| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
Christ said "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never turn away from Him or His teachings. His Church will survive until His return.
The only way this promise can be kept is for some mechanism to ensure that all error – heresy – is kept from teachings of His Church.
this from the internet...
“Romney’s faith is of particular concern to evangelical voters who make up the GOP’s key voting bloc—some of whom believe Romney belongs to a cult. Conservative columnist Robert Novak has said it will be the issue that keeps Romney from winning the nomination. A recent Rasmussen poll finds that 43 percent of respondents say they will never vote for a Mormon, and 51 percent of evangelicals say that.”
“Okay, sit on your @$$, to Hell with good works, continue to spew cookie-cutter generalities, platitudes and exhibit little comprehension of sacred things at the level of a mope who wathces Billy Graham on TV, pees himself, and never really does even bother to be baptized as the savior Himself was, and enjoy your Eternal Reward.”
If you are the average Mormon, I consider myself lucky I don’t know any.
You posted a single verse from ICor 15 to support the intricate and very involved practice by Mormons of being baptised for those who are dead. We've all been told why Mormons believe this is necessary and how it is a sacred ritual that can allow a dead person who did not accept Jesus as Lord while alive can have salvation after death through the ordinance of Mormon baptism IF they accept Jesus Lordhsip after they die. We won't delve into the implications of such a Mormonism claim as it would imply all Christianity had no authority to fulfill salvation without Mormon baptism until Authority was restored in Joe Smith ... that dog is a protect arena the moderator will ban me for addressing so it will remain in the pound.
Let's look at the context of the verse you cited, to see if Mormonism has misused this verse in order to create a notion that is not substantiated by the verse no longer standing alone ... a common practice of cults claiming Christian authority, BTW, is to pull a verse out of context. [That was the salt sprinkling out onto the morsel about to be offered, if you didn't notice, OS.]
I Cor 15:22-23 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive but every one in his own order: the firstfruits Christ, then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.
15:24-25 Afterwards the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have brought to nought all principality, and power, and virtue for he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
15:26-27 And the enemy death shall be destroyed last: For he hath put all things under his feet. And whereas he saith, all things are put under him; undoubtedly, he is excepted, who put all things under him.
15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
15:29-30 Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? why also are we in danger every hour?
I Cor 15:31 I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.
When the verse is taken in context, we see that Paul was conveying a very different central message to the Corinthians, but your religion has tried to cite this verse as if Paul were teaching the Corinthians to be baptised for the dead, as if that ordinance would somehow convey something to dead people that they couldn't get or refused to get while alive. If you read the passage in the Greek, you see a very different essence to the passage given the voice of the verbs, where Paul is saying that dead people were baptised while they were alive and why were they doing that if they had no hope of resurrection? Paul even emphasizes the issue by calling attention to his own endangerment if his baptism was of no importance and if Christ is not putting everything under His feet, why would Paul place himself in such danger every hour for these Corinthians!
How's that salty morsel taste?
That’s gotta sting!
Thanks.
I wanted to tell you CUH,
Today I hired two people. One was a woman, the other was a man. One was Christian, the other Mormon. I didn’t ask what their sex was, nor did I ask about their religion. One wore a cross, the other had the garment smile. Both are very capable of doing the job I hired them to do, but if (during training) I find their attitudes not to my liking, I will let them go. If they exhibit values and beliefs about the workplace that vary wildly from mine and disrupt my business, not only will I fire them, but I will also give them a negative referrence if asked.
Aren’t I a hateful bigot?
Um, what is a garment smile?
Standing by ... good question!
Wearing garments (Mormon undergarments) often shows a discernable line of the rounded neck beneath your shirt or blouse....hence the “garment smile.” It’s the tale tale sign in Utah that you are a “good” mormon. Sometimes non-mormons, or non-temple going mormons will wear T-Shirts to similate the holy “look.”
It’s almost a fashion trend out here.
I like blunt talk. In fact I have had so many sincere Mormons bearing their honey testimonies, and loving me to death with cookies, that if someone brought me that savory morsel you just offered up, I’be be looking under the gravy for the cow chip.
Not everyone is alike. Obviously you idea of salt doesn’t always work nor does mine. God gave everyone a different personality to use for His glory.
Funny but true. Business sometimes dictates strange behavior in SLC. One or two of my good LDS friends would never think of doing banking without making certain the smile is showing through. Course, when we're down at Murphy's bar on Main Street, they keep their jackets buttoned.
That "old man" has a tendency to resurrect... LoL..
I was on burial detail once.. and buried many several times..
That old dude eventually gets the idea.. or is it the NEW dude?..
Whatever, putting that old boy down is sometimes hard..
There has been a continuing theme by the mormon apologists on these threads that if they offer up the argument "the Holy Ghost told me it was true" we should all take it that the argument is to be conceded and withdraw. You say "I will thank you for not saying I should accept yours, however. I’ve had others tell me mine couldn’t be true, because it appears to conflict with theirs." which is basically what I was saying.
As for the info on Doyle and Dickens,I think it was just posted to show that some folks who start with negative opinions of Mormons can change their minds, based on reality.
You have your opinion on why it was posted. I have seen this tactic used to spam the thread with the intention of killing the thread altogether or to change the direction of a thread that is getting uncomfortable for the apologists. That prompted my comment about the subjects of the spam posts, Lincoln, et.al.
I do question your statement that those posts had anything to do with reality.
I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer in my post. It came off as personal to you. My bad. I apologize.
Many Catholic and Protestant scholars/theologians acknowledge that 1 Cor. 15:29 describes vicarious baptism for the dead, and that alternatively proposed interpretations (like MHGINTN) are really just unsuccessful attempts to avoid the clear meaning of the scripture because of its theological implications. Thus, the following:
“The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.’’(Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989, pp. 763-64.)
“Again, the Apostle alludes to a practice of the Corinthian community as evidence for a Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead. It seems that in Corinth some Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the redemption of Christ.’’ (From The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, 2:273.)
“St. Paul then, almost in parenthesis, touches on what appears to have been a custom among the Corinthian Christians of baptizing by proxy on behalf of some, presumably members of the same family, who had died unbaptized and might therefore, it was thought, miss their chance of being incorporated into the fulness of Christ’s Kingdom at his Advent. This practice, says the apostle, makes as little sense as his own daily contempt for physical death, if there is no resurrection.” (William Neil, One Volume Commentary On The Bible, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973, p. 461)
“After sketching briefly the drama of the end, Paul resumes his attack on those denying the possibility of man’s resurrection. Scribes and commentators have sought to avoid translating vs. 29 as in the RSV, since it is difficult to think that Paul would approve of baptism by proxy. But at this place he is throwing up questions to expose the illogical nature of the beliefs and practices of those denying the resurrection, and he withholds his personal judgment of baptism on behalf of the dead.” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville: The Abingdon Press, 1971, p. 811)
“. . . the most natural meaning of the expression [used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:29] is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament.” (Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London: Tyndale Press, 1964, p. 218)
“Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are “dead in sin” does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation.” (James Moulten and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981, p. 651, original emphasis)
“Here Paul returns to his argument for the resurrection of the dead. There is a special difficulty in understanding v. 29 because we do not know the background of the words “baptized for the dead.” There are many interpretations, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory one. The present tense “baptize” suggests that the practice of baptizing for the dead was current and evidently well known to the Corinthians. . . .
. . . its [”huper’s”, the Greek word behind “for” in “baptized for the dead”] basic meaning with the genitive is “for,” “in behalf of,” or “in the place of.”
According to [H. A. W.] Meyer, this verse means that believers already baptized were rebaptized for the benefit of believers who had died unbaptized. This was done on the assumption that it would count for the unbaptized dead and thereby assure their resurrection along with the baptized, living believers. . . .
At any rate, Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, vol. 10, pp. 287-288)
“. . . whatever doubt some members of the Church had concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in the resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of their brethren, probably catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into full membership of the Church.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, New York: The Abingdon Press, 1952-1957, vol. 10, p. 240)
Now that’s salt that has savour!!
Old student, you may want to take the Religion Moderator's advice and read the forum rules for ascribing motive that are on his home page.
Religion Mod, I am pinging you strictly because you are mentioned. Old Student has not been involved in these discussions before, to my knowledge. He may not be that familiar with the rules.
sorry for that JRochelle, it was uncalled for!
But I too at times have been guilty of frustion and anger...
Funny but true. Business sometimes dictates strange behavior in SLC. One or two of my good LDS friends would never think of doing banking without making certain the smile is showing through. Course, when we're down at Murphy's bar on Main Street, they keep their jackets buttoned.
If what you report is true, I fine that mocking God, and is it a fact you will fine those kind of people in all faiths!
Why should those who do strive to honor their covenants be some how in your mind lumped in with those who are fooling themselves, but could never the Lord because for believer we believe God knows all are hearts and minds.
And I can promise you this if they do attend the Temple there is no one there to meet them from beyond the Vail.
People who are being honest in all their dealing do recognized a presents, and those who life is not in order are met with silence.
Tatle tale!:)
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.