Christians kindly remind Mitt: You’re not one of us
posted at 2:54 pm on October 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What’s their problem? Do they take exception to being associated with Mormonism because they suspect it of fostering some nefarious behavior? Or is it an authenticity thing, a reaction to the perception that he’s exaggerating the Christian element in Mormonism for political gain? Normally people are allowed to characterize their own faith.
Seems kind of jerky to get up in the man’s face and tell him that while you may be neighbors, you’re not next-door neighbors. No matter how much he may wish it was so.
“I told him, you cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, ‘I am a Christian just like you,”’ said Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, which is scheduled to hold the first primary among the Southern states. “If he does that, every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.”
This advice, which reflects the views of many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, makes Romney’s co-religionists bristle. “The fact that we are Christians is non-negotiable,” said Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints…
For evangelicals, many of whom believe the Bible is the literal word of God, the Mormons’ founding text, the “Book of Mormon,” makes it impossible for them to be considered Christians, according to Fred Smith, associate professor of Theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia…
The Mormon faith was established in 1827 by Joseph Smith Jr., who claimed to have discovered the Book of Mormon engraved on golden plates buried near his house in western New York. The text asserts that American Indians are descended from a lost tribe of Jews who arrived in the Americas around 600 B.C., and that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
Those beginnings sound “farcical to most Americans,” said Brett Clifton, a professor of public policy at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
That last point is key but often overlooked in the will-he-or-won’t-he chattering about Mitt’s much anticipated “these things I believe” explication of Mormonism. Everyone compares it to Kennedy’s speech, but Americans already knew the basics of Catholicism. All they needed to hear from JFK was church/state, the Pope’s not the boss of me, etc. Mitt’s got an entire theology to defend, and as the blockquote makes clear, one with no little amount of “nuance” among its basic tenets. The question is, if he gives the speech and glosses over some of those more colorful parts, will Christians think he tried to put one over on them when word gets around about what he left out? Or does he just deal with it squarely and go through the basics point by point, however incredulous Americans might be? You can already imagine the clip of him explaining that the garden of Eden is just south of Kansas City circulating on YouTube. A tough call for him and the campaign.
I’ll say this, though: a debate between Mormons and Christians about whose beliefs are more farcical is Christopher Hitchens’s wet dream. Dawkins may fly in just to be able to watch from ringside.
No matter. Most evangelical leaders seem already to have settled on the nanny stater.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Instead of using your religion to justify bigotry, why not speak the truth of Christs teachings and let the Holy Ghost testify of it’s truthfulness? Why is there the need to tear down someone religion before he can embrace yours?
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Then you are an a$$.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Let that religion which is without silly fables cast the first belly laugh.
- Somebody or other
Actually those beliefs seem less strange than many that others have.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Oh, I get it. You, who have never seen the boulder and are not a geologist are going to flippantly denounce the findings of a geologist that has actually inspected it.
You could have saved me the trouble by telling me that to begin with.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
First, when dealing with accounts that weren’t all that credible to begin with, the age issue cuts the other way. The reason more recent credible accounts are more persuasive is that they are easier to corroborate. The flip side is that more recent B.S. is also easier to debunk. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Probably not, but if today’s historians can’t even agree on whether he lived in the first place, who can know for sure? Did Elvis? Hell, no!
Second, even if one finds the basic tenets of Christianity and Mormonism equally (im-)plausible, shouldn’t any ties on the farcity scale go to the guy who claims to believe both? Christians may be wrong to believe their own dogma, but FWIW, they’re at least logical enough to recognize that if their dogma is right, the Mormon one must be wrong. Mormons can’t even admit that, hence the story that inspired this thread.
Xrlq on October 30, 2007 at 11:07 PM
They are all so weird that I don’t think that anyone could even make anything that weird up. Oh wait, somebody did!
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM
You are also completely ignoring my other point. It isn’t just the Baptists. NO other Christian denomination accepts Mormonism as a Christian faith, not one. While the Baptists might be the most outspoken about it, none of the others accept Mormonism as Christianity. So once again we are back to my example of someone showing up and declaring themselves a member of a group when they clearly are not a member.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 11:11 PM
I forget where it is in the New Testament, but one of the apostles specifically addressed this behavior to one of the early churches. He forbade them to sin just to take advantage of Christs sacrifice.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Aha! So you do admit the reason why any persons faith is an issue with you is so you can attack the person instead of the argument.
Thank you and you are excused.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Paul said in Romans “What shall we say then, Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer? Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death.”
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Not so strange if he supports Morons but is not a Mormon. I support Mormons and I am an atheist.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:22 PM
You need to shut up because you have no clue what you are speaking of.
This is what I’m talking about. You bigots come in here spouting the crap your pastor tells you and then you repeat those lies for everyone else. And because you pull the “My sister was a Mormon” absolute moral authority card it’s supposed to give your comment validity. Well, I’m here to tell you that if you got all that crap from your sister, it’s no wonder she left the LDS church. She was engaged in believing things out of context in relation to what is taught.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I take your point, but isn’t that offset by the superior scientific knowledge of more recent accounts? A miracle witnessed by a bunch of primitives 2,000 years ago is easy to dismiss; a miracle witnessed 200 years ago is a bit harder.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Cs devin you are incapable of a rational debate. You need anger management classes. The only bigot here is you.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:29 PM
AP, don’t you think it’s a little harsh to call the Jews of 2000 years ago primitive? You don’t think they were capable of rational thinking? Socrates existed 400 years earlier than these Jews. Was he primitive?
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Glad I saw that. That was not a Freudian slip, it was a sticky keyboard. One of you comedians made me spit my MicroBrew out a few days ago and it got all over my keyboard.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Did they have the internet? Did they have iPods or iPhones?
That’s what he probably meant.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM
You are supposed to be hanging out with me over here.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 11:45 PM
I’ll take anger management classes when you get educated before opening your pie hole and spewing BS.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM
What about Bob? What about me? Don’t forget us!
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM
MB4, you’re right, if those Jews had iPhones they could have recorded the miracles and everyone would have believed.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM
MB4 and Bob, to be honest, the two of you are at least more rational than CS, the man has some serious anger issues.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:49 PM
You ask too many questions. You cramp my “style”!!!
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Just doing my part of increasing page views.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 11:51 PM
That’s not what you said last night. Are you two timing Bob and me?
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:51 PM
And what CS have I said that wasn’t true? Are you saying that Mormons do not baptize for the dead? Are you saying that those who are married in the temple do not wear special undergarments? Are you saying that there are no secrets in the Mormon faith, but that anyone can go into the temple at anytime and witness any thing that is going on in there? Tell that to my mom who had to miss my sister’s wedding because she was not a Mormon and was not allowed at the ceremony.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I’m making a comparative statement. It doesn’t mean you are completely rational, just more so.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM
On a serious note, if AP wants more page views why is registration almost always closed. I have many friends at the institution who would like to participate in all this.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Around here no one can remain completely rational for long. It would be unbearable.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 11:56 PM
MB4:
Good question.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
The Mormons aren’t declaring themselves Baptists. They aren’t declaring themselves member of Augusta National. They are declaring themselves Christians/Golfers that use an 11 hole course and sand for tees.
Baptists, Catholics, et al, don’t own the Christian “organization” any more than Augusta National owns the game of golf. All the Country Clubs in the world don’t own the game of golf, yet somehow all their courses are different.
Sebastian on October 31, 2007 at 12:01 AM
If they were the same miracles, with comparable number of witness, perhaps, but even then only marginally so. Science 200 years ago was more advanced than 2000 years ago, obviously, but it was still appallingly crude by today’s standards. Besides, most of the major miracles claimed in the Bible defy today’s standards of science as well as those back in the day. Everyone knew, then as now, that nobody could walk on water, convert water into wine (or, depending on what sect of Christianity one subscribes to, to Welch’s Grape Juice) or raise the dead without divine intervention. Conversely, everyone must have known, then as now, that sleight of hand can make it look as though anyone can do almost anything. The only major Biblical “miracles” I can think of off the top of my head which can be better explained with today’s science (or, for that matter, the science of two centuries ago) are the ones relating to demonic possession, a.k.a. schizophrenia. Even those are pretty impressive if you believe everything but the junk science of the day. Casting out demons is cool, but curing schizophrenia is more impressive still, especially if anybody pulled it off using only the science that was available 2,000 year ago.
Ultimately, though, I rely on the logic argument: Christian and Mormon dogma are mutually exclusive, therefore, anyone who believes both dogmas (as Mormons must) is inherently more farcical than the other. Alternatively, if you think both dogma are farcical, isn’t it inherently more farcical to believe two farces rather than one?
Xrlq on October 31, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Heck, on 9/11 we had cameras capture (from multiple angles) planes smashing into the WTC towers, and we have Truther whackjobs who don’t believe that’s what happened. (excuse me: “raise disturbing factual questions…”)
I don’t think an iPhone – or an iMAX – recording of any miracle, ancient or modern, would change anyone’s mind.
sulla on October 31, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Two times infinity equals infinity.
MB4 on October 31, 2007 at 12:11 AM
And we have Islamists today who believe they’ll get 72 Virgins for killing a bunch of innocent people…
Timeframe has no bearing on rationality if belief.
You do know the Bible was primarily writen 100 to 200 years after Jesus (won’t call him Christ… because that term is NOT Jewish… so he wouldn’t have been called that…).
And He was born on what day? And died on what day?
And then of course the fact that the Romans NEVER used what you call the cross to crucify people… they used either a T with no head top piece…. or an X….
Lets see… whats the quote? “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone”?… or in this instance… let he whose religion makes sense cast aspersions on someone elses beliefs…
Romeo13 on October 31, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Yes, but you still can’t divide it by zero.
;-P
bamapachyderm on October 31, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Why on earth is Christian dogma and Mormon dogma incompatible? We are a Christian church, and we believe in Christ as our Savior.
Rose: We DO claim we have exclusive authority, but does not the entire Catholic and Orthodox branches as well? When will you reject their claim to be Christian?
And csdeven: I don’t know if you are LDS or not, but clearly you have some knowledge. Please, though, don’t go on and on about “bigots.” There are some here at Hotair, but I don’t believe any of the posters in this thread so far are them. So please calm down.
Vanceone on October 31, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Timeframe: I acknowledge that the recentness of LDS events is both a great thing and a liability, in the sense that people have been mining LDS church history for anything they can find to attack the church on.
Is there any other faith in the Christian tradition that has had as many full-time professional “debunkers” as the LDS one? Possibly the Jehovah Witnesses, but I doubt it. And yet we continue to grow. Just like the early Christian church, in fact. Satan fights the hardest against the truth.
Vanceone on October 31, 2007 at 12:33 AM
This is a discussion about why Christians do not accept Mormonism as compatible with Christian beliefs. Ii is not an attack, it is an explanation. And, I do not believe that Catholics have the only true authority either, but even though they have rituals and traditions that are not founded in scripture, they still believe basically the same as protestants.
Romeo13, your post doesn’t make sense. What is your point? I am merely explaining why Christians do not see Mormonism as compatible with Christianity. And yes I do know the history of Christianity, the dating of the texts, the cross, etc.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 12:37 AM
The atheists on this site are allowed to make any derogatory comment they want to regarding the validity of faith in general but when believers discuss theological differences they are accused of being hateful. I think the atheists need to be held to that same standard or else everyone should be allowed to express their opinions as freely as the nonbelievers are allowed to.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 12:41 AM
This has been claimed several times, by different poster’s on HA. However, no one has ever shown a source to verify this claim.
So, who are these Secular authors that hung around with Jesus? And please post a credible link that proves this point, otherwise it is unsupported BS, like most religious claims.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 12:42 AM
It’s all about context. And you don’t care to get educated, but would rather travel the easy road of bigotry.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 12:44 AM
For your benefit I am going to copy one of my earlier posts here:
Now, because Christians have been recognized as such for ~2,000 years, they do own the definition of what is a Christian organization. They have the right to state who they do and don’t agree with theologically and also have the right to differentiate themselves from those they see as being irreconcilably different from a theological standpoint. If they don’t have this right, the very word Christian loses all useful meaning in the language, as anyone can claim to be one and no one can say otherwise.
