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 ...
Just a thought.
To say that people who are confident in their opinion don’t need to “win the argument” is a convenient way to ignore an actual point someone’s making. It’s basically an ad hominem attack: I’m only saying things out of some insecurity, so why bother responding to the actual argument?
The fact is, we’re on a forum — we make points, give and take, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement, sometimes changing our views, sometimes (ok, usually) not. I don’t assail people personally, though I may attack arguments. You may want to consider doing likewise.
“I think that at least part of what you are saying is that liturgical forms are not essential to worship. I agree with this, but it can be a great assistance to the process.”
I agree with that statement, but the Catholic church goes pretty far in insisting that these forms are not just helpful, but necessary. That’s part of what the transubstantiation debate is about: if the eucharist is just a symbol, as Protestants claim, it lessens the need for the church as an institution. If, however, the eucharist represents the actual body and blood of Christ — and becomes that only when a designated church representative blesses it just so — the church’s institutional character is absolutely essential.
“If you are saying that the writings and thinking on this subject for 2000 years is of no importance to your ability to have a meaningful relationship with God, i would disagree.”
Not sure where you’re getting this, since I said nothing of the kind.
I certainly agree with this take of liberal Christianity; I’m a conservative Christian. I just don’t like pretending that every argument in favor of my position has merit.
Although I generally agree with Lewis’s conclusions, there are several instances in which he does try to use reason to “prove” that Christianity is the only true path — at one point, for instance, glorifying “good old-fashioned argument” as a way to convert. It’s there that I think he goes badly off the rails.
Neither one, according to them. They say the Romans split off from them.
Both the Mormons and the fundamentalist Protestants err by believing that the Church founded by Christ can apostatize, and then many of them err further by blaming that supposed apostasy on the Roman empire under Constantine.
Problem: neither the Armenians, nor the Chaldean Church of Iraq, nor the "Mar Thoma" Christians of India, nor the Ethiopians were ever under Constantine or any other Roman Emperor. All of them claim to have been, and probably were, founded in the Apostolic era.
None of them are remotely like Mormonism or fundamentalist Protestantism. However, they do all bear a significant resemblence to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. (Many of the Chaldeans and "Mar Thoma" Christians are today in communion with the Pope of Rome.)
Let God be true, and both Martin Luther and Joseph Smith be liars.
“Then every church mediates its members’ relationship with God, not just the Catholics, given that definition.”
I didn’t give a definition, but I do agree there’s always some kind of mediation going on. But it’s a question of degree, and as a matter of observation, it seems obvious to me that the Catholic church does more such mediation than Protestant churches do, just as a matter of doctrine.
As for Jesus weeping, note that I never condemned Catholicism for being what it is. I’m making an observation, and you (among others) are taking it as some sort of slight against Catholics.
Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius depreciating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay.Constantine thought the actual nature of God was "of no practical importance", He just wanted the church to agree, truth was irrelevant to him.
The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established.So, you have a pagan sun worshiper opening a religious conference for the Catholic Church, being lauded, then setting the Tone for the meeting by telling everyone that he wanted them to just agree and stop arguing over the nature of God.
The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations.Yeah, he offered to make them the State church of Rome if they would just agree on the nature of God and be done with actually caring if they were correct. I have more on my page Here But I will include my Synopsis
Now let's put all this in the context of the day. Constantine had just finally put down the other military leaders of a fractured empire. In spite of Christianity being illegal, it had grown in popularity (or maybe even because it was illegal) Constantine sends letters to these bishops (who are under a death sentence just for being Christians) and invites them to a conference, moreover, he puts "Public transportation" at their disposal to get to the conference with. (Public transportation means military horses and Chariots, there was no bus) Now on top of all this he tells them that one of the topics of the conference will be making the Catholic church the sate church of Rome. Carrot and Stick are now clearly (I hope) visible to all who read this. The bishops meet and Constantine tells them to come to a consensus on the nature of God (the Arian Controversy) and when they do, he makes them the state church. However, there are a few conditions, he wants a definition of God that everyone can accept, and thus we have the Greek religions influence in to the Nicene Creed. Mormons believe that this is the single biggest step into apostasy that can be documented as happening at an exact point in time.What has all this to do with the question of Mormons believing in the same Jesus as Orthodox Christians? We believe in the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus the apostles came to know and love, the son of God the creator, the savior, the Jesus the early church believed in. The orthodox Christianity believes in the abominable doctrine that God and Christ are one in substance, in the trinity, the doctrine created by a pagan who co-opted the church and didn't even join until his deathbed. You can go with Constantine as the standard, I will go with the Bible. IF I have to chose between a Jesus as defined by the Bible and one defined by Constantine, i choose the Bible, and Orthodox Christians can chose Constantine, and they can say I don't believe in their Jesus and I will be fine with that. I have a problem if they want to say I don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible and the catch is they think they do, even when their definition didn't come until 325 and because of Constantine.
“You better not.”
Good, because I didn’t.
“What the Catholic Church believes and teaches is the authentic Church, and everything that came after is a reinterpretation of the original faith, or a bastardization of it, depending on the religious sect that broke off from the Mother Church.”
Note that after all the huffing and puffing, you are calling my religion a mere “reinterpretation” at best or a bastardization at worst, and I have called your religion no such thing. That’s perfectly fine, of course; we aren’t liberals in need of the notion that everything everyone believes is true. But just keep in mind that that’s what’s going on here: I accept your religion, and you don’t accept mine.
“So, who has the real truth when it comes to Christianity, the original religion contemporaneous to Christ’s life, or the various offshoots that sprung from it much later in history?”
The Catholic church was not contemporaneous with Jesus in any meaningful sense. Yes, Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom,” which Catholics take as an endorsement of a bureaucratic papal system (quite a leap). But even the earliest Gospel wasn’t written until 40 years after Jesus died, and the canon wasn’t closed until about 300 years later. There was constant infighting — leading to another church that claims originalist roots, the Eastern Orthodox.
Of course you are right that Protestantism came about as a response to Catholicism, but that does not by definition make it a reinterpretation or bastardization of the Christian faith. Rather, Luther argued that Catholicism itself had become a bastardization of the faith. (Remember “indulgences?” Sure, that’s true Christianity for you.) So your tut-tutting about the timeline says nothing, in itself, about which forms of Christianity are most authentic. I myself think many forms work just fine.
Not if you consider the Constitution to also be a source of aspirational values for our democracy.
Good. Then it is all in the best possible hands. ;)
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;It's a requirement of the return of the Lord.
BBL8R
Yes, we are clear. You are clearly willing to put forth a conveniently revisionist history of orthodox Christian doctrine, couple it with a gross misrepresentation of the means by which the doctrine of the Trinity is derived, and then pass off "my version" of Jesus as being the product of a sun-worshipping emperor while yours is "defined by the Bible" (and not by some false prophet who sings things in his hat and can make a good story out of an incomplete portion of heiroglyphics).
You have certainly perfected the art of playing the victim here. Your argument above MIGHT have helped you if you were arguing against somebody who put their trust in creeds and councils over and above Scripture, but I do not place such trust in them.
For one blustering on about everybody misrepresenting their beliefs, you sure do a fantastic job of just that very thing.
How do you know it was God and not a deceiving spirit?
I guess in retrospect he shouldn't have royally pissed them off!
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.