Posted on 12/16/2007 11:15:52 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Mormons aren't Christians ...
... and other thoughts on religion and politics sure to get your blood boiling
Herewith, my views on religion and the politics of the present moment, with something to offend just about everyone:
1. Mormons aren't Christians. I don't mean that as a criticism, only as a descriptive phrase. When Mormons claim Jesus Christ as their savior, there's no reason to doubt their sincerity and good will, or even to deny that they are in some way followers of Christ. Yet Mormonism rejects foundational doctrines of traditional Christian orthodoxy, such that it is impossible to reconcile with normative Christianity.
2. Anyway, the Latter-day Saints church teaches that all other Christian churches are apostate. A heretic is someone who rejects one or more doctrines of religion, but an apostate is someone who has rejected the religion entirely. How is it, exactly, that you can get mad when people you regard as apostates consider you to be ... apostate? How does that work?
3. Theologically, this is a big deal. But politically, so what? Mormons vote like Southern Baptists and come down on the same side of most issues of public morality like conservative Christians do. If you're a socially conservative lawmaker, wouldn't you rather have a Mormon in your legislative foxhole than a Kennedy-style cafeteria Catholic or progressive mainline Protestant? I'm no Romney fan, but is there really no meaningful political difference between Good-Mormon Mitt and Bad-Catholic Rudy, to say nothing of Liberal-Protestant Hillary?
4. There are plenty of good reasons for conservative Christians not to vote for Mr. Romney, but his religious beliefs are not among them. Do Christians want to be in the position of rejecting a candidate whose political views and moral values they agree with, solely because they don't like his religion?
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
But not that They are two parts of the Triune God head (one god in three persons)
they are Christians, regardless of any other doctrinal differences
If we were talking pre trib or post trib rapture that would be one thing. Mormons dont Believe God is sovereign over the universe, thats *huge*.
To say otherwise, in my opinion, is just playing with words.
No! Gods complete sovereignty and the oneness of the God head are serious points.
Maybe, but that was not the word Dr. Asimov used. He said that he refused to believe that there was anything in the universe higher or better than the human race. (And this from a Jew who was an adult during the Holocaust!)
If Mary had been married to someone who already had children they would be "Step Brothers and Sisters". If Joseph and Mary had children themselves they would then be "Half Brothers and Sisters".
Here is something else to ponder. [John 7:1-5] After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Here Our Lord is being taunted by......"His Brethren". Much is made of these words as being just "Brothers in Spirit"....so to speak.....or camp followers. No! these are flesh and blood half brothers who are taunting him to go anyway (to the Festival) because they knew the Jews had it in for him......and they wanted him dead! They were obviously very jealous of his power (verse 3) and they did not believe him (verse 5). This is not a good example of devoted "Brethren!" How anyone can read these verses and come away believing that these "Brethren" were just followers of Our Lord.......is beyond me.
[Mark 6:3-4] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. Early in his ministry he admits to not having any respect from these same "Brethren". They were well aware of His growing preoccupation of a mission....His confrontation with Satan was probably made known to them....and these folks, being typical blood relatives were thinking he was probably crazy [Mark 3:20-21]!
[John 2:12] After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. This verse proves there was a definite distinction between His disciples (followers) and His brothers. It's almost comical (definitely goofy) how the main stream church goes to these lengths in attempting to show a perpetual virginity which is neither scriptural.....nor logical!
Yes I am well aware that the originally pejorative word 'Christian' was not used until most of a generation after the Resurrection, and that the early followers of Christ considered themselves to be good Jews, who were followers of 'The Way'. When the Jewish leaders made it clear that the followers of Christ couldn't be accepted in the synagogues, and Paul had gotten them to approve directly from gentile conversion. they referred to themselves as the Church, and pagans and Jews referred to them as 'Christians'.
Today, from the Pope down, we still refer to ourselves as the Church, while outsiders refer to us as Roman Catholics.
The crusx of the argument is with people who think Jesus was some sort of enlightened philosopher..
He was either
As he claimed the son of God
A liar and con-man
A madman
I am afraid that he will have to complicate his vocabulary for me.
To my knowledge, the terms Step Brothers and Sisters, did not exist in the period under concern, and was certainly not widely used. Between the frequent early deaths and remarriages, and the cultural attitude that the definition of a family depended on connection to the father only, 'brethren' not the children of Mary makes much sense. I might go further, in the case of Catholicism, the Church believes that the Aramaic for brethren, includes first cousins, and that is what the Church believes Christ's brethren are.
I think that the Orthodox accept the idea that they were Joseph's children, and Christ's step siblings. Since the perpetual virginity of Mary is accepted by most Christian churches, only some 'low' churches think that they could be Christ's half-siblings (children of Mary). Naturally, if one things these brethren were full siblings of Jesus, you don't believe that he was 'the only begotten Son of God', and are not any kind of Christian.
‘if one things’ = ‘if one thinks’. Go to bed, LCS.
From what I’ve read there are many conservatives who believe that there should not be a religious litmus test given to those who would or could become President or hold any other position within our government. Unfortunately, those same conservatives only believe that when it applies to their chosen candidates. It may seem hypocritical because it is.
Are you admitting here that you believe Mary to be a god? Or are you just ignorant of the fact that they were progeny of both Joseph and Mary. Of course in that case they would be half brothers and sisters of Our Lord.
I'm quite positive that you don't mean that other children of Mary would be classified by your church as "Begotten" of God also.....do you?
And.....I am a first century Christian.....predating your outfit by at least 300 years.
LOL!
You appear not to be following too closely here. Christ was not a blood relation to Joseph, he was begotten of God. If his brethren were full siblings then either they would have been begotten of God, and would be God themselves, or Christ would have been begotten of Joseph, and not God.
A non existent group, see my above.
“If God saves you, why the “need” for a Bible, or a computer or dinner?”
Because there are things God wants to do through us. I’m not judging the Catholic church for mediating the relationship with God; I’m simply observing it. You can’t honestly argue that there isn’t some institutional mediation going on there.
Nope, he doesn’t. I’m not Mormon, so Joseph Smith doesn’t factor in at all.
Nor did I reduce it. I used a particularly egregious example. But I challenge you to find where in that book he unpacks that argument further in a way that acknowledges the concerns I raised.
You’re missing my point — presumably willfully, since it was pretty clear. The point is, no human being or human institution has to sanction my symbolic “ingestion” of Christ.
See my post #217 on this thread.
Luther was indeed a heretic to Catholics
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.