Buford on October 31, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Sorry, but a bigot is a bigot and I call them what they are.
Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Yes, they are bigots and there are quite a few on this thread.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 12:46 AM
It only does not make sense if you are not bothering the think…
Where you essentialy dismiss their “beliefs” as wrong, when the faith you profess to follow has a lot of sillyness and questions about it as well.
You do know that the Masons are a “Christian” organization? With lots of “secret” rituals?
You do know you can’t wander around the Vatican? or even get into the basement where the REALLY good stuff that they suppresed in the Middle Ages is kept?
And I hope you do know that Christianity has changed IN MY LIFETIME??? The church I was raised in (United Methodist) does NOT have the same basic tenents as what I learned as a child???
Romeo13 on October 31, 2007 at 12:46 AM
White supremest bigots had “explanations” also. And no one except other bigots were convinced by those “explanations”.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Actually, my belief in salvation through grace alone through faith in Christ is textbook, run of the mill, Sunday School pat-answer, LDS theology. The only difference is the manner in which we show our faith in Christ. Many Christians believe a verbal declaration that Christ is their Savior is enough.
I once spoke with a man who, convinced I wasn’t a Christian, tried to sell me a prayer card that would save me. Imagine that, eternal salvation I could carry in my wallet for the low, low price of 5 Norwegian Kroner. I declined, but I did get a pen from him. He ran a faith-healing/miracle business called “the Voice of Grace” where he made a living exchanging “miracles” for cold hard cash. After speaking with some of his followers, I had to laugh. Turned out he was a one-trick pony. All of their different maladies seemed to have been caused by the same problem – one of their legs had been shorter than the other until the good charlata… er, uh, reverend healed them. Made the short leg grow 2 inches right before their eyes. His enterprise didn’t sound Christian to me at all, but he believed in the trinity, so I guess he qualified.
Mormons, who are apparently not “Christian(tm),” on the other hand, believe you show your faith by obeying all of Christ’s commandments in totality from the day of your conversion until the day you die – repenting for your sins and shortfalls along the way. That is how you show that you have faith that the atoning blood of Christ will save you. All of your efforts will still bring you up short, but you have to make an effort in order to have Christ make up the difference. In the parable of the harvesters, everyone who worked was paid the same at the end of the day. Those who didn’t work got nothing.
Wingo on October 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM
I do not make derogatory comments, I merely state my opinion clearly.
You are offended because you are so used to religion having a protected status and not being subjected to any criticism. It is impossible to argue my position without saying things that would offend someone that has invested their life in a delusion.
In any event, Christians throw tons of derogatory comments against Atheists on this board all the time. I have been associated with Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all because I can think clearly enough to realize that Sky God worship is a delusion.
Suck it up, if you can’t stand the heat, don’t join the discussion.
Besides, you can always smile knowing that everyone that has ever existed in the entire history of the world will all suffer horendous pain for all eternity except for the ones lucky enough to be in your sect. That is the bottom line of Christianity, isn’t it?
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Any mormons I have run into have never called themselves Christians…they have called themselves emphatically Mormons.
What’s the beef?
Highrise on October 31, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Actually, going back my first post on this thread, I think Jesus owns the definition of what it means to be Christian. Look to His words. All of them. In the end, He will have the final say as to who, in this life, was and was not one of His true disciples.
Wingo on October 31, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Jay Haw,
I never said that I couldn’t handle the discussion, I find atheists illogical and am not bothered by their arguments. The point I am making is that if people of different beliefs discuss those beliefs they are considered to be hateful but at the same time the atheists here are not held to that standard. You can be as hateful as you want, I know that is the nature of atheists in general (Hitchens being a good example). I don’t expect any better from you, but don’t whine and say that I am hateful because I do not see things the same theologically as another group of religious people.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Romeo13, the same applies to you. This is a theological discussion but you are appalled that I would actually point out the theological differences between Mormonism and Christianity. What was I thinking? If the subject of this thread was not what it is you would have a point, but the subject is what it is and I am merely discussing it. That is what I meant by your post didn’t make any sense. You were objecting to my discussing the subject of this discussion.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Islam continues to grow.
