I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed.

God isn’t cool with us changing the details.

Do some research on the accepted validity of the biblical writings. There is great consensus on the validity of the writings and the consistency of the doctrine. There have been grammatical and non-essential edits along the way, but the theology and message have remained untouched. What we have is incredibly precise by any standard of ancient literature.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 7:13 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.

Why would they have secret ballots if there were rules on how you could vote?

Your post is another truthful statement to our freedoms not a correction of mine.

then I would hope to have the opportunity to vote for someone with similar views.

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 can should 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:

2. Christianity is a religion not a political movement: Many people that are quoted in the numerous media stories on the divide between Romney’s Mormonism and evangelical Christianity are average people, local pastors, who are speaking from a religious standpoint, not a political one. They see the question as a religious one and answer it as such. However, it is possible for me to say “Mormonism is a cult” and “I will vote for a Mormon for president.” Those two statements are not incompatible.

.
.

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……?

James Dobson, said yesterday that the Mormon faith practiced by Governor Romney of Massachusetts could pose a serious obstacle if Mr. Romney makes a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

“I don’t believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess,” Mr. Dobson said on a syndicated radio program hosted by a conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham.

Mr. Dobson, the founder of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, did not say why Christians would fail to support Mr. Romney.

Mr. Dobson also acknowledged that the governor’s stands on social issues are similar to those of many religious conservatives.

“He’s a nice guy. He’s a very attractive man. He’s got a beautiful wife….

and a lot of his principles and values are consistent with ours,” Mr. Dobson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Romney, Eric Fehrnstrom, had no immediate comment.

.
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!

“If he’s pro-life, pro-family, I don’t think he’ll have any problem getting the support of evangelical Christians,” a founder of the Moral Majority, Rev. Jerry Falwell, told the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mo. earlier this year

The writer, Mark DeMoss, a publicity agent whose clients include the Rev. Franklin Graham, wrote the five-page letter, urging the recipients to “galvanize support around Mitt Romney, so Mr. Giuliani isn’t the unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several candidates.”

Evangelical Christians never had it so good, but they seem not to know it. Instead of supporting the candidate who most shares their values — Mitt Romney — they seem hell-bent for the proverbial cliff.

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has been embraced in a most unlikely place: at Bob Jones University, the influential Christian college that teaches that his Mormon church is a cult.

Personally, in conversations with friends we believe Dobson is becoming senile and has truly blown it… all signs of early dementia!

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

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?

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 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.

…….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…

Liberals have made government their religion. Let’s not make the same mistake.

sweetlipsbutterhoney on October 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

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.

The statute of limitations exists only because the law distrusts evidence that’s older than six years or so for most crimes. It’s basic recognition of the principle that age = not credible.

Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM

“Never confuse age with wisdom.”

- Fortune cookie philosophy

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.

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.

I sing along to Air Supply’s greatest hits while I drive.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

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

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,

csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:10 AM

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

“a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”

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.

I have no idea who Power Station and Robert Palmer are.

Rose on October 31, 2007 at 1:57 AM

They were from before the generation where music died.

You refuse to deal with the substance of the argument (because you can’t defend your untenable position) and instead instead attack the person. This is totally typical of you.

csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 1:57 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?