| 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 ...
"This practice, says the apostle, makes as little sense as his own daily contempt for physical death, if there is no resurrection." The writer was not granting the practice had credibility, just that Paul cited it to the confused Corinthians as means to show they too believe in the resurrection so why are they not living like they believe if they are doing things not taught which behaviors are founded in a belief of the resurrection?
"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." He is relating the practice to the illogical nature of their beliefs and practices. The practice was so specious, Paul didn't even bother to address it in any way other than in passing over it as an example of their illogic.
"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." Yet Mormonism has selected this obscure verse, out of context, to support their specious ordinance of baptising the living in proxy for the dead.
Paul's reference in derisive passing is all the more impactful because he used the genative case, giving the sense of 'you are still doing that silly stuff you made up yet you argue over resurrection as I taught you, as if you might doubt it.'
Salt for the slug's tail/tale.
So, you acknowledge that Mormonism has tried to use this passage to authorize a strange practice which the Corinthians were involved with without importance to their salvation. And that of course is the reason I addressed this Mormonism foolishness, for if this practice were of import to the establishing and/or maintenance of Christianity, do you think Paul would have made only a derisive passing comment about it?
Not hardly. What is obvious is that your strained interpretation has not merit. Scholars/theologians have struggled with 1 Cor. 15:29, realizing that it clearly refers to vicarious baptisms being performed by the Corinthian Saints. What is clear, though, is that your interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29 has been rejected. Thus, the following:
“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)
Your “dead in sin” analysis is, well, dead.
Haha, nice try. How many Bible passages can you find in word search to support this ridiculous proxy bathing?
;)
Nice try??? I just referred you to a half dozen non-Mormon scholars/theologians who acknowledge that vicarious baptism on behalf of dead friends/family was being practiced by the Corinthians. You give me nothing, but your personal interpretation which has been rejected by these non-Mormon scholars/theologians.
Nice try.
In the majority of you post you always try to insulate or assign your opinion to the LDS as those they are fact or of error.
News flash!
There are two premises here!
Tradition vs. Restored Church
I acknowledge the fact that you think your Tradition, over rules the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I also realized you don't want to recognized the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I also know their many besides you folks who are not glued to tradition, but deeply believe in God and realized there are many unresolved area in the Bible.
So to those folks the LDS feel they have the answers to many of their questions that traditional church can not answer nor wants to recognized.
Sorry restornu, I have been very quiet and respectful about all of your proselytizing posts here on FR. I really do not have the respect or patience to allow you to continue in this way. Please refrain from replying to anything I post here and please stop laying the silly little Mormon trip on me.
We know who you are. Please leave it alone.
You have been found out
You have nothing to offer us, your tradition had gone as far as it can!
How so and why do you take offence when there was none met only don’t judge lump everyone into the same basket!
Please stop! You are being extremely offensive.
Well what ever you feel it is I apologized it is my intention to offend you!
~”Is this why no one has responded to the fact that your Temple ceremonies have no basis found in your Scripture?”~
I could respond; the reason I don’t is one part laziness and two parts Matt. 7:6.
With due respect, Elsie, you don’t have a track record for intellectual discourse. Such a topic would require patience and understanding, rather than ridicule and scorn. I’ll be happy to address it with you myself, when I see that you might listen.
What? Please translate.
I don’t know how I offend you but if you feel that way I apologied now days one never knows what upsets another!
This coming from the oh so intellectual one.
I happen to think many of YOUR posts are not “intellectual.” But I have seen this charge from you several times. (Directed mostly at me)
Is it always your way to think you are intellectual when others are not?
Keep working on it. You never know how much good you can do in the world with a clear mind and proper use of the language.
Might even get more respect from me!
“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.”
OK, which church is it that is his? I know that if I ask my dad, he’s going to say the Roman Catholic Church. How about you?
“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.”
Well, we can agree on some things, anyway. Good luck, and God Bless.
What is going on here why does so many feel challenge when it so be an exchange of understandings and it always seems to end up like this?
There you go again.
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.