Is it any wonder w/ folks like the cabal here running around? Christ like? Hmmm
Posted on 11/30/2009 6:01:03 PM PST by delacoert
I’ll just leave this here…
Before a defense of any kind of religious discrimination, one ought to make all of the necessary disclaimers: of course I oppose government-sponsored discrimination, and I certainly would not support the kind of absurd treatment described by Steven Reinhart in his piece featured below. That being said, there is a legitimate case to be made for judging any candidate for office by his religious convictions.
In late 2007, Mitt Romney made his somewhat-famous speech on religion, where he spoke the following words:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Similarly, Romney has stated: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it…my faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those practices, then I’m at an utter loss as to why we should ignore Romney’s religious beliefs when evaluating his fitness for the White House.
We ask plenty of questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office? But for whatever reason, these questions are looked at as unnecessarily piercing and prejudiced when asked of a member of a minority faith.
When Sarah Palin gave her fumbling answer about Israel’s settlements, several commentators jumped on her faith, wondering whether she subscribed to the bizarre but potent sect of modern Christianity that believes in the imminence of the End Times. Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church? There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so. It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?
As an atheist, I both understand and accept that in a predominantly Christian society, my thoughts on religion are necessarily going to open me up to questions. If I were to ever run for office (don’t count on that, by the way), I would not expect my supporters would try to ward off any questions about my atheism with the victim-card of discrimination. One’s philosophy of religion contributes profoundly to his worldview and thus is a completely valid criterion by which to partially evaluate a candidate’s fitness for office.
I view all religions as equally bizarre and irrational. But mainstream Christianity is often adopted as a cultural guise, meant for purposes of assimilation with the majority. Probe most self-described Christians and you’ll find plenty of deviation from standard dogma. Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted Evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.
My, my, you really want to blow a lot of smoke around, don't you. The differenced in the first part were largely a misunderstanding of the termology, in fact the Greek and Coptic Churchs have resolved the issue (Petros VII Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Shenouda III Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark).
AFA Gnosticism and Lutheran - you are really reaching the outer orbits.
Differnent gospels - are you now including the pseudo writings of Thomas and other gnostic works? You better stick to Islam, you seem to be better informed there.
No, Rush taught us how the “game” of politics is played and how the political process works. Rush confirmed what we already truly believed.
You couldn't have figured that out yourself?
He's that much sharper than you?
They all believe in the Trinity, they're all supposedly saved b/c they believe! How can that be? Is that what Christ taught? I thought there was unity among the Christians except for the Mormons. Some here believe it's just a big cumbaya. Why the killing girl?
You don't deny that these are major differences within Christianity though do you? I'm plenty informed...and you know it.
You know the terms, have demonstrated a general knowledge of the histories, you may even know the dogma and teachings, but like a tone deaf musician, you are just playing the notes, not making music.
Well, I anxiously await enlightenment...from you, LOL!
Now now, Resty, have your FARMS feeders send to you examples of how the Alinsky tactics are being used against your man Mitt. Don’t just post inane comments which you do not comprehend. I doubt seriously that you even understand the Alinsky methodology, much less the context for use of same ... exposing the truth about a man like Mitt is a far stretch from the Alinsky methodology and if you actually knew what the Alinsky methodology was/is, you’d refrain from commenting that it is being used to attack Mitt or Mormonism. Do you even know what is the Cloward-Piven strategy? Do you know whom said to ‘make them live up to their own book of rules’?
Knowledge vs. understanding strikes again.
Stick around and several of us can help you match your knowledge to an understating of what it all means, both historically, politically and spirtually.
Time marches on and history does not occur in a vacuum...
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”.
Mohandas Gandhi
Is it any wonder w/ folks like the cabal here running around? Christ like? Hmmm
You assume much.
There is more than one battle going on here.
Some of us move with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other when the time comes.
...I’m happy to learn from those who have something to teach, but boy that’s one hell of an ego you’ve got.
Difference - yes, but are all still Christian - yes. Bottom line is Christians can all accept the core tenants laid out in the Nicean Creed and later ones as well. If you want to show them chasing their collective tails on peripheral issues, I can do that all day too. But the fundamentals listed in Nicea pretty well weed out the cults like mormonism - which were their purpose.
I'm plenty informed...and you know it.
Perhaps, at least enough 'informed' to misrepresent some items as a misdirection. I would consider my self 'informed' as well. So what.
“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means”.
George Bernard Shaw
Apparently not judging on the basis of religion is VERY important to you.
Why is that? Why is it so important to you that you "can't let the comment stand"?
Never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who know far more than they understand...
- - - - - -
Agreed.
Yes, certainly. ...if you believe all the clearly anti-Mormon sources without question and ignore any contradicting views.
- - - - - - - - -
Funny thing is though, I did not accept the “anti” sources without question. Instead, I researched any claims contrary to the LDS church. Hours upon hours, days upon days, weeks upon weeks, months upon months, checking sources, looking up footnotes, reading journals, checking for context and checking facts both at BYU and the LDS Church History library. I read the Brown’s book “they lie in wait to deceive”, I checked Hugh Nibley’s footnotes. I read the entire Journal of Discourses. It became a full time pursuit. I even had some opportunities to discuss my concerns with a couple of “the brethren”.
I set out to prove that the “anti’s” were either lying or taking things out of context. What I discovered is that the “anti’s” (for the most part) were the ones telling the truth and that the LDS Church was the one lying and misdirecting. The LDS church, contrary to the claims of “the brethren”, could not withstand scrutiny.
The other thing I discovered through this process is that I loved history. It was this discovery that led me to become a professional Historian.
“He is always convinced that it says what he means”
PERFECT quote to describe how mormons handle the Bible
and read heresy back into it that isn’t there! Nailed
it Reno!
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.