CNN Religion Blogger Attacks Christian Conservatives for Supporting Mormon Romney

NewsBusters ^ | November 2, 2012 | Ken Shepherd

[RichInOC]

Stephen, did you really expect those guys to let Obama, the worse guy on the merits and the guy who’s more dangerous to religious liberty (unless kidnapping, killing and raping ambassadors just became a sacrament) win just because they don’t agree one hundred percent with Romney and Ryan’s religious beliefs? Dude, did you eat lead paint as a child?

And to the folks who are grumping about a Mormon at the top of the ticket, it’s about a year too late for that. Romney was honestly pretty much a done deal once Palin opted out. If you really cared that much about having a good candidate who was non-Mormon, where in [the other place] were you back then?

[Colofornian]

You make no sense about endorsing Mormonism, and in fact, you never did. So I voted for Bush I and II, you offered so little meaning as to how that equals endorsing the Episcopal Church (The English Crown), or Endorsing born again Christianity, and I so far, remain neither religion. I don’t have to convert to Mormonism to vote for a Mormon. I don’t have to convert or endorse Episcopalians to vote for an Episcopalian, so right here, you lack any proof whatsoever of some sort of equivalence that voting someone of a religion counts as endorsing or converting to that individual’s religion.

You raise an excellent question -- one I have not rec'd before -- which shows you are thinking thru these issues.

My answer is derived largely from the Bible -- 2 Kings to be precise -- where the author of that book describes the reign of a series of rulers.

Here's the key Q we must answer:
What were the TWO KEY things that God tended to judge the reign of these rulers upon?

Ponder that for a moment, and then continuing reading...

Answer? The answer is:
(a) Did these kings do "evil" or did "right" in the eyes of the Lord;
and (b) How these kings dealt with false worship centers.

You see, Jeroboam as a king had established false worship centers at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 15:26; 12:25-33). Now, once these false worship centers were ALREADY established, God seemed to hold ensuing rulers accountable for how they responded to worship centers established under the reign of previous kings...even if there was no "expansion" of these centers during their particular reign!

And that's where 2 Kings comes in...

Look at the ruler lineup:
Jehu?...continued in Jeroboam's sins (2 Kings 10:29, 31)
Joash?...same thing (2 Kings 12:3)
Jehoahaz?...same thing (2 Kings 13:2)
Jehoash...same thing (2 Kings 13:11)
Amaziah? ...same thing (2 Kings 14:4)
Azariah? ... same thing (2 Kings 15:4)
Zechariah? ... same thing (2 Kings 15:9)
Menahem... same thing (2 Kings 15:18)
Pekahiah? ... same thing (2 Kings 15:24)
Pekah? ... same thing (2 Kings 15:28)
Jotham? ...same thing (2 Kings 15:35)
Ahaz? ... same thing (2 Kings 16:3-4)

It actually lists over a dozen kings...

Three of the above dozen actually "did right in the eyes of the Lord" -- Joash (2 Kings 12:2); Amaziah (2 Kings 14:3); and Azariah (2 Kings 15:2)...yet they were also judged upon how they addressed -- or failed to address -- these false worship centers!

One summary in the middle of all this -- 2 Kings 17:21 -- references Jeroboam's sin as a "great sin" that came upon Israel (a great sin of commission)...and considering the First Commandment of having no other gods, of course this was a "great sin!" Why would anybody want to play down idolatry???...All that is described in 2 Kings 17:15-17 & other verses was open idolatry...the embracement of false gods...that went on in Israel!

Only a few kings -- like Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4,22) and Josiah (2 Kings 23:4-20) were commended for taking these false worship centers seriously and addressing them...

**********************************

So, how does 2 Kings then apply today?

Notice that God didn't evaluate those kings upon every theological jot & tittle distinction as it applied to Old Testament Judaism...as you insinuate I am saying re: George Bush's Episcopalianism...

No, God judged these kings on (a) their character/integrity/ethics; and (b) Their response to false worship centers...

Now...why would (b) be so important -- beyond it breaking the First Commandment?

Why? Because God is a "jealous" God in the best purest sense of that word -- and he knows that idolatry utterly destroys the covenant relationship people have with Him...He told Moses:

13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. 15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. 17 “Do not make any idols. (Exodus 34:13-17)

God's very Name is Jealous, per Exodus 34:14, because ONLY He has the pure right to claim possession of His people.

So the Q is for people who claim to worship the God of the Old Testament...: If God zeroed in on rulers' character/integrity/ethics ... Plus if God zeroed in upon a ruler's treatment of false worship centers ... why do they think that is suddenly irrelevant to God now???

[Colofornian]

(Well, thank you for setting me straight on your personal vote...consider, then, what I said...to apply to a broader audience)

[verum ago]

(Well, thank you for setting me straight on your personal vote...consider, then, what I said...to apply to a broader audience)

And I guess I should give the disclaimer that much of what I initially said is meant specifically for the swing-staters. As a token of accord, I offer you a picture of a bunny with some cookies stacked on it head:


(What's life on the internet without a little whimsy?)

[Colofornian]

If Mitt Romney had the exact same stance on every issue as you, but believed in a set of Gods that were flying hairy lava lamps, would he have your vote? My answer to that question is yes; it's the actions he takes, not his beliefs that impact the lives of citizens.

Please read my response (post #62) to another poster carefully re this...

Your comment here is half the equation of the key questions...when you mentioned "the actions he takes"...for the Lord indeed repeatedly commented in places like 2 Kings "he did right in the eyes of the Lord" and "he did evil in the eyes of the Lord" re: the various rulers listed there...

But what was the second relevant filter that seemed to get the great attention of the Lord?

Answer? It was how various rulers handled false worship centers in their midst -- false worship centers that most of them had Nothing to do with their establishment!

I listed a dozen kings there -- with specific verses as to how God evaluated their rulership re: "other gods"... Now why would we think what was front & center to God whose very Name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14) is suddenly going to deem it 100% "out of bounds" today?

Do we not have a same God who is interested in ensuring that people don't embrace strange gods?

[Colofornian]

...we don’t have kings in America, so your reasoning is out of bounds of this discussion.

So, I suppose that means, that because God was interested in which kings did "what was right" and "what was evil" in his eyes, that God has abandoned such interest in contemporary rulers just because they don't don the title "king," eh???

Character, integrity, and ethics is just a "wind-blown" thing that applied only "once upon a time" to rulers, eh???

[Colofornian]

>- :)

[SunkenCiv]

What is the blogger’s FR nick’?

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.

[Morpheus2009]

“So, I suppose that means, that because God was interested in which kings did “what was right” and “what was evil” in his eyes, that God has abandoned such interest in contemporary rulers just because they don’t don the title “king,” eh???”

You suppose 100% incorrectly. As I stated, and which you fail to address, were two points, God doesn’t have Christian Kings to rule over us. Second, we can have leaders with whom, like Cyrus, we don’t have to share their religion, but they are tolerant to the rest of us where it counts, I can still go along and enjoy my beer occasionally, and Romney could care less, because that’s how he is. Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t share an interest in leaving others’ personal beliefs be, so similar to voting Bush II, a born-again Christian, over Kerry, a Catholic like me, I wouldn’t mind voting Romney, a person who doesn’t share my faith, but can at least pay me due respect over Obama, who cares that I share his beliefs about same-sex marriage, partial-birth abortion, and so on. I would vote a Jew or a polytheist over a Christian if the former were more competent and respectful, so even under the assumption that Romney is a polytheist, I really could care less.

Second, as you feel the need to disregard, commander-in-chief is not equivalent to preacher-in-chief.

[ReformationFan]

I never heard of him before. Perhaps the question would why would a conservative Christian listen to him in the first place?

[left that other site]

Comparing the Lyin’ King to General Barak in the Book of Judges is just plain silly! LOL!

However in the book of Luke, when Jesus says “I saw satan fall like lightening from heaven”, is interesting. Our New Testament is written in Greek, which was the Commercial language of the day. However, it is generally accepted that Jesus and His Disciples spoke Aramaic.

“Lightening from Heaven” in Aramaic could very easily have been pronounced “Barak aw bama”. (Barak means Lightening, Bama or bema, means a HIGH PLACE).

Not that this may mean anything, but it is a rather cool coinkidink! :-)

Perhaps Jesus was predicting a humongous landslide? (hint hint)

[mnehring]

It appears he is already on the thread.

[left that other site]

Just a little note.

Many Evangelicals feel that Freemasonry is a dangerous cult. This is partly because they take secret oaths (like the Mormons).

That being said, I had a gig once in the Masonic temple in Boston, and on display in the foyer was George Washington’s Masonic Apron!

In some folk’s eyes, that association with the Freemasons disqualified him for the presidency.

[left that other site]

Oh...I HEAR you!

Obama is definitely an antichrist “Type”.

And today, more than ever, world events line up to indicate that the End of Days is not far off.

But the BIG AC with be quite charming, not the sneering, obnoxious, pusillanimous jerk that was foisted upon us for the last few years.

He will even be able to deceive (as if were possible) the very elect.

[Morpheus2009]

1) “Analogy: If you endorsed a pro-abort candidate because they were semi-conservative on a lot of issues, and the other major candidate was even worse abortion wise, if you endorsed that candidate without acknowledging at least some problems with their abortion stance, aren’t you embracing/elevating/endorsing pro-abortionism to some extent? “

That’s a complete strawman: There are times where you don’t have a choice for a candidate who is “born conservative” or “born pro-choice” however, there’s also a portion which is the duty of the general populace in voting for him. If a better candidate shows up GOP or otherwise, and if Romney doesn’t do as promised on all issues, we don’t have to vote for his re-election. Making no attempt to push a cause or issue via popular referendum, voting more local candidates, not voting for re-election of a candidate, voting for pro-life congressional candidates, and so on, are other options, not just voting for president. So your analogy is a false one, as well as a vast oversimplification of the process a person works with when voting. Plenty of people, myself included, have no problem with also paying attention to Senate and House candidates as well. So your reasoning is circular, ignoring many variables that really are in play.

Likewise, voting for GW Bush wasn’t an endorsement of Born Again Christians, or voting for Bush Sr. an endorsement for Episcopalians, or a vote for Thomas Jefferson an endorsement of his form of deism (a.k.a. a denial of the miracles of Jesus) so frankly, your idea has no precedent to lean on regarding the president of the United States, nor does your false analogy of a theocratic king, which I already knew full well a counterexample to so, frankly, that’s more redundancy there.

And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.

Again, you compare apples to oranges. Saul professed monotheism, but became a total hypocrite due to a variety of factors, including disobedience to Samuel, and hatred of David to the point where he sought after witchcraft. Again, as my point about Cyrus shows, even nonchristians like the Zoroastrian Persians make a better leader than a hypocrite who merely acts like he believes in God.

Additionally, you fail on the fact that it’s known that Romney is Mormon, so what’s your point? Saul was supposedly known to be an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, but threw God out the window, does that mean that I shouldn’t already distrust plenty of professed Christians who are hypocrites about their faith?

Again, it happens that Obama is a hypocrite who proclaims to be Christian, so I would rather prefer someone who is or is not, yet leaves me alone.

Again, you also have always failed to make sense on Mormonism being made public being a bad thing. Again, a vast oversimplification, but since you oversimplify and refuse to really answer anything I ask you, I shouldn’t be surprised.

Again, what I find odd is your refusal to acknowledge Obama’s open self-worship on national television of how he is to receive credit for things that other people do, sort of like our military risked their necks to get bin Laden, or got killed trying to save our ambassador in Benghazi. If someone thinks they can be God in the afterlife, so be it, I could care less in a flat-earth believer, so long as he/she has some manners, and I don’t have to believe one word of it, I could care less.

[x]

So if they aren’t bigoted it’s bad?

[Colofornian]

If a better candidate shows up GOP or otherwise, and if Romney doesn’t do as promised on all issues, we don’t have to vote for his re-election

(As if the GoP would allow a contender to take on a sitting GoP Prez; or as if you -- or any other FREEPERS -- would vote either Third Party or for the Dem in the next election...you can't be that politically naive...or think that I am to believe you)