Unfortunately Mormonism redefines those terms. When a Christian calls Jesus a savior, they mean:
o Man is fully, completely, lost and totally sinful.
o We stand condemned under the law. We broke God’s commandments and there is nothing we can do to make up for that fact.
o The payment for sin is death. This is justice. God is perfectly just, perfectly righteous and therefore not matter how small the sin we deserve the punishment.
o The only sacrifice worthy enough to pay the price for all our sins a perfect sacrifice that is beyond value.
o God the creator of *everything* lowered Himself and wrapped Himself in human form to be that perfect priceless sacrifice. Jesus was not a literal offspring of God in the flesh. Jesus is God Himself.
o Our salvation is not anything we do, but what Jesus’ sacrifice did.
o Works do nothing. They are only evidence of this trust and acknowledgment (repentance) of our sin.
o Salvation is the same in the Old Testament at it is in the new: through God’s righteousness, not ours (Genesis 15:6, 2Cor 5:21).
Sin is what Jesus said it is. He said that anger at another is murder (Matthew 5:21). Lust is adultery (Matthew 5:27). We are completely and utterly sinful.
“As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be,” is utter heresy. Christians view God in the Jewish tradition and writing (Old Testament). We are nothing like God. God is infinite, we are finite.
thule on October 31, 2007 at 1:10 AM
“a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
What you bigots fail to realize is that the beliefs you hold are your own experiences and you have no idea if your feelings are the same as any other person. That fact alone should deny you the arrogance of judging the feelings of others.
In case your bigotry is getting in the way, just ask yourself if you see a box that is red, does a different person see the same exact color or do they see blue, but have been taught all their lives that it is red.
You have no way of knowing if what you believe is the real Jesus or if the guy sitting in the pew next to you understands and accepts the real Jesus. If Jesus’ hair was really black and you think it’s brown, then you obviously are worshiping the wrong Jesus.
The fact is that you allow for generalizations within your own cult, but deny the same latitude to Mormons.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:10 AM
There is nothing hateful about Hitchens. He has arguments that demolish your beliefs and you shield yourself from thinking about them by calling him hateful because you can’t accept that you have wasted your life worshipping a fictional character.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Hitchens said when Falwell died that he wished there was a hell for him to go to. I was not a big supporter of Falwell but what Hitchens said was indeed hateful and entirely unnecessary.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:16 AM
You can waste your life attacking people of faith, but you are indeed wasting your life.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Pot, kettle, and you know the rest of the story.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:19 AM
And what have I actually said that was hateful? Where have I said that I wish evil on Mormons? I do not agree with their doctrine, I find it incompatible with New Testament Christianity. Again, that is the subject of this thread. I do not wish any evil on anyone, unlike the statement made by Hitchens concerning Falwell.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Ahh… postmodernism… don’t ya just love it? Sorry we cannot all have our own contradictory truth. Truth is truth, period.
We do not judge. God judges and outlined exactly how He will judge us. Have you ever lied? Have you ever looked with lust at another? Have you ever gotten angry at another person? Do you put anything as more important that God Himself? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you are like the rest of us, a sinner. I didn’t have to judge you.
God thankfully, didn’t leave us alone in this condemnation. He revealed truth to us. He gave us a conscious so we would know our sin and preserved His rules in writing so we would know how far we missed the mark.
thule on October 31, 2007 at 1:23 AM
I can spare the few minutes a day that I spend trying to save your soul. J/K
:)
If it’s any consolation, I think it is pretty clear that Mormonism is a blatantly man made religion that steals from Christianity and Islam and a few other random sources. You might even find some things of interest in Hitchen’s Book’s chapter on mormonism.
Here’s a free preview:
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165039/
Check it out.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 1:23 AM
You make uninformed comments that are lies and hurtful. And it is based on your intolerance of others beliefs. That is why you find it so easy to engage in.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Cs you are so wrong. Facts are not lies. Intolerance goes both ways. Ask a Mormon if he believes that Christians have the authority to baptize and see real intolerance.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Some like it hot and some sweat
When the heat is on
Some feel the heat and decide that
They can´t go on
Some like it hot, but you can´t tell how hot
Til you try
Some like it hot, so let´s turn up the heat
Til we fry
Some like it hot
MB4 on October 31, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Umm… how you got that from what I wrote I can’t fathom.
I’ll take that as you being too dishonest and lacking in faith in your own beliefs to let those you’re discussing this with know where you’re coming from.
From your repeated and zealous defense of Mormonism it’s obvious you’re a Mormon or otherwise have a personal stake in the religion. I don’t have a problem with that- but I do have a problem with someone who’s too cowardly to state what their own beliefs are when defending their faith- and the legitimacy of Mormonism (or any religion, including my own Protestant faith) is a matter of belief and faith- not proveable fact.
Hollowpoint on October 31, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Do Mormons consign you to hell because you don’t believe as they do? Do Mormons consign people who lived on islands in the middle of the ocean to hell because some Christian didn’t bother to travel there to inform them of Christ?
On both counts, the answer for the LDS faith is no, but the Christian cult answer is yes.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:52 AM
You missed it totally. Stop being lazy and looking for the low hanging fruit. Re-read it without the bias of looking for what you want to read.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:54 AM
So, you have by your statement admitted Mormon intolerance to Christianity. You refer to Christianity as “the Christian cult”. Interesting.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:55 AM
I think regardless of position on religion, we all can agree that the Power Station and Robert Palmer rock!!!
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 1:55 AM
I have no idea who Power Station and Robert Palmer are.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:57 AM
You assume I am a member of the LDS faith so you can diminish my comments as someone with an ax to grind. You refuse to deal with the substance of the argument (because you can’t defend your untenable position) and instead attack the person. This is totally typical of you.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:57 AM
How does it feel? You Christians have co-opted the definition of the word cult because of that scum bag Dr Walter Martin.
Cult: a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
What you call a cult is anyone that doesn’t slavishly believe as you do. The fact is that ALL religions are cults.
csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Frankly, I agree. Even the atheists on this site will admit their belief in non-belief. CSD refuses to identify his faith or belief, which diminishes his arguments. If he is not a Mormon, his credibility to speak about the experience of the Mormon faith is called into question.
Mallard T. Drake on October 31, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Nope. Age = difficult to corroborate/demonstrate. On this day, 30 years ago, I probably ate some food. I don’t remember what I ate and no one who might have been with me would either. Under cross-examination I would have to admit that I have no useful personal knowledge to verify that I consumed food on October 31, 1977, but I think the claim is entirely believable.
The rationality of believing the claim does not depend on my personal knowledge, though court rooms have reasons internal to their functions for limiting what grounds count as rational (their adversarial context, their coercive power, etc.). It’s a mistake to extrapolate from that context to what constitutes rational belief in all cases.
All the same, I think the historical distance of the events is a minor issue. The difficulty for most skeptics with either religion probably has more to do with: the miracles they proclaim; moral and social characteristics that turn skeptics off about them; and/or personal experiences of either that were neutral to negative.
jaychandra on October 31, 2007 at 2:02 AM
I just said it was interesting. I’m secure in my beliefs, you can call it what you want, it doesn’t change my faith. I just found it interesting that the arguments from Mormons is that their beliefs are Christian and now you call Christianity “the Christian cult”.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 2:04 AM
I’m sorry, csdeven, but you don’t have a position. Mormonism has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. If you want to believe such nonsense, fine, but you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.
packsoldier on October 31, 2007 at 2:09 AM
I have read through this thread and others, and usually the discussion is about the arguments each side is presenting. Reread your responses to Rose and see if you are dealing with the substance of her arguments or are attacking her directly. (and it doesn’t matter if you have a “history” with Rose. You are still attacking her.)
Is dismissing arguements with “bigots” responding to arguments or a personal attack?
Mallard T. Drake on October 31, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Rose, Mormonism is based on the belief that the true church disappeared from the earth for 1800 years and that Mormonism is the restoration of the only true church (via a proven con man named Joseph Smith, strangely enough). Hence, all other religions are false. In fact, until quite recently the Mormon temple ceremony portrayed a Protestant minister as a paid agent of the devil. So much for tolerance.
packsoldier on October 31, 2007 at 2:16 AM
They were from before the generation where music died.
MB4 on October 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Go back read all my posts. I have never once said anything about individual beliefs, or who might or might not be going to heaven, and even stated that it is entirely possible that individual Mormons could be Christians. My entire argument has been over the definition of what organizations get to call themselves Christian and which don’t. Those denominations that have been considered Christian since Christianity started, or those that are recognized by those as following the absolute essentials of the Christian faith by them are who qualify. They get to define this. This is not a heaven sent thing, but a real life thing. These groups have decided that Mormonism does not pass the test to be included in that group. So they aren’t. It doesn’t matter if you think this is right or wrong, it is their definition to decide. You can think they are being arbitrary and unfair. It doesn’t matter. It is still their right to decide what theology passes muster as Christian theology. They have decided that Mormonism doesn’t meet the criteria, and once again I remind you, it isn’t just Baptists, it is all mainline denominations. These groups have the right to define what the essential theology is to be called a Christian. While Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, etc… All agree that each other are Christian, and all of them also reject Mormonism as Christian. This is not some plot against the Mormons, but a recognition that Mormon theology differs too much from all these other groups to be included. For Mormons to insist that they are included in this group is to completely ignore differences in theology, or at the very least to minimize the importance of theological points that ALL the other groups consider absolutely essential. Quite frankly this is silly.
Additionally,
calling me a bigot for simply pointing out this fact is the worst kind of Ad hominem attack. Point me to one post I have made where I was
to use your verbiage. The worst thing I have said about Mormons is that the Mormon religion does not pass muster with all generally recognized Christian organizations. This is not intolerance but fact. I have also stated that since these are the organizations that have been recognized a Christian all along, that they get to define what theology does and does not get included under that umbrella. They have unanimously decided that Mormon theology does not. For Mormons to then insist that they are part of this group is silly. They clearly are not as the entire group has rejected their membership in it. Now you might call those Churches bigoted, but don’t call me one just because I pointed out the truth of the matter.
Buford on October 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM
packsoldier, I already know all that but thank you for reiterating.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM
MB4, I attended high school and college in the 70’s and quit listening to “top 40″ radio in the early 80’s. The last band I remember listening to on the radio that I liked was Air Supply. But I agree that music has definitely died. My oldest son is already complaining that his generation is not going to have any good music to look back on the way we do our music.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 2:30 AM
My secret:
I sing along to Air Supply’s greatest hits while I drive.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 2:34 AM
Wow, I have something in common with an atheist. Who would have guessed? (Their music is quite romantic, you must be one at heart.)
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 2:37 AM
Peter Frampton’s is even better.
MB4 on October 31, 2007 at 2:51 AM
Just when this was getting fun, I have to leave. Good night.
Rose on October 31, 2007 at 3:01 AM
Um, guys… Mormonism is NOT Christian in anyway at all. That is NOT to say it is necessarily “evil” or that people who are Mormons are the scum of the Earth. But, Mormonism is in no way a Christian faith.
The reasons are far too many to go into here, but Mormons reject nearly every aspect of faith that makes Christianity, Christianity. The first and foremost of which is that God is the only one. Mormons feel there are lots of Gods and that we can become Gods, too.
That is NOT a Christian belief at all!
They also reject the virgin birth of Christ saying that God actually came to Earth and had physical sex with Mary.
Anyway, there are TONS of crazy things Mormons believe that have nothing to do with Christianity. But, like I said, that does not make them evil.
Warner Todd Huston on October 31, 2007 at 5:50 AM
“Never confuse age with wisdom.”
- Fortune cookie philosophy
Texas Nick 77 on October 31, 2007 at 6:20 AM
Very good point. As long as a man holds the same values as I, family first, low taxes, strong defense, secure borders, firm belief in the citzens’s right to keep and arm bears, limited government, i.e., conservative values…. then his religion should remain between him and his creator.
Texas Nick 77 on October 31, 2007 at 6:36 AM
I’ll accept Jesus my way, the evangelicals can do it their way and the Mormons can do it their way and I don’t think Jesus will mind.
jeanie on October 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Forgive me if someone else said it but Mitt saying he’s a Christian is like Ron Paul saying he’s a Republican. Yeah he’s got a lot of Republican tendencies but he fails to match the definition of what a Republican is.
jdog on October 31, 2007 at 11:54 AM
What God lacks is convictions — stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or a Mormon or something — not try to be everything.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 31, 2007 at 12:37 PM
…………………..HEAR, HEAR, HEAR………………….
…….This is a public service announcement…………..
If one truly believes and supports the U.S. Constitution
- since it supports complete freedom of religion –
then one cannot, …I REPEAT CANNOT USE ONES RELIGION FOR A LITMUS TEST as to their electability for public office.
I’m not saying that anyone has been implying that…..I’m just saying…
Mcguyver on October 31, 2007 at 2:01 PM
I support freedom of religion, but I don’t have to vote for anyone I don’t want to. It doesn’t matter the reason. I would want to vote for someone that I feel has the same values I do. Since my faith is important to me, then I would hope to have the opportunity to vote for someone with similar views.
thule on October 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Small correction: implicit in the constitution is the idea that I can use whatever litmus test I choose when I cast my vote. The Constitution says there can’t be a law that enforces a condition on religion to take office, but that is quite different on how I vote.
Why would they have secret ballots if there were rules on how you could vote?
pedestrian on October 31, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Your post is another truthful statement to our freedoms not a correction of mine.
thule,
Of course you have the freedom to do so.
But to provide unmitigated support for a candidate because of his/her religion is a litmus test loaded with problems, in a country that provides more freedom of religion than any other country.
Because in so doing one is bound to support the negatives of a public official, over and above qualifications that are better for the collective good.
Think “W. Bush”.
I still maintain the reason conservatives lost in ‘06 is because of the unmitigated support for the President’s policies in general….
Why else did Rush Limbaugh apologize for “carrying the water” of the same the next day?
If there had been more balanced criticisms I believe Bush would’ve taken heed to change certain tactics in his policies…
and this is a very important point to never forget…
….James Dobson himself said that the only time he ever officially supported a President for office was for W. Bush in 2004…
One
canshould criticize and support a public servant based on the issues pertinent to the collective good of the day…. not a particular religion…. all other qualifications being equal.And I have to disagree with the first line (my highlight) from twoorthree:
.
.
I think the unmitigated support for Bush has been primarily from the religious evangelical movement for this reason… and have not been critical enough of Bush, where needed, for the same reason……
.
.
.
.
Still don’t believe me……?
.
Here is Dobson, CLEARLY MAKING A RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL STATEMENT!
Dobson IS IN A POSITION OF POWER, to say that it doesn’t matter what ones religion is, as long as it is in line with his belief in what is the greater collective good, but, and this is key… he REFUSES TO DO SO!
AND.. TO BOOT…!
….Dobson clearly is not the majority….!
…see the next four (4) quotes!
Personally, in conversations with friends we believe Dobson is becoming senile and has truly blown it… all signs of early dementia!
Mcguyver on October 31, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Your argument makes it sound like you dont even know the fact that there are different books in the Bible, different versions of which were translated from different languages, some of which conflict with each other, and different churches have different opinions on which of them should even be included. But somehow you have the moral authority to declare all these issues settled and are going to declare there is one additional book that is banned?
Excuse me while I laugh.
Christianity and the Bible is entirely built apon debate, councils and edicts about the dogma. It’s strong point is most certainly not rigorous historical accuracy in the Bible. I think it is impossible to deny this. It strikes me that to deny this and declare debate closed and the Bible (whatever version of it you have) as totally accurate and closed to a new revalation is a position that has probablly strayed further away from the root of Christianity then whatever it happens to say in the Book of Mormon.
Resolute on October 31, 2007 at 7:42 PM
This is from the book of Galatians in the Bible:
God isn’t cool with us changing the details.
Mojave Mark on November 1, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Mormons are Christians! I’m a Christian and they do not believe what I believe. Jesus is God, and we are not saved by works but by faith alone! Read Romans and Galatians. As for evengelicals…I never know who they are talking about. I don’t speak with a southern accent so I don’t think I’m part of that crowd…I’m also a Lutheran so I don’t fit the theology either…
sabbott on November 1, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »