McCain rejects Hagee’s endorsement
posted at 4:06 pm on May 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
First it was the Catholic nonsense, then it was the New Orleans nonsense, and finally it was the Hitler nonsense. The guy was, quite simply, more trouble than he’s worth.
The Huffington Post had published a recording of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God’s will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” McCain said in a statement to CNN Thursday.
He added that his relationship with Hagee did not compare with Obama’s lengthy association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today,” said McCain.
Exit question one, which I’ve asked before: This is bound to alienate some evangelicals. What can Maverick do to win them back, short of putting Huckabee — who once complained that Hagee hadn’t endorsed him — on the ticket? Exit question two: How long before he dumps Rod Parsley too? Or does Parsley get a pass because a swath of the base likely agrees with him?
Update: Let’s try the VP question another way. Does this make McCain/Romney less likely?
Update: A good point from David Brody, and especially worrisome in light of Politico’s article today about Maverick’s floundering campaign. Where was McCain’s research team on this?
Well, look did McCain have any other option? Of course he had to distance himself from these comments. It’s still different from Jeremiah Wright because Hagee WAS NOT his Pastor. That’s important in all of this but it makes you wonder where the vetting process was in all of this? Hagee was known to be controversial in the past so did the McCain camp not realize that these past comments could reflect poorly on McCain?
Here’s the other part of this: McCain SOUGHT this endorsement.
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 Next »
For all of your ranting and raving and accusations about me and Red Pill and others attacking the Catholic Church and you are defending this abomination called Hagee??
You cannot be serious….
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Andy – I’m sorry I disagree with you about hagee, I think he is a liar and a deceiver.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 6:58 PM
/shrug
If one believes that the rebirth of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy (the dry-bones vision of Ezekiel), then it’s neither illogical nor immoral to believe that Hitler might have been as much a part of that as Nebuchadnezzar was in Israel’s destruction. Thing is, Hagee’s far more a friend of Israel than the anti-Semites at HuffPo, which makes their accusation of him that much more ironic.
The Katrina thing is over the top, but not any more so than what was pretty commonplace back in the days of hellfire and brimstone preaching. You should read the sermons of John Edwards (say, “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God“). I suppose McCain wouldn’t want his endorsement, either. Nor would anyone here, obviously. Too controversial. Too mean.
Hagee’s been in the business of helping people his whole life. I don’t agree with his theology, but I think he’s a far better man than most of the folks that relish in tearing him down.
spmat on May 22, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Err, Jonathan Edwards. Not John. Got politics on the brain.
spmat on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Huh? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Hagee is just one of a hundred other “Apoconuts” who claim to be big supporters of Israel, but really only want us to exist so that the Anti-Christ can slaughter us all and 144,000 of us will get saved.
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 PM
You think you’re better than I John? Where we came from, if one did not want to die of poverty, one became a televangelist or a bandit! You chose your way, I chose mine. Mine was harder. You talk of mother and father. You remember when you left to become a televangelist? I stayed behind! I must have been ten, twelve. I don’t remember which, but I stayed. I tried, but it was no good. Now I am going to tell you something. You became a televangelist because you were… too much of a coward to do what I do!
Tuco on May 22, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Basically you are right…but add the money part. They always preach near end of times, but they want your money for the “good” times.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM
It does not matter what Hagee or any other Christian “wants”….you can’t stop prophecy.
In your Bible Christ it’s prophecied.
It’s prophecied(in your Bible) that the Messiah would come before AD 70, and that the jews would reject Him and would be scattered all over the earth, just as the rebirth of Israel and Christ’s return was also prophecied.
You can’t evade the Truth forever.
For your sake I pray you come to know Him before the tribulation begins.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM
I wonder if Texas Jew would back us up on this one :)
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Amazing the way you can make dialog from that movie fit into real life these days. I always get a kick out of your posts… even when the subject itself is depressing.
MORE!!!
LegendHasIt on May 22, 2008 at 7:14 PM
God bless him, don’t you just love guys like this…I can hardly wait for God to get a hold of him.
Lenny Bruce said, “show me a pastor with two suits and a parishioner with none, and I will show you a fake”.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM
All I have to say is that, as an “Evangelical” – if these are the guys that pass as “Evangelical” now, then I can no longer consider myself in the camp. Evangelical once meant a very few distinctives – notably one’s view of the Bible’s authority, and the emphasis on being “born again.” I don’t know when it began to mean lame ass prophecizers who twist ever freaking world event to suit their particular wingnut theology.
I’m an academic – 6 months away from a PhD in theology. I’ve considered myself an evangelical for 16 years, since I came to faith at 16. Never, not once, have I ever considered these fringe nuts to speak for me, my faith, or my beliefs. And, to be honest, I haven’t known one person – not one – who was a fan of Hagee, Parsley, or some of these others (Dobson has a large following, however – for a lot of reasons). I have never felt compelled to study in a serious manner, academically, what these supposed big shots have written or say about the Bible, theology, or whatever. All of that is to say that it is so incredibly, unbelievably strange to me that these guys old so much sway, that they make it on TV, and that their endorsements mean anything.
My surprise could be for two reasons – 1)My faith has been a more academic pursuit, meaning that these guys operate on more popular level – however, how is it that I’ve never known one person to cite John Hagee in a conversation about theology? I know a lot of non-academic believers, and they don’t love these guys. 2) Maybe they don’t have as much sway as the MSM would have us believe. I mean, when they want to talk about “hell” on CNN, they get Hagee to get on and say that it is unequivocally a physical place and that it is certainly real – as if that were the monolithic Christian belief. They get the wingnuts because it makes good TV. They don’t get a systematic theology prof from a mainstream seminary or university who would provide a balanced answer, they get the weirdo.
How many people in this country genuinely think that when Hagee, Parsley, or Dobson speaks, it represents, by and large, what the Christian faith is all about? It pisses me off.
nailinmyeye on May 22, 2008 at 7:20 PM
The death at the end times is not done by the ‘Anti-Christ’ (a word that is not in the Bible). The death is through plagues, wars, famines, storms, volcanoes, droughts, etc (acts of God as known by the insurance companies).
But your understanding of Biblical prophecy is pretty well limited. Re-read Revelation before the next time you talk about what it says the anti-Christ will or will not do.
Zionism is mostly a JEWISH idea from the Old Testament. I have no problem with your not believing what is in the Bible, but at least understand what it says. However, the 144,000 number is accurate (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel). That’s what it says. As for what that means, well that is up to interpretation.
Ultimately, according to the Bible, most people are going to die in the end times and people can do nothing to hasten it or keep it from happening. Christian Zionists understand that God is on his own time. . . no matter what we do with Israel. The OLD testament says that all the Jews in the world will come back to Israel before the Messiah comes. Christians generally support Israel from the Biblical passage that says God will bless those that bless Israel and curse those that curse Israel. Christian support of Israel comes from OBEYING GOD.
Of course there are many Biblical scholars who believe that prophecies were completed before the Babylonian destruction of Israel. However, Jesus did predict the fall of Israel and destruction Solomon’s Temple 75 years before it happened. . . while he said it would be REBUILT (one of the most interesting prophecies to me seeing as how the dome of the rock – muslim – is currently there). I actually support destroying it, and I want to do it myself, because of this prophecy about the Temple being rebuilt. . . but I digress.
Again, the Bible is the most interesting book ever written. Before accusing others of false teachings, just read it for yourself and point people to the parts you want them to see. Your interpretation of Revelation is no better than Hagee’s in your post.
ThackerAgency on May 22, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Just to clarify and take out the most important part of my post for emphasis so that you understand why Christians support Israel. . .
Christians generally support Israel from the Biblical passage that says God will bless those that bless Israel and curse those that curse Israel. Christian support of Israel comes from OBEYING GOD.
ThackerAgency on May 22, 2008 at 7:26 PM
This is where Swaggart went to school, looks like they teach them some extra classes at this small barely accredited school.
These type of guys are what makes your hard work so much harder.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Yup. Doesn’t hurt that it’s the only decent human right’s respecting nation in a cesspit of theocratic insane asylums.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 22, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Do you think that all Christians support Israel for that reason? Or, that all share your interpretation of Revelation? I’m just curious.
nailinmyeye on May 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I forgot…you’re all-knowing, and I’m biblically stupid.
If it has nothing to do with your judgment of me, or anyone else, then please (Lord, help me) explain.
It’s you who picks and chooses, SaintOlaf. Throwing select Bible verses, while ignoring others. Matthew applies to you, and Andy.
I understand the Bible, as my Catholic Church expects me to. By no other authority do I care to listen.
JetBoy on May 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Hey Nailinmyeye,
I feel sorry for you for thinking hell is not a real place because it is a real place. How can ANYONE WHO CALLS THEMSELVES Christian not believe in a place called Hell. It is where people who do not believe that we are sinners that Jesus paid for those sins so we can live forever with him and not in hell. Heaven is where the perfect God lives, and the perfect loving God can’t stand sin so he panish all those people who have not accepted that Jesus paid their sins to hell. We broke the law so we should be punish.
By the Way James Dobson is a MAN OF GOD. What he says is TRUE!!!!
BroncosRock on May 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM
I’m just pissed because now I have to find a new label. I’ve known it was coming for a while – I think the MSM, among others, have ruined the evangelical moniker.
What do you think –
Post-Evangelical?
Neo-Evangelical? (I like this because it sounds cooler – but it is a little cheesey)
Or, how about Postmodern Evangelical, or, just Postmodern Christian?
I could just be what most Christians actually are – Christian.
nailinmyeye on May 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Hey Nailinmyeye you can just call your self a fake Christian who does not understand the bible at all.
BroncosRock on May 22, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Friend – please don’t feel sorry for me. First, I never made any claims about hell. I made claims about the absolute certainty of John Hagee, and the monolithicity of his proclamations about the Christian faith. Second, the physical or non-physical nature of hell are not a central tenet of my faith – Christ crucified for us, Christ raised for us, that is where I will stand. The FACT is that Christianity is not monolithic, and a good deal of sincere Christians would not express their view of hell according to Hagee’s pronouncements. To portray all of Christianity in Hagee’s light is to silence a staggering number of believers. Christianity is diverse. Third – there are a multiplicity of interpretations of the book of Revelation. I’m not saying that yours is wrong. I’m saying that there are other ways of reading the text.
About Dobson, he may be a man of God. I’ve appreciated his work for families, and I love Adventures in Odyssey. There are many things about him I respect. But the fact that he is a man and not God betrays the fact that not everything he says is true. It cannot be.
nailinmyeye on May 22, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Seriously?
I’m engaging you respectfully, as a brother or sister in faith. And your response is to call me a fake Christian?
nailinmyeye on May 22, 2008 at 7:42 PM
We need chaos in Saint Paul, too.
SouthernGent on May 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Someone hasn’t been around the past couple of days. Near as I can tell, the entire lot of you are fake Christians. Every thread has degenerated into someone being called a fake Christian.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 7:50 PM
And who would know better about hell than a Broncos fan?
(grin, duck, run…)
sulla on May 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM
I haven’t been commenting in a few months.
And – if that is how the threads in the past few days have been, maybe I’ll keep not commenting. It is depressing. Genuine apologies.
nailinmyeye on May 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Long story short, the anti-christ will make a pact with Israel and then break it. This will begin an age of persecution which will lead to the mass conversions, no?
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Krydor Krydor…
Don’t judge Christianity as bad just because your family brought you up in a cult.
Try this: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9
and a protestant Church.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Sorry for saying nailinmyeye that you are not a true Christian but I really can’t understand how any Chritian can say that there might not be a real hell. Where do people who do not believe they are a sinner and ask God to forgive their sinful life go??? They can’t be with the perfect God so where do they go??
Again I am sorry but I am a Big Fan of James Dobson and grow up under his book and his teaching. I am really sorry.
BroncosRock on May 22, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Excuse me? SaintOlaf is THE only TRUE Christian on this thread and he decides who is and isn’t a fellow Christian. So far, nobody has met the standards. If you don’t agree with him, you obviously are some Bible burning degenerate. Please, get back in your place.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Hey Sulla,
Every Team has to go thro its growing pains of rebuilding. Heck in 5 years even the Patriot will probally grow thro several poor seasons. After the Payton Manning retires the Colts will go thro several poor seasons also. It is the way of life for a fan of a team. Heck it was just three years ago that Denver Broncos made it to the AFC Champion game.
BroncosRock on May 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Why thank you. /sarc
But I never said that.
I did say this though:
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM
As for Hagee… I’ve already said that he lost all credibility when he endorsed Mccain over Huckabee.
Mccain is no friend of Christians.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Sorry for picking on your team, there, BroncosFan. My wife’s from Colorado, so I come by it honestly.
A friend of mine used to be a comic, during the Elway years. After one heartbreaking superbowl he was at a club, joking about the loss. Elway happened to be in the crowd, and grew so angry he threw his beer glass at the stage.
It was intercepted.
sulla on May 22, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Summation of thread: if you take the Bible seriously, you’re a nut.
spmat on May 22, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Follow the money.
What a fascinating thread. We got Jews, Catholics, Pentecostals, Atheists, 7 day Adventists turned atheists, Calvinists, Mormons all represented. A rainbow of religious beliefs. (Who’d I leave out.)
Not only that, we got men, women, young, old, gays, blacks, whites represented here too. What a splendid cross section of society. It’s true democracy in action. dKos, HuffPo, and DU must be SO jealous.
My collie says:
An now we have the canine contingent, as well.
CyberCipher on May 22, 2008 at 8:27 PM
It’s my opinion that parts of Genesis aren’t to be taken literally (see metaphor). And the “Big Bang” theory is so completely not even in the same field as evolution (I’m assuming you’re not talking about the evolution of the universe), but my views on that are for another thread. It’s also my opinion that the theory of evolution, while not scientific fact, is very strong. It’s 100% fact that people can believe in both evolution and be Christians. You are VERY close minded.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Tell Collie:
We all love each other and most of us understand we are all God’s children, no matter your religious beliefs.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 8:32 PM
I don’t think so buddy.
Jesus certainly believed the truth of 6 day creation.
That is a literal six day creation “And the evening and the morning were the first day”.
You either believe it is telling the truth or a lie.
There is the Truth and everything else is lie.
If you believe in both truth and a lie you longer have the truth at all.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Jesus distilled the entire message that God had for us into two simple commands, viz. 1) Love the Lord your God will all of your heart, soul, mind, strength…AND 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. Collie, how many humans of ANY kind do you know of that actually DO a “really good job” of observing/obeying those two commands?
My collie says:
Precisely.
My collie says:
Exactly. Here’s a doggie biscuit.
CyberCipher on May 22, 2008 at 8:43 PM
I’m no Hagee fan(because he endorsed Mccain) but what everybody knows is: Mccain is very,very busy pandering to liberals…and liberals hate Christians…so it’s bye bye Hagee… under the bus you go.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Krydor Krydor…
Don’t judge Christianity as bad just because your family brought you up in a cult.
Try this: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9
and a protestant Church.
SaintOlaf
The only thing that differentiates a cult from a religion is the number of adherents. I know you are genuine in your beliefs, and that those beliefs require you to spread the Good News. It’s probably not a good idea on your part to try it with me.
On the grand scale, you are also a member of a cult.
I haven’t been commenting in a few months.
And – if that is how the threads in the past few days have been, maybe I’ll keep not commenting. It is depressing. Genuine apologies.
nailinmyeye
Nothing to apologize for. I rather miss your comments.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Wow. That’s quite an assertion. I’m glad we have you to enlighten us. After all, you were alive 1,990 years ago and got to converse with Jesus himself on the topic. Cool.
Where did I say “the Bible is a lie”? I simply said the Bible may or may not contain metaphors. Please, go to dictionary.com and find the definition of that word. It certainly doesn’t mean lies. I didn’t say I believed fully in either Evolution or Creationism. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. As for the formation of the Earth (which is also a part of the greater study of Creation Science)….the scientific evidence behind the Big Bang theory isn’t nearly as convincing as the evidence behind evolution, so I’m going to remain neutral on this one. I’m not in the crowd that says “creation science is pseudoscience” because I am a Christian and I believe 100% that there is a God and that He created the Earth. My question is HOW He did it. And I know the Bible contains many complex metaphors (especially in the Old Testament), which I know even you won’t deny, so I can’t say whether or not His words concerning the creation of the Earth and it’s beings were intended to be taken literally or not. One more thing, it’s very insulting to criticize someone else’s faith and it’s not exactly the “Christian thing to do”.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Being that he is one, he must be self-loathing
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Sound like Christianity in general…
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 8:58 PM
From Wikipedia (I know, I know…”Don’t quote Wikipedia, anyone can edit it):
I certainly don’t think Christianity is “out of the mainstream”.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM
OK Its just a cult all grown up.
Tell the Israelites 2000 years ago that the Jesus kooks are not a cult.
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 9:03 PM
That’s kind of an interesting point (I think cult is just social branding, so it’s worthless word I think), but Christians turn on each other and denounce each other very quickly over differences.
Spirit of 1776 on May 22, 2008 at 9:05 PM
I certainly don’t think Christianity is “out of the mainstream”.
malan89
Well, if you were a snake handling Christian, then you would be.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Actually judaism has become the cult…not Christianity.
It’s amazing! A “prophet”(as you might say) came who was greater than Elijah and you don’t use His Words (and worse you rejected The Messiah Himself).
Again this goes back to the prophecies(in your Bible) that the jews would reject the Messiah and would be scattered all over the world.
Does it not make you wonder about the prophecies that the gentiles would come to worship the God of Israel, while considering that Christianity is the biggest world religion?
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM
I would say Judaism wouldn’t qualify as a cult either. It’s pretty much “in the mainstream” as well.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Here is a more realistic definition of a cult(for example as it pertains to Christianity)….a cult is a non Christian religion that calls itself Christian (therefore tainting the name of Christianity).
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Here is a more realistic definition of a cult(for example as it pertains to Christianity)….a cult is a non Christian religion that calls itself Christian (therefore tainting the name of Christianity).
SaintOlaf
Oh, like every church that isn’t Roman Catholic?
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM
No. The Christian church not the ROMAN catholic church.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Lets see,a controversial Reverend says some pretty
outlandish statements,but yet your trying to get
elected,the Liberal MSM is having a field day
comparing this to Wright,so what to do!
canopfor on May 22, 2008 at 9:26 PM
No. The Christian church not the ROMAN catholic church.
SaintOlaf
Yes, because you dudes didn’t split off from the mother Church.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM
There isn’t really any “Christian Church”. There are many different Churches (Protestant, Catholic, etc) that follow different (in most cases, very slightly different) paths of Christian belief. As a Roman Catholic, I believe we ARE the only Christian Church worth didly squat (we’re the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” to be exact, but I’m sure StOlaf will have much to say about that) :-) . Each individual Church believes that THEY are the universal Christian church as described by Jesus and THAT’S what causes most of these disputes.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 9:30 PM
No the “universal Christian Church” as you say, is the Body of Christ.
Not the ROMAN catholic church….the Body of Christ.
Yes there are many members of the Body of Christ in the ROMAN catholic church…but the ROMAN catholic church is not the Body of Christ itself nor does it lead one to be born again(which is necessary to become part of the Body of Christ).
What comprises a cult is it’s doctrine not number of members.
Yes the protestant church split from the ROMAN catholic church because it’s doctrine and leaders became corrupted so you could say the protestant church became the True church because it has the pure Christian doctrine, but the there are members of the Body of Christ in both churches.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 9:43 PM
The church that Jesus spoke of (His church) is a spiritual entity. It is not a building, not a religous order, not a denomination, not a hierarchy composed of pious men/ earthly leaders. The church that Jesus spoke of has no real requirement for any of those things. He DID intend for us to gather ourselves together in fellowship and prayer in order to support one another. Beyond that, very little can be said about what “the church” actually is. For example, there are many small groups of Christians gathering together in secret in places like communist China. They don’t have a building, a statement of doctrine, and in some cases, because they suffer persecution that threatens their lives, they don’t even know who their leaders are. Are they any less a part of the church that Jesus spoke of? I don’t think so.
CyberCipher on May 22, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Just because you are part of the Body of Christ (which includes anyone that believes in Christ), doesn’t mean you are part of the true church/universal church/whatever you want to call it that Jesus talked of. Catholics believe that the RCC is the true church and protestants (there are 1000s of individual protestant churches) believe that their individual church is the true church, if they didn’t they obviously wouldn’t be in them.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Thank God I’m a Taoist!
All its ‘preachers’ say is:
-have some wine at the river’s edge, enjoy the moonlight, and reflect upon its wavering image on the water.
Hagee is one more self-appointed middleman for the Ineffable.
Throw him under the short bus where he belongs.
profitsbeard on May 22, 2008 at 9:54 PM
They aren’t any less a part of the Body of Christ that StOlaf spoke of, but to be a part of the true church (or so Catholics believe) they have to follow Catholic values/traditions. It has nothing to do with a building. For the record, there are MANY Catholics in the PRC. The gov’t controls a state sponsored Catholic Church that butts heads with the Vatican just about every day, but that doesn’t make those people any less Catholic. There are also many Catholics that operate underground to avoid the gov’t controlled church.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Umm, what? God couldn’t have created the “big bang”? God didn’t create things to evolve? What Christian church do you belong to?
JetBoy on May 22, 2008 at 9:57 PM
My collie says:
Stupid dog.
CyberCipher on May 22, 2008 at 9:58 PM
StOlaf is a strict creationist and I respect that. What I DON’T respect is demeaning someone else’s faith just because they don’t take every statement in Genesis to be completely literal.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 10:00 PM
The Roman Catholic Church never claims to be the “Body of Christ”. Just His church on Earth, as declared by Jesus to Peter. From which the unbroken line of the Papacy continues.
And to be “born again” is to be baptized.
JetBoy on May 22, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Exactly. That’s why Hagee supports Israel.
Andy in Agoura Hills on May 22, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Yes the protestant church split from the ROMAN catholic church because it’s doctrine and leaders became corrupted so you could say the protestant church became the True church because it has the pure Christian doctrine, but the there are members of the Body of Christ in both churches.
SaintOlaf
The what now? There is no Protestant church in the same manner there is a Roman Catholic church. Heck, the Baptists aren’t even a unified body.
I sense we are heading towards faith versus works at some point in the near future.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Great observation. What a fantastic collection of beliefs. No wonder no one agrees on anything!!!!
Andy in Agoura Hills on May 22, 2008 at 10:04 PM
True. I too believe in creation. But yes, many parts of the Bible, particularly in the OT, are meant metaphorically. It certainly was the writing style of the times.
Eh, different faiths have different beliefs. But one cannot deny science in God’s master plan.
JetBoy on May 22, 2008 at 10:05 PM
There you go. I beat around the bush too much. You said it in much simpler terms.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Are you a traditional Taoist, or a 1989 Nepal Convention Taoist?
Ah, an ‘89er. HEATHEN!
/grin
sulla on May 22, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Well, so do I (as Creation just means you believe He created life, Earth and everything) but for many of the scientific explanations of creation of the Earth/evolution of man to work you have to concede that parts of Genesis are metaphors for how He created everything. StOlaf’s brand of creationism calls for a literal interpretation of Genesis, which kind of rules out the theory of evolution, the Big Bang Theory, etc.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Where’s ColtsFan? We need a good Calvinist to complete the mix and make these Pelagianists feel the pain. I fear that my collie is not up to the task.
I for one am glad you are here Krydor. Chances are, they’ll label you an anti-Catholic bigot FIRST. No one hated the Catholic church more than Ellen White.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 22, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Wow. Even the Taoists can’t get along.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Great observation. What a fantastic collection of beliefs. No wonder no one agrees on anything!!!!
Andy in Agoura Hills
How else can our ideas be tested if the aren’t challenged?
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 10:14 PM
This thread is good because it keeps us challenge in our faith. It makes us have to think why we believe what we believe.
BroncosRock on May 22, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I for one am glad you are here Krydor. Chances are, they’ll label you an anti-Catholic bigot FIRST. No one hated the Catholic church more than Ellen White.
Yeah, that stuff sealed the deal for our leaving. I mentioned the reason we left on page 2. The reason we joined in the first place was that their quit smoking program unquestionably saved my father’s life.
The idea of a church founded on the dreams of a girl who was smashed in the head by a rock seems truly bizarre in retrospect.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 10:19 PM
heh…we’re doomed for sure!
JetBoy on May 22, 2008 at 10:21 PM
She was a Millerite. Standing out on the hillside in New York in 1842 – 1843…waiting for the world to end.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 22, 2008 at 10:23 PM
That does pretty much sum it up…..
(I’m no Hagee fan either)
theregoestheneighborhood on May 22, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Oh, you know the answer. You also know that it makes it funnier, collie.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM
The mistake is in thinking there was supposed to be some world-wide organization known as the Church. Churches are not supposed to be new branches of a central Church organization. Each church is essentially independent of other churches. The churches were obligated to acknowledge the office of apostle, though that was hardly a formal requirement. But there’s essentially no indication that apostleship was passed down by inheritance, nor would it make much sense to claim it was.
Churches are more like organisms. They reproduce by starting new churches. But the new church, once established, is not under obligation to the old church.
So how did we wind up with a huge central “Catholic” church? I suspect it was to allow the building of a religious empire. Significantly, the official Catholic position was to claim for itself both “spiritual” and “temporal” power. Which is why to this day the Vatican is a political institution, complete with ambassadors.
As for Baptists not being a single organization … (wait for it…)
That’s not a bug. It’s a feature!
At any rate, I think it’s closer to how churches were in the New Testament than Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or most Protestant churches.
theregoestheneighborhood on May 22, 2008 at 10:41 PM
theregoestheneighborhood
Having a central office allows for singular interpretations of certain passages. Once you get past the whole “Only through me can you know the father” stuff, people want to know what the rest of it means.
I don’t think there’s any part of the Bible, and I’m sincere on this, that indicates a rapture like event around the time of the second coming. There are others in this thread who certainly do think there is going to be a Rapture.
Ok, so one is right, one is wrong (setting aside my atheism for a second). You’d think the manner in which Jesus returns wouldn’t be so darned ambiguous. There is enough wiggle room for either side to be correct, hence the need for some central body to clarify.
If there is no central interpretive body, then the Bible can mean whatever people want it to mean.
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 10:52 PM
None of this does any noticebale damage to McCain at all.
Jay on May 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
And of course, with the Catholic Church claiming the position of a central interpretive body, their word is final?
Yes, I know they would like it to be. But in the real world, their word is only final for Catholics, and not always for them. For the rest of the world, they have to make their case that their interpretation is right.
In the Baptist churches, of course, that’s exactly what everyone is used to. Anyone can stand up and assert the Bible teaches something, but if they can’t show where the Bible teaches it, they won’t convince anyone else.
It’s kind of like freedom. Slavery may be easier, but freedom is better.
theregoestheneighborhood on May 22, 2008 at 11:17 PM
It’s very clear in the Bible that Jesus references a one, true, universal Christian Church. As a Catholic, I believe that one true church is the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants (Martin Luther was the first) broke off because they believed it wasn’t. Baptists (no matter what kind of Baptists) believe that their individual sect of Christianity is the one true church. If you don’t believe that your sect of Christianity ISN’T the one true church, you should go find which one you think is. I, naturally, recommend Catholicism.
malan89 on May 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM
theregoestheneighborhood
Ah, but you see, there should be no issue at all with regards to what God meant. How could the interpretation of there being a Rapture and there not being a Rapture both be correct?
Why should anyone have to make a case? Outside of not knowing the day nor the hour of Jesus’ return, everything else should be fairly clear. Those that believe want to be sure that they are doing stuff right, so why the mystery?
Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Ah, but you see, only false preachers preach that there is no rapture or that it is post tribulation.
Next.
The pre tribulation rapture is the day that Christ(His Body) is no longer on the earth for 7 years.
Yes, there is no word rapture…that’s not the point..the word is “caught up”(harpazo). Rapture is a translation of that word.
Enoch and Jesus and Ezekiel were caught up.
Only a false preacher would claim there is no rapture.
It is prophecied all throughout scripture.
SaintOlaf on May 22, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Cheers.
I fear I missed the bulk of this thread, and am now only seeing pieces of literal or non-literal 6 day creations and rapture or non-rapture end times.
What the hell – non-literal, and non-rapture. In fact, I’ll go one better. No tribulation, a-millennial.
What moniker shall I accept first?
nailinmyeye on May 23, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Actually, there are MANY Chistian denominations that do not believe in “the rapture.” If you want to label all those people as “false prophets,” go ahead, be my guest.
Historically speaking, that particular doctrine originated with an English preacher by the name of John Darby who lived in the 19th century. See reference link here. Before that time, the doctrine of “the rapture” was unheard of by most people that called themselves Christian, which means that the doctrine was “missing” for almost 18 centuries.
CyberCipher on May 23, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Hey St. O, fake Christian here, so we can dispense with that.
What about the fossil record? All those giant beasties and trilobytes and the like? How to you reconcile that with a literal interpretation of a 7 day creation period?
techno_barbarian on May 23, 2008 at 12:16 AM
I hereby christen thee “Certified Genius”.
My collie says:
Yeah, but in order to be as annoying as possible, it has to be that way.
CyberCipher on May 23, 2008 at 12:18 AM
If you like to read about that sort of thing, I’ve got a couple of interesting books on my bookshelf authored by Gerald Schroeder, viz.
The Science of God
and
The Hidden Face of God
My collie says:
If I’m not mistaken, Schroeder himself is Jewish.
CyberCipher on May 23, 2008 at 12:32 AM
CyberCipher,
The rapture didn’t originate with Darby…It was prophecied in the OT..Jesus talked about it..the apostles knew about it. It just wasn’t called rapture that’s all.
technobarbarian,
What’s your point? Trilobytes and dinosaurs were around at the same time..why would that make you think a trilobyte turned into a dinosaur?
All the fossil record proves is that there was a worldwide flood.
How sad is it that the biggest event in human history(the flood) is forgotten because a few demonic inspired atheist scientists push their unscientific agenda to the point of censorship?
The oceans are a testament to the flood. They are the waters of the flood. Flatten the mountains and valley’s and the earth would be covered by water nearly 2 miles deep!
It is prophecied that in the end days man would even deny the existence of the global flood. 2 Peter 3:5-6
SaintOlaf on May 23, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Thanks Cyber. Appreiciated.
As usual, you’ve misunderstood the question. I didn’t say anything about a trilobyte turning into a dinosaur. My point is that both of those creatures are in the fossil record. Carbon dating puts the last of them on the earth around 65 million years ago.
So, my question to you is which of those literal 7 days did God embed those 65 million year old fossilized remains?
I’m not talking about evolution. I’m talking about geologic history.
techno_barbarian on May 23, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Religious dogma? :)
Squid Shark, don’t let this thread make you forget to put the chulent up on the fire today. Have a good Shabbos!
Did you know there’s a general rule about Ne’vua (prophecy) that bad prophecies do not have to come true if the transgressions which will cause them are corrected? Example: Jonah and Ninveh.
In contrast, good prophecies are guaranteed no matter what?
But how would you know? You don’t have an inkling of how to learn the Torah and Prophets.
Nothing about Jesus is “prophecised” in the Tanach. Every last Christian claim of “proof texts” in the Torah is a lesson in ignorance and suiting texts to meet wishful thinking like yours because otherwise you don’t have a theological leg to stand on.
Bring it on.
Shy Guy on May 23, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »