Skip to comments.
Mormons Aren't Christians (Columnist also calls Luther a heretic)
Dallas Morning News ^
| 12/16/07
| Rod Dreher
Posted on 12/16/2007 11:15:52 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-449 next last
To: Jeff Chandler
“His point of view is that of an academic, and as such is an excellent starting point for academics. It is a primer, nothing more.”
It’s an awful primer for academics, who would be much better served reading, for instance, St. Augustine who embraced Christianity precisely because it made no ridiculous claims at being logically provable. I’ve read about five books now by C.S. Lewis, with people continually assuring me that I’ve thus far read the wrong ones and just need to read a different one to understand his brilliance. I’ve given up.
As for the point about what Christians agree on, I’d suggest that people read the various creeds that were adopted long ago — especially the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds — rather than suffer through the embarrassing drivel of C.S. Lewis.
41
posted on
12/17/2007 12:10:55 AM PST
by
BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
To: cherry
Mormons are not Christ centered..they are Joseph Smith and their temples’ centered....
If that is true, Lutherans are Martin Luther centered.
The Reformed churches are Calvin centered. Methodism is John Wesley centered. Catholicism is Pope centered. Come to think of it, using that low level, biased logic, must be no church is Christ centered.
The ignorance displayed on these threads in incredible.
To: Mobile Vulgus
From the article
"...But we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Adams' observation that the U.S. Constitution is made "only for a moral and religious people" and will not work for any other. 10. Adams' pronouncement raises the question: "Whose morality, and whose religion?" The American constitutional understanding of the rights of man and human dignity come out of both the Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian tradition. The American constitutional order, and the American civil religion, is inexplicable outside of both, together, in creative tension. Religion is not sufficient for securing liberty, but religion, restricted by boundaries required by a pluralist democracy, is necessary to maintain it."IMHO, I would phrase the question implied by the author differently. A direct answer to his question, "whose morality ans whose religion?" is simply that which God provides Himself for us to follow. He doesn't provide a religion where man himself (other than Christ Jesus) establishes the doctrines of their faith, rather all faith comes from Him and just as different believers may have different spiritual gifts, their paths of sanctification may vary from believer to believer, but always through faith in Christ.
The author also might do better to use a vocabulary that better expresses his meaning in the word "religion".
Religion, per se, is acknowledged as a valid for of worship in Scripture, so God does recognize religion. The humanist perspective, judging all forms of doctrine as comparative religion fails to qualify as religion in His eyes. When the humanist promotes religion without qualification, it becomes a counterfeit substitute for that which God provides.
The author is correct, IMHO, to sense a nation and its leaders are able to be successful even if believer or unbeliever. Nationhood is one of four divinely established institutions in which humans, believers and unbelievers, may live productive lives, provided they respect the legitimate authority of those institutions.
IMHO, we observe our nation attempting to dismantle legitimate authority of those institutions. Volition is challenged by legislation promoting the legalization of hate speech as a crime and promotion of infanticide. Marriage is challenged by the promotion of homosexual agendas. Family is challenged by divorce and humanist educational agendas. The nation is challenged by the promotion of a New World Order and globalization and a one world government.
Here is a set of notes regarding divine discipline for nations which reject what He provides.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1568429/posts
For these reasons, I find it imperative that the leadership of the nation be a believer and to remain in fellowship through Christ as best attainable. Those candidates who have exemplified worldly success, IMHO, are less qualified at this point in our history than one which simply remains in fellowship with God through faith in Christ.
A degenerate or backslidden believer, or unbeliever, are likely IMHO, to advance worldly agendas which will further attack divinely established institutions and their legitimate authority.
MItt might be a sharp fellow, but IMHO, not the right solution to the problems we really face.
43
posted on
12/17/2007 12:12:57 AM PST
by
Cvengr
(Every believer is a grenade. Arrogance is the grenade pin. Pull the pin and fragment your life.)
To: devere
“I say it is wrong, so it is utterly disputable. I just disputed it!”
Wow. Someone on FR explicitly defending moral relativism. There are no truths, per se; if someone says something is wrong, then by definition it is logically disputable. Is that your final answer?
44
posted on
12/17/2007 12:13:24 AM PST
by
BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
To: broncobilly
A case could be made that Catholics are pope- or church-centered, rather than Christ-centered, since they mediate their relationship with God through the church bureaucracy. But the same could not be said about Lutherans, Methodists, and various Calvinists. The founders of those strands of Christian thought put the emphasis (to varying degrees) on Christ himself.
I myself wouldn’t call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.
45
posted on
12/17/2007 12:16:43 AM PST
by
BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
To: devere
To: BackInBlack
I’ll take your opinion under advisement. You make a lot of sense. Thank you.
47
posted on
12/17/2007 12:20:02 AM PST
by
Jeff Chandler
("Liberals want to save the world for the children they aren't having." -Mark Steyn)
To: Mobile Vulgus
Only it ISNT a big detour. The article is quite clear if you actually read it. It says that a Mormon is fine for office, its just incorrect to say they are Christians.
Of course you should point out that the criteria for defining who is a Christian wasn’t worked out until the fourth century, so every one in those early centuries weren’t Christian either.
To: henbane
49
posted on
12/17/2007 12:26:12 AM PST
by
80skid
To: Jeff Chandler
No, Mormons aren’t Christians.
Spend some time doing a simple Google search and it will become crystal clear....they are WEIRD!
50
posted on
12/17/2007 12:27:00 AM PST
by
cowdog77
(" Are there any brave men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?")
To: Mobile Vulgus
[Smart man, that Luther. For a heretic.]
In Rod Dreher’s biography he describes himself as a Catholic activist. What else can he call Luther but a “heretic?”
51
posted on
12/17/2007 12:30:44 AM PST
by
Brad from Tennessee
("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
To: Mobile Vulgus
Whether someone is Christian or not is not for Rod Dreher
or other humans to judge, i think the Bible is quite clear on this point.
52
posted on
12/17/2007 12:35:12 AM PST
by
GregH
To: BackInBlack
I myself wouldnt call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.
Good advice for you. I didn’t say that. You did.
I consider all those religions Christ centered. My point was to show how absurd some of the information is these threads.
To: Sir_Ed
Mormons also believe that God was once a man, who evolved to become a God, and all Mormons will likewise evolve into becoming Gods, who will in turn be worshipped and prayed to as our God on Earth is. You forgot the part about "Father" living on Planet Kolob with all those bucksom wives...
54
posted on
12/17/2007 12:42:30 AM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: donna
Mitt believes that his wife cannot rise to heaven unless he, Mitt, calls her up by her secret name that only he and she knows.
Im not voting for a person who believes women are inferior before god.
As a husband and a Mormon let me tell you what you have just stated as a fact is indeed not true. Will everyone be called to the resurrection by their "New name" yes that is Mormon Doctrine, a Husband is indeed supposed to call his wife, however, if he is not worthy to call her, the call rolls up to the next worthy priesthood holder in her line of authority, her father, grandfather, etc. Eventually you would get to Adam. In any event, no man who is worthy will refuse to call his wife from the grave for that's just not Christlike and would invalidate him form being able to do so.
This whole line of argument is one of those "God can't create a rock so big he can't lift it arguments created by people to try to place God or a church in difficult circumstances and so "prove" the church / God is not really true / extant.
In short, don't condemn us for believing what we don't believe either.
55
posted on
12/17/2007 12:50:01 AM PST
by
DelphiUser
("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
To: devere
Anyone who disagrees with me, is simply mistaken! Please select one of the below options for your reply:
* "Yes, Master!"
* "Same to you, bub!"
* "May I quote you?"
56
posted on
12/17/2007 12:50:49 AM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Brad from Tennessee
It seems to me that anyone who is solidly grounded in their Faith will not have the time or inclination to obsess about what other churches are teaching or practicing. What if they're teaching it to your kids?
57
posted on
12/17/2007 12:53:06 AM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: GregH
Whether someone is Christian or not is not for Rod Dreher or other humans to judge, i think the Bible is quite clear on this point.
Ah, the empty argument of "do not judge others" rears it's brainless head again. Well, then. If you truly want to hold to that decidedly UNChristian idea (for reasons I don;t have space to discuss here-- do you own research), then why are you bothering with politics? After all, who are YOU to "judge" that a Democrat is wrong!!?? Your argument is the best way to run away from both this debate and morality itself. If you cannot judge anyone, then morality and right and wrong DO NOT exist. Nice going!
To: BackInBlack
Wow. Someone on FR explicitly defending moral relativism. There are no truths, per se... He's hardly alone in that:
Reading is Believing
59
posted on
12/17/2007 12:59:29 AM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Mobile Vulgus
But, like the writer said, Mormons are NOT Christian. Its just a plain fact that they arent. It is utterly indisputable. Mormons are Mormons. They are NOT Christians.
Pardon me, but what a pant load.
And Baptists are Baptists, not Christians, and Catholics and Pentecostals and Born Agains...
So nobody is a Christian? Whew Glad we settled that!
Buddhists are someone who believes in Buddha, Taoists follow "The Path" Christians believe in Jesus Christ, which I a Mormon do, so I am a Christian.
Please stop lying about me and my faith.
If you want to accurately describe the difference's between what I believe and what you believe try this, Mormons are not Orthodox Christians. Say that, and allow me to believe in Jesus, according to my understanding and not yours, and we have no beef, and you will sound more educated to boot.
God Bless.
60
posted on
12/17/2007 1:00:42 AM PST
by
DelphiUser
("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-449 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson