Karen Santorum: My husband’s presidential run is “God’s Will”
posted at 3:40 pm on February 24, 2012 by Tina Korbe
When Piers Morgan interviewed the Rick Santorum family in late January, Karen Santorum’s graciousness and warmth transcended the camera — and I couldn’t help but wonder why she hadn’t had a more prominent role in his campaign.
Now, as criticisms mount that he’s out of touch with women, she has begun to appear more frequently. Most recently, she granted an interview to Glenn Beck, in which she said she didn’t always like the idea of her husband running for president, but, after praying on the matter, concluded that it was “God’s Will“:
“I did always feel in my heart that God had big plans for Rick. Eventually it was there, tugging at my heart,” she said. “When Obamacare passed, that was it. That put the fire in my belly.” …
She turned up on Beck’s Internet television show toward the end of a more extensive interview that began with Rick Santorum saying that his wife loves the talk-show host – “loves you more than me sometimes,” he joked.
Karen Santorum also defended her husband’s performance in Wednesday’s debate, saying that he was right to admit to having made mistakes while in Congress. She said it is inevitable to sometimes lose one’s way in Washington. “You really have to keep your prayer life in order,” she said, “and really keep faith and family the top priority always. And keep your feet on the ground. Because you can get lost.”
Like the comments made to this effect by the Perrys and the Bachmanns, these remarks will be interpreted according to the religious overtones of the listener. Those to whom routine prayer and discernment are familiar will find these comments comforting, a reassurance that Karen Santorum consulted more than just campaign advisers and friends as she made her decision to support her husband’s bid for president. Those to whom routine prayer and discernment are foreign will find these comments offputting, a suggest that Karen Santorum thinks her husband’s presidential bid was somehow preordained and, though she didn’t say this, destined to end well. If Santorum doesn’t win the nomination or if he does but fails to win the presidency, ridiculers will recycle these remarks to suggest Karen Santorum didn’t “hear” God properly or misunderstood God’s will.
Either way, that Karen Santorum is comfortable with sharing her faith on camera says something about the strength of it and suggests to me that Santorum, should he become president, would have a stalwart supporter for hard-and-principled decision-making in the White House.
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 … 5 6 7
The word Trinity may not be in the Bible, but the word Trinity is simply man’s word to describe God’s true essence. That true essence has been revealed to man by God and it is in the Bible.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)
We yearn to understand everything about God, but that is not possible right now. He is God. We aren’t.
We are labeling that true essence and trying to bring it down to our level to explain it for ourselves to understand. But while the actual word Trinity isn’t in the Bible, God’s true essence (which is what the Trinity is) is in the Bible. (See quotes below.)
The 3 Persons of the Trinity interact within the one true Godhead. It is often said that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. I heard someone say that the Persons of the Trinity are “who” they are (like God the Son), while being God is “what” they are.
The Trinity is confusing and difficult to understand. Some things are beyond our ken. So we understand some of it and it makes sense somehow in our minds and hearts, but still leaves some questions in the details, so we believe this mystery on faith.
Genesis 1:26: “Let US make man in OUR image and likeness.”
Us and Our (plural) image and likeness (singular) This is the same in the Hebrew. The Trinity was there from the beginning. God used the plural and singular when speaking of Himself.
John 1:1-18
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . .
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. . . . .
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.”
Now, “the Word made flesh” is Jesus Christ. This passage is clear. Jesus existed “in the beginning.” Jesus “was God” in the beginning. The world was created through Jesus; He was not separated from the Creator. And while Jesus, the Son of God, is “at the Father’s side,” He is also “God.” “The only Son, God, . . .”
Being the Son of God does not mean He is not God Himself. Scripture says Jesus is God in many passages. And Jesus many, many times says “I AM” in reference to Himself. This was a way of saying He was Divine. (the name of God – I AM/Yahweh) Here are just 2 examples.
John 8:58:
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”
John 18:5-6:
“They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.” He said to them, “I AM.” Judas his betrayer was also with them. When he said to them, “I AM,” they turned away and fell to the ground.”
And to the Jews back then, to be a son was to be like the father. Not inferior. So the Son of God was God.
Here are just 3 examples:
John 5:18:
“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but he also called God his own father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD.”
John 10:30-38:
“The Father and I are one.” The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for BLASPHEMY. You, a man, are MAKING YOURSELF GOD.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”‘? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me; but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that THE FATHER IS IN ME AND I AM IN THE FATHER.”
Mark 14:61-61:
“Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”
Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses?
You have heard the BLASPHEMY. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die.”
John 20:27-29:
“Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”
Thomas answered and said to him, “MY LORD AND MY GOD!”
Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
(Jesus did not correct or rebuke St. Thomas. He praised his belief by saying that people would be blessed to believe as Thomas did.)
Luke 1:41-43:
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT,
cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?”
(Note she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say this.)
Luke 2:11:
“For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.”
John 21:7: “So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.”
Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, . . .”
“name” singular. One God. Yet described in the 3 Persons “the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
It doesn’t read, “baptizing them in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit.”
Only one name. The 3 Persons share the name of the one true God.
Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 1:23 AM
I believe in the trinity! I know it’s hard to explain and obviously not logical, but her butt looked so good in the matrix, I just can’t help it.
Rusty Allen on February 25, 2012 at 2:09 AM
good job!
AH_C on February 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM
lol Wish I could take credit, but that analysis of the Scripture to mean the Trinity is as old as Christianity itself.
Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 2:30 AM
From your writings, I can see that you don’t have even have a 1/2 of an understanding of what Christianity is really about.
Do you know who Roger Williams, founder of RI, is? He was the first person in history to use the phrase “wall of separation” to describe the relationship of church and state, and that he once said, “forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God”? Do you know who Wilber Wilberforce is? He had a Christian conversion experience at the age of 25, which caused him to drop his frivolous lifestyle for a more serious, ethical, socially responsible one, and which he credited as his motivation for working to end the slave trade in the British Empire?
In opposition to what you said, considering that ‘freedom of religion’ was codified for the first time in history via the committed Christian, Roger Williams, because of his Christianity, and 38 others in Providence, RI on 5/27/1640 when they signed the statement, “Wee agree, as formerly hath bin the liberties of the town, so still, to hould forth liberty of Conscience.”, what say you now? Whatever you do say, do you believe the amusement/bemusement you mentioned could match the level of it I have towards people who pontificate about Christianity and its role in history while they actually are obliviously spreading untruisms about it ?
Roger Williams was an interesting man of great integrity. You should read up about him, or, refresh your memory – he’s right up your alley when it comes to freedom of/from religion. While you are it, why not further check out Wilberforce’s, and John Newton’s biographies as well – maybe you’ll learn something about Christianity that you didn’t know you could.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 25, 2012 at 4:17 AM
Santorum lied.
maverick muse on February 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM
maverick muse on February 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM
Hey maverick, you had your chance – don’t believe anything Spector says. Just sayin’.
Fuquay Steve on February 25, 2012 at 7:02 AM
If I have to trust Specter or Santorum, I’d go with Santorum.
hawkdriver on February 25, 2012 at 7:31 AM
I believe the big bone of contention in ancient Rome was that everyone was required to acknowledge the emperor as a god, and the Christians refused. Which was due to the fact that the Romans recognized multiple gods, and saw no problem with adding the emperor to that list, while the Christians refused to accept any other gods in addition to God. All the Christians had to do to avoid persecution was to do a sacrifice to Caesar.
Fun fact: in the pagan Roman Empire, the Christians were often called “atheists.” Because they refused to believe in any of the Roman gods.
tom on February 25, 2012 at 7:31 AM
Also, did Paul lie about his racist content in his newsletters?
hawkdriver on February 25, 2012 at 7:35 AM
Only one name. The 3 Persons share the name of the one true God.
Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Nicely done, ma’am. Unfortunately, it fell on someone who’s deaf to the message…and dumb.
kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Perhaps modern psychology can treat a god who morphed from a unified macho domineering type (Yahweh) who advised the killing of disobedient children to the kind suffering from multiple personality disorder. Many Hindus consider Jesus an avatar of Vishnu and in that universe he’d have even more personalities to deal with.
Annar on February 25, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Annar on February 25, 2012 at 8:23 AM
And, perhaps internet self-proclaimed “smartest people in the room” Will wake up one day to discover that they weren’t so smart after all.
kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 8:37 AM
That is a useless question, but not for the reason you’re implying. The question you threw out is nonsensical, because attempts to answer it necessarily require a visual description of the object in question, which in this case is an invisible quantum, but, unfortunately for your question, invisible objects can’t even be visualized in the first place since they don’t have any visual properties to be described i.e. you can’t tell anyone what air looks like, no matter how much you might want to, because air is unable to be looked at, right?
Since the question you threw out here is utterly nonsensical, it’s not comparable in any meaningful way to the attempts Christians might at explaining the Trinity, because even if they believe they haven’t yet properly understood and/or explained the Trinity, Christians don’t concede that It’s a nonsensical, meaningless, ununderstandable concept.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 25, 2012 at 9:00 AM
I understand. It would take a teensy bit of learning to understand.
Dante on February 25, 2012 at 9:01 AM
I’m not one bit surprised one bit that the unelectable bigot Rick Santorum has been shown to be a filthy liar.
bluegill on February 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Ironically, many people–many famous people, famous leaders–have said that very thing. George W. Bush said he was told by God to invade Iraq, too; how’d that work out for us? Or for him?
And, of course, there are infamous religious leaders who’ve ultimately used God to assert all sorts of things, some of them quite insane.
So, that Karen Santorum PRAYS is not surprising, or even particularly RELEVANT.
Do you not think that Ann Romney prays for guidance too?
I mean, give me a break here. This will be used by leftists to mock and demogogue, to be sure, which is unrealistic, since many of us pray for guidance in our daily lives.
But you’ve taken the completely opposite and equally unrealistic stance here–one which Karen Santorum likely banked on when she said it: You’re presuming that because she says she believes it’s God’s will that it has any merit whatsoever, when in point of fact, God might have wanted Rick Santorum to run in order to teach him a lesson, not to get him elected.
N est ce pas?
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 9:09 AM
The Santorums are full of it.
It’s so unbelievably tacky for a politician to imply he has God’s endorsement.
Translation= Rick Santorum’s campaign is God’s will!
This presumptuous woman is almost saying that God wants Santorum to be president. What big egos these people have.
You guys can try to explain this away all you want, but we all know what she was implying.
bluegill on February 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM
You guys can try to explain this away all you want, but we all know what she was implying.
bluegill on February 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM
“We all”? Is that how you refer to your other two sockpuppets, csdeven?
kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Specter isn’t the only one with that opinion about Santorum. Unfortunately, the PA GOP feels the same way about Santorum:
Pennsylvania GOP leaders believe Rick Santorum isn’t a good fit for the presidency
The Patriot-News on January 09, 2012, 6:00AM
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/01/pennsylvania_gop_leaders_santo.html
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Maybe she should be repenting for her 6 year affair with an abortionist. Twice her age. Delivered her as a baby.
rubberneck on February 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Log on here and see this comment board is miles off course. Time to close up shop peeps and move on to the next subject of the day. Wonder how these repub candidates would have dealt with this whole Quaran burning; US soldiers being murdered situation in light of their religious beliefs and knowing O’s sympathy for Islam. Should not that scare the gates of Hades out of all of us from the atheists on up?
virginiabelle on February 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM
I take it back. The fire has been rekindled this am.
virginiabelle on February 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Wow, the unregulated hatred here gets me thinking that there is something out of synch here. The non-believers are beating up/ ridiculing a person of faith. Seems like Hot Air has gone to the dogs or rather the dogs have all gone to hot Air. Let me be clear – to have this much distrust in a person because of their faith in a higher power says more about you then it does about them. I urge (pray, for you secularists) you to search your heart for some charity and let the voters decide and keep your downright ugly comments to yourself. I’m sure Ron Paul and Mitt will do just fine without all this hate from their followers.
Fuquay Steve on February 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Maybe she should be repenting for her 6 year affair with an abortionist. Twice her age. Delivered her as a baby.
rubberneck on February 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM
She probably has considering her views today. Christians are not perfect just forgiven. People are ALLOWED to have a change of heart. It is not questionable in the least what her view of life/children is and she looks to God for guidance. Would you rather she and her husband look to “themselves” as Gods as is the case with our current POTUS? There is a humility there that anti-Christian types try to define as wacky b/c they loathe it.
virginiabelle on February 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM
What’s that? GOD WANTS OBAMA TO WIN?
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/04/toeing-the-line/
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Do Americans really want an apocalyptic Opus Dei supporter as their President?! Santorum supports Opus Dei and some of his comments are more than a little extreme; they’re alarmingly extreme.
Rick Santorum’s support for Opus Dei is more than a matter of one line in a problematic article. If, for example, we turn to a 2002 report from the National Catholic Reporter we find this:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/
How Opus Dei Influenced Rick Santorum
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/
Rick Santorum and Opus Dei
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/
Rick Santorum & Terri Schiavo
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/tag/rick-santorum/
Rick Santorum:
I’ve never heard of most of these groups, but Opus Dei certainly rings a somewhat sinister bell. And Santorum, it seems, is a fan.
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/tag/opus-dei/
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/04/toeing-the-line/
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Rick Santorum’s support for Opus Dei is more than a matter of one line in a problematic article. If, for example, we turn to a 2002 report from the National Catholic Reporter we find this:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/
How Opus Dei Influenced Rick Santorum
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/
mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM
So they are three separate and distinct individuals and God doesn’t have to find some place to put his Jesus skin?
csdeven on February 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM
After spamming Hot Air with links to your lame blog for YEARS, you would think that if you had one shred of intelligible reasoning, you wouldn’t have to spam here any longer because people would be flocking to your blog. And your psycho-babbling conspiracy theories are just another indication as to why no rational people go along with you.
Go away troll. Your paranoid schizophrenic rantings are getting old.
lol
csdeven on February 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM
So says the lunatic who just Trolled twice in a row.
Delusional.
kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM
This is typical of you. You level a personal attack against a fellow HA member and when you get nailed to the wall over it, you project your trolling onto others.
You are the president of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade and a first rate paranoid schizophrenic.
Go away loser troll.
csdeven on February 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM
.
Is this a question you want to continue posing to multiple Christians, just to see what kind of multiple different answers you get?
listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM
.
“Santorum lied.”
“Specter lied.”
“He said, he said.”
.
Bottom line: this interview with Arlen Specter didn’t change anyone’s mind.
listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM
In opposition to what you said, considering that ‘freedom of religion’
It is in no opposition to what I said, because I said over and over again that freedom from religion (from chosen on purpose a la Christopher Hitchens and somewhat ironically based on personal preference) was desired by numerous Christians in numerous Christian sects — they wished freedom from the impositions of other Christian sects.
My understanding is bang-on. And at the end of the day, it’s freedom from one religious group imposing their will on others. In our cultural case, it’s freedom from Christian groups using force to impose their religion, full stop.
Random on February 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM
From your post I assume that you have no response to my post and that we are now in agreement that (whether you believe in the Trinity or not) the Trinity is in the Bible. That was my point.
Good. On to the “skin suit.”
I also assume from your post that you either did not read my post on the “skin suit”
or you have chosen to ignore it because, again, you cannot refute it. And you haven’t told me yet if you and each of us here also have a “skin suit,” since we have a soul and a body. Even if you don’t believe in a soul or God, I wonder why you reserve the term “skin suit” for Jesus alone and not all of us.
Jesus doesn’t need to find a place to put His “skin suit” because of 2 reasons.
One, He is still wearing it. From the time of the Incarnation, Jesus’ Divine Nature has never been separated from His Human Nature. His Resurrected Glorified Body (which we all will also have at the end of time) rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and remains there to this day, as well as whenever He chooses to manifest Himself to man on earth, such as in the Eucharist (which Catholics and Orthodox believe; the Resurrected Body all Christians believe.)
Two, the 3 Persons of the Trinity are never separated from each other, always exist together and are consubstantial. So when God chooses to manifest Himself to mankind at a particular point in time and space as one Person of the one true God, it doesn’t mean that the other 2 Persons of the Trinity disappear or cease to exist or are in suspended animation somewhere else. They are all still in existence always in the one true God, who can manifest Himself to mankind any way He wants, whenever He wants.
He is God after all, so He can do all things, “for nothing is impossible with God.”
Whether someone believes in God or not, I think we can all agree that, if there were a God and He (by definition) could do all things and nothing was impossible, then it wouldn’t matter if mankind totally understood His essence (the Trinity) or partially understood it (as we of faith do) or don’t believe in it at all. It wouldn’t change things and man doesn’t have to believe in it or understand its mystery totally to make it the truth (if it is the truth.) Truth is objective and doesn’t depend on man’s understanding of it.
Hence, we search for truth in science and religion and in our own souls. Searching and wondering doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t true.
Mock it all you want, but you cannot disprove the Trinity. Just like we who have been given the gift of faith right now (a gift that may come to anyone in time) cannot prove the Trinity to someone else.
But it is in the Bible and Jesus doesn’t have to discard His “skin suit” ever. Those were my 2 points.
Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Isn’t Arlene Specter now a Democrat? And when he was a Republican I and many others didn’t have alot of trust or respect for him then.
So it seems to me that those who put their complete trust in Specter’s words now by emphatically calling Santorum a liar must have some other reason for doing so other than they have no doubts about Specter.
Santorum has already addressed this quite well. The proof is in the pudding. There are published statements at the time of Specter saying just what Santorum said he did. And Specter’s actions subsequently backed up his promises. So it is perfectly reasonable, given the objective facts, for someone to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt about his personal political relationship with Specter.
And are we going to believe that Specter didn’t ask Santorum for his support? That he didn’t care either way and did nothing to get it? Right.
Like someone said, this won’t change any minds.
Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Dont bother with Random – he’s a mason.
Fuquay Steve on February 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM
For real? How do you know that? It would explain alot.
Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 6:13 PM
.
The Founding Fathers practiced Christianity blatantly in the Public eye, and ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, without ‘imposing’ Christianity on those who refused to believe it.
.
Can you document the 18th and 19th century atheists who were harassed and persecuted because of their atheism?
listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 7:33 PM
Pearls before swine.
hawkdriver on February 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM
The Founding Fathers practiced Christianity blatantly in the Public eye, and ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,
So has every President since then, regardless of their private views of religion.
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Allen, Payne, among others — all Deists.
Despite the explicit references to “Nature’s God”, Christians interpreted it as applying to themselves exclusively as Jesus worshippers, when it did not.
Random on February 26, 2012 at 12:05 AM
I heard that foot stamp down from my house.
tom daschle concerned on February 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Meaning what, exactly? That Christians are trying to exclude everything else that is not “Christian” from being lived and/or practiced in this country?
listens2glenn on February 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Your statement, “freedom from religion…was desired by numerous Christians in numerous Christian sects”, in no way contradicts this other statement of yours, “I’m always amused and bemused and nonplussed and perplexed by Christians who insist that freedom of religion came from Christianity“, especially when considering that you’re using it as a defense against my assertion that it’s perfectly acceptable for a Christian to insist that ‘freedom of religion’ did come from Christianity via Roger Williams, whose motivation for that ground-breaking legislation about religious freedom was his strong Christian faith?
Sorry (rhetorically, not literally), that defense isn’t withstanding scrutiny, because if you really don’t disagree with my declaration that it’s not ridiculous at all for a Christian to say that ‘freedom of religion’ came from Christianity via Roger Williams, why would you ever have said you were amused, bemused, nonplussed, and perplexed by Christians like me in the first place?
To cut off one other potentially hanging chad, if you were to say that because the concept of ‘freedom of religion’ was in existence before Roger Williams’ pioneering legislation of said concept, his legislation isn’t worthy of much more than a casual mention in discussions about the historical progression of ‘freedom of religion’, I’ll point out that it’s probably safe to say that are a lot of thinkers in North Korea right now who are dreaming about receiving liberation from their tyrannical government, but honestly, on a scale of 0-10, how would you rate the value/importance of those kind of dreams, which are important but don’t yet have & may never get a physical manifestation in our world, with the impact Williams’ material legislation has had on human life since he hatched it on Earth?
If you continue to ridicule Christians who credit Christian faith via Williams as the foundation of the ‘freedom of religion’ movement after what I’ve argued here without first obliterating my contention that my position is an understandable, valid one which deserves respect whether you accept it as the truth or not, I’ll say that you’ve shown yourself to be motivated not by a commitment to intellectual honesty, but by an anti-Christian prejudice instead. I’ve already seen some signals of the latter from you, and I’ll tell you that bringing jaw-droppingly blind, laughably foolish, mopily anti-religious bigot Christopher Hitchens into the discussion only sharpens the focus of what I’ve already noticed. What I’d like to find out here is how deep your anti-religiousness goes – I do realize that it may be very superficial.
This has been a long enough post as it is, so I’ll try to make the following as sweetly short as I can: you say that your understanding of Christianity “is bang-on”, which, when judged from the text of the NT, is so obviously false to the point that it’s gag-worthy
Why did I say what I just did, you wonder? 1) Jesus taught the Golden Rule, which is completely antithetical to your portrayal of Him, which was, “Jesus’s, “Worship me in particular, or to Hell you will go,” (paraphrasing)…”; if Jesus isn’t/wasn’t a hypocrite in regards to the Golden Rule, logic dictates that your ‘understanding’ of what you paraphrased is instead a misunderstanding. 2) Jesus taught that people should love themselves, and their neighbors as well; since those who command others to obey them while threatening to punish them if they disobey are neither loving themselves nor anyone else by demanding that kind of subservience, once again, unless Jesus is/was a hypocrite, logic dictates that your ‘understanding’ of what you paraphrased is instead a misunderstanding. 3) Jesus doesn’t send people to Hell, people freely choose to go there; therefore, it’s only proper to consider His ominous references to Hell in the NT as warnings, not as threats.
I’ll make one addendum: I’m convinced my interpretation that the NT/Jesus is tolerant at its base, and not your contradictory interpretation, is the correct one. I say that my interpretation is vindicated by Roger Williams’ effort to enact a law which honored both believers and disbelievers equally by guaranteeing them freedom of religious choice, an effort he said was an expression of his Christian faith. If you believe I’m wrong for crediting Williams’ faith the way I have, and if you’re interested, the onus is on you to try to explain why Williams interpretation of Christianity, which led to his push for religious tolerance, is so different than yours, which sees Christianity as a religion built upon imposition. I’ll give you my opinion for the difference, which I bet you’ll agree with – control freaks in Christianity’s early days took one path, and ended up being the main reason It has a bad name with so many people, while Christianity’s non-control freaks ended up running away from those control freaks to take another path, the one which is the basis for Roger Williams’ understanding of Christianity as a tolerant religion.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM
I meant to add at the end, “You are focusing on Christianity’s control freaks when you see It as an intolerant religion, while I focus on Williams’ branch of it, which obviously isn’t concerned with control at all.”
Bizarro No. 1 on February 26, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Mrs. Santorum means “God willing.“, -which means: “Who knows?” -with a religious patina.
profitsbeard on February 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Laugh. Laugh.
And, oh by the way, laugh.
Random on February 27, 2012 at 1:50 AM
His interpretation of US history is right out of the mason’s handbook. He might not ackowledge it but he has been taught to be a mason. No point in arguing with him it is a lost cause because his light is the only one he sees.
Fuquay Steve on February 27, 2012 at 6:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7