuspecting glass of water? Someone actually had sex with her? Maybe thats the anal-sex angle. She makes coyote ugly look good.
jdkchem on August 30, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Hey, Dude, I thought no one was willing to talk about the Book of Mormon with the obvious plagiarism in it, the removed Doctrines and Covenants showing Smith’s prophecies had failed, the history of the church as told by your Prophet about Joseph Smith’s dying in a gun battle, or the lack of archaeological and, yes, even entomological evidence for the book’s alleged history and the other book it was all stolen from, plus all the other little issues we could get into.
Didn’t you want to discuss the book?
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Good to know you only seize upon that issue when talking about the LDS church and its members. Ignoring all the history of such in the other Christian faiths that you seem to support.
Very telling.
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM
But why hang out at Mass if I can’t drink?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Masscon on August 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Sigh.
I did not refuse to answer, I asked you what difference it made. If you must know, I lived in Maine for 6 years and have spent nearly every summer of life there, and have countless friends of all political persuasions who live in Massachusetts. Hey, I even listen to Howie Carr!
As for my knowledge of Romney’s accomplishments, when I finish reading A Mormon in the White House I’ll have more to tell you. Meanwhile it is clear that your claim that he did nothing is not true.
I went to that Mass Resistance site, and I doubt very much that there is a candidate on the planet who could meet your exacting standards. Indeed, I doubt that Ronald Reagan would have qualified.
Some of the things the Mass Resistance website rails about -
He hired homosexuals to work for him, believed that birth control should be available to unmarried couples, supports hospital visitation rights for same sex couples (note: but he does not support gay marriage), and supports experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures, which is essentially President Bush’s position.
I will check out your latest link, but if it is anything like Mass Resistance, I will not consider my self “warned” but “armed”.
Oh, and “Have a nice day!”
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 4:21 PM
So his family were Christians but not Mormon?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Yeah, come join us at mass, Esthier, we’d love to have you!
Nice Deb on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM
The evidence for any fraud going back to antiquity is less overwhelming, possibly due to the passage of time.
The evidence of fraud in Mormonism for an objective person not under the sway of the cult is legion.
Also, this was a post about Mitt Romney’s religion, which is — gasp — Mormonism.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM
That is correct.
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Christoph–why should I discuss anything about the LDS church with you? You have provided ample proof that you would only call people names, insult them, and have all the tolerance of Fred Phelps on this matter. There’s no profit in discussing stuff with someone who would not listen to anything I or anyone else said.
I.e. what use of time is it to try to go through and show, tediously, how you are wrong? You’d never accept it (as witnessed by your insulting words to anyone who dares disagree with you, on this issue or any other for that matter).
If someone who doesn’t have a vendetta asks, like nailinmyeye (or at least can be polite) I’d be happy to discuss with them. Since that is not you, I’m not going to waste my time.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I can’t get the link to Masscon’s political mentors, Mass Resistance, to work.
The website is:
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I’ve actually considered going to one, but I imagine it would feel very foreign.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Sorry Esthier. I screwed up the block quote.
Yes, his family refused to join the church and he left them.
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Voidseeker:
There are many quotes like this on the thread.
So what does that tell you about me?
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:28 PM
I assume you’re responding to my question, and if so, that’s messed up and would seem to imply that at least those Mormons do not consider themselves Christians.
Does that story make any sense to you, Vanceone?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Talon–I’d want to hear the WHOLE story here. The LDS church does not teach that new converts must leave their families if they convert. I’ve never heard that (and indeed, it goes against our doctrine), so I’m anticipating there was something else involved.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Christoph–why should I discuss anything about the LDS church with you? You have provided ample proof that you would only call people names, insult them, and (provide links, sources, data, evidence, and quotes from your own church’s history books and prophets, which you can’t face because of your belief system, all of which you said I hadn’t provide, wouldn’t provide, or am lying about) have all the tolerance of Fred Phelps on this matter. There’s no profit in discussing stuff with someone who would not listen to anything I or anyone else said.
You’re not a Mormon so much as a coward.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:30 PM
YES! This is exactly, exactly where you and I, and where Mormonism and traditional, orthodox Christianity, diverge.
Christianity does not have to resolve these “problems.” Not at all. In fact, Christianity has stated that this is not a problem - the we believe both that there is one God, and that that God exists in three persons. Separate persons, One God. One God in Three Persons. Does it make logical sense? Not exactly. But it is what Christianity has taught since the beginning, and which was solidified in the Definition of Chalcedon, in 451. Creed? Not necessarily, but a definition that the overall church accepted in the 5th century in order to mediate disputes exactly like the one we are are having.
No, in the world of Christian theology, I have absolutely no need to resolve these “problems.” Rather, the LDS need to explain why they have taken this traditional, historical, orthodox tenet of Christian faith and changed it.
But, I do appreciate you clearly pointing out the differences between the two faith systems.
Finally, if you as a Mormon do not believe in creeds, why, can I ask, does your church have a statement of faith, as Voidseeker posted above. Every belief system, and not just religious, has a creed, or, a platform.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Bigot.
You asked. And to be clear:
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Voidseeker on August 30, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Sorry Christoph, regurgitated, long since discredited stuff from IRR and other “cult-bashers” fails to impress me. I’ve seen it alll before.
Tell me, what faith do you have? I came in here, KNOWING you were rampaging around, tossing insults, bearing false witness, etc, to specifically provide someone who could speak for my church instead of claim they knew what the Church teaches.
What’s your faith? Why not let ME cross examine you on your beliefs–let’s see if they are “Christian” or not.
Let me cite the parable of the Mote and beam here. While you rail on about how I’m evil, deluded, and follow a sinner (things I happily note that the Pharisee’s claimed about Christ as well), I would venture to suggest you take a look at the concept of something called charity.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Oh, and by the way Christoph…even though my name is casey, which everyone, everyone!, tells me is a girls name, I am very much a guy.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:37 PM
You mean…Mitt supports homosexuals hospital visitation rights with partners? How will America survive if the gays can visit each other?
I know there’s a lot more, but that one stuck out at me.
SouthernDem on August 30, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Sorry to disappoint, but that is the absolute truth.
He left her and the children because they would not join the church. Period.
Hmmmm….You used the word “must”. Does that mean leaving is an option then?
You also said “new converts”. Would that indicate that at some point a member of your church is allowed to divorce after a certain, shall we say, grace period for the non-member(s) to join has expired?
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Oh how I wish we could have this conversation in person.
My faith?
Hmmmm. I believe in myself because I know it’s there.
I believe in certain values that mostly western civilization has fought hard for.
I believe you are talking about YOUR F’N God anointed Prophet as being one of those “discredited sources” and you are the liar.
That’s what I believe.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I agree with Vanceone that there needs to be some more charity here.
Hey, thanks for coming in here to clarify. I appreciate it, genuinely, I do.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I always knew Allahpundit was an atheist…but now I can see he isn’t a great thinker.
I hate to break this to you, Allahpundit, but “Christianity,” and what it entails, is not to be defined by those outside the faith.
This should be obvious. Even in “secular” philosophy, nobody can call himself an “existentialist” if he denies practically every tenet of what constitutes “existentialism.”
None of this is to say that Mitt Romney is a bad candidate. I could very well end up supporting him, voting for him. But it’s a mistake of definition to insist that he’s a Christian.
LGwalt on August 30, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Nice to meet you, Casey. And that is every inch a man’s name, no pun intended.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Most Bible believing Christians who have ever talked to Mormons know by now that while Mormonism and Christianity share common words, the meanings and descriptions OF those words are paramount to the discussion. The double speak you get from Mormons sometimes SOUNDS right, but since the words used mean completely different things to each of you, you will be spending countless wasted hours talking past each other.
Pablo, unfortunately, the Mormon version of what they call “heavenly father” is also a different person than the God of the Bible…just like the “jesus” they refer to is a different person than the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
That’s part of the crux of this type of argument, IS the Bible what it claims to be, or not. If it is, then it is the very word of the living God, a compilation of everything the one true God of the Universe WANTS to reveal to us. If it is not, then it is a lie from the pits of hell. That because, if it is the God’s honest truth, then God Himself via the Holy Spirit is intertwined within its very pages, and if that be the case, then the goofy notoin that somehow mankind managed to muck it up and it is not accurate makes God pretty worthless, since after all, what kind of God can create the Universe but can’t keep His own written word to mankind intact and accurate.
“Christianity” IS taking up ones own cross and following the Jesus Christ of the Bible. But the salvation that converts a filthy sinner from eternal death unto life in and through Christ which makes a person “Christian” to start with is faith based and a response of a persons heart to the call of the one true God, the God of the Bible, on that persons life. The problem here is, your “heavenly father” and “jesus” are different people, and you use your “the Bible is flawed” argument to inject your erroneous “other stuff” into the word of God and thus render it to none effect.
As for your goofy “Nicaeans” idea, see above.
NRA4Freedom on August 30, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Nailinmyeye: I did state, I hope, that we LDS are not traditional, Orthodox Christianity. Indeed, we’ve never claimed to be “traditional, Orthodox” in those commonly accepted uses of the word.
The difference is that we are claiming we can be Christian without having to hew to those creeds. I would respectfully disagree that the creedal notions of the Trinity are “what has been taught from the beginning.” In fact, I would say that it is the exact opposite. In any case, however, we make no claim to follow the traditional view of the creeds. But we claim our view of Christianity and the Godhead is fully, amply supported by the Bible (much more, in fact, than the creedal views). Regardless, we are still Christians, in terms of “followers of Christ.”
As for why we “changed” the orthodox view–it’s because God the Father and Jesus Christ showed up together to Joseph Smith, thus showing the Trinity as preached by the creeds to be wrong. Plus, our definitions easily account for the fact such rather inconvienient parts of the Bible as Jesus not knowing everything God does, or why Christ would pray to himself, or whether Jesus discards His body when He acts as the Holy Ghost, and, to be blunt, we know that Jesus is the Son of God in a literal sense, not something “proceeding forth” in some incomprehensible way.
As for why I decry creeds but we have the Articles of Faith as Voidsetter quoted? I don’t decry creeds as a concept, just the creeds as accepted by most sects of Christianity. The Nicean creed is a committee position, not the revealed word of God. Simple as that.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Cheers. Does your screen name have anything to do with The Trueman Show by the way?
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »