Ana Marie Cox: 'I Know Mitt Romney Is Not Himself Christian'

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Ana Marie Cox: not just a snarky ex-blogger turned Time editor -- now a theologian who has pronounced Mitt Romney not a Christian.

The former Wonkette is all over MSNBC today. This morning, as I noted here, Cox [as seen here] cattily swiped at Katie Couric on "Morning Joe," surmising that the CBS Evening News anchor was traveling to the Middle East because she needed rugs.

This evening, Cox appeared on "Countdown" to discuss the Larry Craig matter with Olbermann. Talk turned to the way Mitt Romney (R-Ma.) has dealt with the Craig matter. The Idaho senator had served as Romney's co-chairman in the Senate. Romney was quick to disassociate Craig from his campaign, and Tuesday referred to Craig's behavior as "disgusting."

ANA MARIE COX: [Romney] has inserted himself into this story several times. I think the smart political thing to do would have been to get rid of the guy from your campaign staff, maybe take the [Craig endorsement] video down, but why would you perpetuate the story, why would you involve yourself in this? It really just seems politically inept in my opinion.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Are we again missing something here? Is there some base that he's appealing to by being cruel to somebody's who's in trouble? I'm quite serious about this.

Olbermann lamenting cruelty toward Craig? That's really just too rich. Olbermann is of course reveling in Craig's disgrace, going so far as to have produced a mocking "Joe Friday" re-enactment of the restroom scene.

COX: I think that his understanding of even the conservative base is rather incomplete. I think that someone like Sam Brownback, you may disagree with him, but you really cannot doubt his social conservative credentials, at least has the strength of character to extend Christian mercy.

That's when Cox ruled Romney off the Christian reservation.

COX: I know Mitt Romney is not himself Christian, or [trying to retrieve herself] that's a point of debate, but to show some kind of compassion for somebody who at least there family is going through something really terrible, I think it smacks of opportunism for him to, you know, throw the guy aside.

I wonder if "Time" endorses the view of its Washington editor of Time.com questioning Romney's Christianity?

[MarkBsnr]

Thank you for your kind words.

If, for instance, the postings of DU, e.g., reasonably approximate his real self, and he were to move in next door to me, I’d be rather excited and happy to have a neighbour like that.

On the other hand, if a Kennedy whelp, e.g. were to move in next door, I’d meet their arrival with animosity.

With that said, I believe that DU is in a non Christian belief system that I’d rather that he abandoned in favour of a Christian one.

[MarkBsnr]

It is stated at least twice prior to the passage of relevance that St. Stephen had the Holy Spirit within him. If the Holy Spirit was already within him, then it would have only made sense to see the Father and Son in this vision.

I don’t see this as a justification of LDS faith.

[ChiefBoatswain]

If you believe that Masonic belief is non-Christian, then you must believe that the founding fathers were non-Christians, and that this country was founded on non-Christian priciples.

[MarkBsnr]

In a previous posting, I said:

“I have known many Masons who are very honourable, men who believe in God and are very faithful to their churches”

In other words, they either hold conflicting beliefs or are of insufficient understanding of either or both to recognize the conflict.

Nowhere did I say, or intimate that the US was not founded as a Christian nation. So no, I don’t believe it; and my postings cannot be made to show that I do believe it.

[kawaii]

indeed.the western view of satan is no more realistic than their cartoon st nicolaus (the real st nick btw was a very tan greek fellow who probably never saw snow let alone reindeer)

[Reno232]

I really don’t have time to deal w/ you today but let me share w/ you things that many might find laughable as well.

Many might find it laughable that you claim you’re a Christian & yet you treat your fellow man w/ such disdain.

Many might find it laughable that after all these threads & posts re: what our beliefs are, you still choose to believe in those who have an axe to grind against the church & really have very little idea what we really believe.

Many might find it laughable that you seem very content to follow after the traditions of man despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many might find it laughable that you actually believe in the trinity despite so many scriptures to the contrary.

Many might find it laughable that none of your “anti” buddies will fully answer my questions about the trinity in re: to John 14:28, John 17:11, 22-23, & others.

Many might find it laughable that you rely on your own intellect for understanding of gospel truth rather than the Lord as he tells us in the bible.

And, many might find it laughable what you put in your previous post. But you know what, even though I disagree w/ your opinions, I respect them none the less even though your presentation of those opinions at times is less than the way Christ would have taught.

We’re all imperfect. Some recognize that & seek for truth wherever it may be. Others are rather pompous & pious in nature. What’s laughable is how many so called “Christians” & “conservatives” on this board fall into the latter category. It’s a shame really. With so many very bright minds on both sides of the Mormon issue, the wonderful reasoned discussions that could be had would be an incredible intellectual & spritual boost to all & I really do believe that all would be uplifted. In short, it’s a shame that it’s laughable to some.

[MarkBsnr]

I’m not sure that I qualify as whatisthetruth’s buddy, but I have posted a number of times recently on the Trinity.

If you would really wish to learn about the Trinity, I’d suggest that you go to the repository of God’s Church on Earth to find what the Trinity is, how the understanding came about, how the Scriptures demand that we understand it and how it is heretical to reject it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm says that:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

If you wish to learn, please feel free to browse this article. It is long, but very complete.

[Reno232]

Thank you for your response but w/ all due respect, I understand your beliefs of the trinity as set forth in your citations. What I have asked for is for anyone to explain how the definition of the trinity relates & coincides w/ a number of scriptures. John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I".

How about John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God".

And of course there are all the scriptures where the Lord is praying to the Father (or to himself, according to you?)or where the Father is speaking of the Son (the Lord's baptism by John the Baptist). And of course where the Lord gives a definition of "one" in John 17:11 "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are", & John 17:22-23 "22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me"

How do you rectify the STARK differences between what I believe man put together in the creeds & what the Lord himself described as "one" in the bible. Obviously, there are many more references I could cite but if you can answer these, it would suffice.

I love your passion for what you believe & I look forward to a reasoned discussion on the matter although my responses may have to be sporadic at best due to my schedule today.

[MarkBsnr]

Hey, Reno.

Passion? Naw. I’m as cool and collected as an English cucumber.

I must be heading away myself; will try to get back with you this afternoon, but I wouldn’t count on it.

[MarkBsnr]

Fair enough.

Before we start, let’s look at John. The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels. It is highly literary and symbolic. It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels. To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century.

The Gospel of John begins with a magnificent prologue, which states many of the major themes and motifs of the gospel, much as an overture does for a musical work. The prologue proclaims Jesus as the preexistent and incarnate Word of God who has revealed the Father to us. The rest of the first chapter forms the introduction to the gospel proper and consists of the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus (there is no baptism of Jesus in this gospel—John simply points him out as the Lamb of God), followed by stories of the call of the first disciples, in which various titles predicated of Jesus in the early church are presented.

The gospel narrative contains a series of “signs”—the gospel’s word for the wondrous deeds of Jesus. The author is primarily interested in the significance of these deeds, and so interprets them for the reader by various reflections, narratives, and discourses. The first sign is the transformation of water into wine at Cana (John 2:1-11); this represents the replacement of the Jewish ceremonial washings and symbolizes the entire creative and transforming work of Jesus. The second sign, the cure of the royal official’s son (John 4:46-54) simply by the word of Jesus at a distance, signifies the power of Jesus’ life-giving word. The same theme is further developed by other signs, probably for a total of seven. The third sign, the cure of the paralytic at the pool with five porticoes in ch 5, continues the theme of water offering newness of life. In the preceding chapter, to the woman at the well in Samaria Jesus had offered living water springing up to eternal life, a symbol of the revelation that Jesus brings; here Jesus’ life-giving word replaces the water of the pool that failed to bring life. John 6 contains two signs, the multiplication of loaves and the walking on the waters of the Sea of Galilee. These signs are connected much as the manna and the crossing of the Red Sea are in the Passover narrative and symbolize a new exodus. The multiplication of the loaves is interpreted for the reader by the discourse that follows, where the bread of life is used first as a figure for the revelation of God in Jesus and then for the Eucharist. After a series of dialogues reflecting Jesus’ debates with the Jewish authorities at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7; 8, the sixth sign is presented in John 9, the sign of the young man born blind. This is a narrative illustration of the theme of conflict in the preceding two chapters; it proclaims the triumph of light over darkness, as Jesus is presented as the Light of the world. This is interpreted by a narrative of controversy between the Pharisees and the young man who had been given his sight by Jesus, ending with a discussion of spiritual blindness and spelling out the symbolic meaning of the cure. And finally, the seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus in ch 11, is the climax of signs. Lazarus is presented as a token of the real life that Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life, who will now ironically be put to death because of his gift of life to Lazarus, will give to all who believe in him once he has been raised from the dead.

After the account of the seven signs, the “hour” of Jesus arrives, and the author passes from sign to reality, as he moves into the discourses in the upper room that interpret the meaning of the passion, death, and resurrection narratives that follow.

That’s the key. Symbolic.

John emphasizes Jesus’ humanity in which he symbolically identifies himself with the rest of humanity, a theme which recurs throughout here but not throughout the Synoptic Gospels.

Throughout, he refers to Himself as both the Son of the Father and as the Son of Man, interchangeably. They cannot mean the same thing, unless they are looked at symbolically. He keeps trying to set Himself up as an example that humans can follow. He’s trying, in your examples, to emphasize His humanity, which is the only aspect that the rest of humanity can possibly understand or follow.

He does make sure, however, in John 10: 30 that he declares: “The Father and I are one.” Not Father and Son, or Creator and Created. One.

And John 10:38, he further declares: “you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” They are one being, not two.

So the thing is that John puts extra emphasis on Jesus making sure that the human side of His Being on Earth is as comprehensible as possible to the people there, whilst still putting in the occasional verse to say: but really I and the Father are one, and this is only the vessel that you can see.

[MHGinTN]

Selah.

[Reno232]

Thank you for your reply. Very well thought out & presented. And, thank you for the demeanor in which you presented it. It's nice to have an adult discussion every now & then where things can be discussed on a mutually respectful basis rather than one inside a sandbox. Now, I do have a few questions in re: to your ideas. First of all, I understand your premise of the literal vs. symbolic, but who decides which is which? I agree that some of John tends to be in symbolic terms & I can certainly see where it could be somewhat confusing. But doesn't John 17:11, 22-23 tend to describe John 10:38 & perhaps a little more clearly? Especially when taken in context of the synoptics like Matt. 26:39 "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt". Now if they're both the same God, why the contrast in will's as Christ is asking for the cup to pass but is willing to do the will of the Father?

How about Mark 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"? Again, if they're the same being, why ask about being forsaken?

I mean, why does the Son continually refer to the Father as someone different than himself? The gospel just shouldn't be that complicated. It's meant for us to understand. In John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". If they're the same being, why not say, touch Me not, for I go to heaven, go to My brethren & tell them I'll meet them in the upper chamber. Why the unnecessary references to the Father? If he was the Father, why not simply speak in those terms instead of all the references to the Father?

All these references I cite & many more I could cite seem to point towards the Lord's description of "one" as found in John 17:22-23. That makes sense to me! The Lord praying to Himself (& asking for relief), speaking to Himself, & asking questions to Himself, makes no sense to me at all. It's redundancy that accomplishes nothing. Is there a scripture that talks about the need for redundancy? I can't find it.

Doesn't it seem more probable "one" means in purpose, goal, thought, etc. as He wanted the disciples to be as spoken of in John 17:22-23?

[whatisthetruth]

By your non-answer (dodge) to my inquiry my suspicions about Mormonism have now been confirmed. Thanks!

I can respect your doctrinal beliefs if that is truly what you prefer to believe but I don't have to accept them as Christian when I can see so clearly that they are not. Good day!

[Reno232]

Your suspicions about Mormonism are what they are. Were you seeking clarification, or just trying to stir the pot? The answers to your questions have been gone over ad nauseum & you know that b/c you’ve been a party to many of those discussions.

Your goal seems to be to flame away regardless of the answer. If you can find others to play in the sandbox, sobeit. I choose not to participate. If you ever decide to have a reasoned discussion, I might be game. But not as you’re flaming as you ask the question.

BTW, “God has a tangible body of flesh & bones”? How did He appear to the apostles after His resurrection? Was it a body of flesh & bones or a spirit? Remember, He invited them to FEEL. He never stated, alright, now see Me in My body, but when I depart, I’m going back as a spirit & completely undue the resurrection. The very definition of resurrection is the reuniting of body & spirit.

Based on scriptural evidence as well as other more important factors, I think it’s very implausible that He doesn’t have a body of flesh & bones (albeit glorified & perfected). Could reasonable minds disagree on that? Sure, & I respect that, but I would never demean those who would believe otherwise. To do so would be, well, I believe, unchristian.

[MHGinTN]

How about God the Father Almighty, according to Mormonism does He have a body too, like Jesus’s flesh and bone body? You know that is to what the posts refer, not the body of Jesus Who is Also God.

[ChiefBoatswain]

Masonic beliefs are not Christian.

The founding fathers were Masons.

Many of the concepts in the Declarations are Masonic.

It follows.

[no dems]

I actually don’t know...are Mormons Christians?

Fundamentalist, Evangelical Church Doctrines consider the Mormon Church (LDS) to be a cult.

But, if I have to choose between a Mormon or a Muslim (Obama), I'll take the Mormon. If I have to choose between a Mormon and a witch (Hillary), I'll take the Mormon.

[MarkBsnr]

May the Lord who is gracious above all, give us wisdom and understanding, and guide us all into the truth of His Holy Word.

[MarkBsnr]

But the entire John 17: is directed to the disciples, not the world at large, as He says in verse 9. John 10: 30 and 38 emphasize that He is God, and that He and the Father are one being.

Matt 26: 24
The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

is then followed by:

Matt 26: 39 and 42, in which He addresses the Father, is then followed by

Matt 26: 45
Then he returned to his disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Behold, the hour is at hand when the Son of Man is to be handed over to sinners.

So here, too, we have Son of the Father and Son of Man used interchangeably. I would say that John is using Matthew’s technique, only more so.

Mark 15:34 is an Aramaic rendering of Psalm 22:2
My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?

And why did He say this? As an example for His disciples to follow. Remember that 22:2 is then followed by

10
Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother’s breast.
11
Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God.
12
Do not stay far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help.
13
4 Many bulls surround me; fierce bulls of Bashan encircle me.
14
They open their mouths against me, lions that rend and roar.
15
Like water my life drains away; all my bones grow soft. My heart has become like wax, it melts away within me.
16
5 As dry as a potsherd is my throat; my tongue sticks to my palate; you lay me in the dust of death.
17
Many dogs surround me; a pack of evildoers closes in on me. So wasted are my hands and feet
18
that I can count all my bones. They stare at me and gloat;
19
they divide my garments among them; for my clothing they cast lots.
20
But you, LORD, do not stay far off; my strength, come quickly to help me.
21
Deliver me from the sword, my forlorn life from the teeth of the dog.
22
Save me from the lion’s mouth, my poor life from the horns of wild bulls.
23
6 Then I will proclaim your name to the assembly; in the community I will praise you:
24
“You who fear the LORD, give praise! All descendants of Jacob, give honor; show reverence, all descendants of Israel!
25
7 For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out.
26
I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.
27
8 The poor will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise. May your hearts enjoy life forever!”
28
All the ends of the earth will worship and turn to the LORD; All the families of nations will bow low before you.
29
For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations.
30
9 All who sleep in the earth will bow low before God; All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage.
31
And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.
32
The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought.

Jesus’ human nature completely submitted to His Divine nature and followed through unto death on the Cross. Yet, he, through quoting the Psalm, showed those who would listen that despair at being seemingly abandoned will be followed by God rescuing the faithful - those who believe and call upon Him.

It is verses like these that strengthen my opposition to the doctrine of Calvin.

I have not yet ascended: for John and many of the New Testament writers, the ascension in the theological sense of going to the Father to be glorified took place with the resurrection as one action. This scene in John dramatizes such an understanding, for by Easter night Jesus is glorified and can give the Spirit. Therefore his ascension takes place immediately after he has talked to Mary. In such a view, the ascension after forty days described in Acts 1:1-11 would be simply a termination of earthly appearances or, perhaps better, an introduction to the conferral of the Spirit upon the early church, modeled on Elisha’s being able to have a (double) share in the spirit of Elijah if he saw him being taken up (same verb as ascending) into heaven (2 Kings 2:9-12). To my Father and your Father, to my God and your God: this echoes Ruth 1:16: “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” The Father of Jesus will now become the Father of the disciples because, once ascended, Jesus can give them the Spirit that comes from the Father and they can be reborn as God’s children (John 3:5). That is why he calls them my brothers.

Remember, Jesus is still mixing the two natures of Himself - the Divine and the Human. Son of the Father and Son of Man, versus Jesus as One with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He’s their leader, urging them on and attempting to show them that as human as His human nature is, that they are expected to follow His Human side as best as they can.

John 17: If you would, reread it with the, at least, temporary perception that He is giving His disciples the rah rah speech. This is the slap on the flanks that one might give a horse to get it going.

[Reno232]

This coming from someone who claims they are one in the same? I was answering according to her beliefs. Do I believe the Father has a body of flesh & bones? Of course. Is it that unreasonable to believe that if the Son, who is God, has a body of flesh & bones, that the Father might as well? Why would it be good enough for one God but not the other? Is there any scripture that says the Father doesn’t have a body as the Son?