Posted on 09/27/2011 7:51:26 AM PDT by Vigilanteman
The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins. So what's the problem? The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney's religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs. Some people have commented that they cannot support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. When they are pressed to explain why that is objectionable, they stutter. Still others are skeptical of Mitt Romney based solely on hearsay or lack of knowledge about Mormons. Even more puzzling to me is the recent trashing of the Mormon faith by Bob Jones III, of the university that bears his name, while endorsing Mitt for president (USA Today article by DeWayne Wickham, October 23, 2007). Some of us call that a backhanded endorsement. I am a practicing Bible-reading-and-believing Baptist Christian, and I respect any Christian denomination that shares the same basic beliefs. I cannot respect a religion that trashes other Christian denominations, or one that seeks to destroy other faiths. Muslim extremists want to kill anyone who does not agree with them. I have a problem with that. This is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney, nor is this intended to defend or explain the Mormon religion. It is a reminder that Christianity has several denominations with different practices. Misperceptions or lack of clarity about someone's religious beliefs can only distort one's reasoning in deciding who to vote for. Media and political prognosticators are constantly trying to put labels and sound-bites on candidates for their reporting convenience, and sometimes, to help create a negative perception of a candidate. Romney is a Mormon, but a "flip-flopper" on social issues. Guiliani is a liberal with a conservative record as mayor of New York City. Huckabee is a conservative Baptist preacher, but he does not have enough money raised to be considered a tier one candidate. Fred Thompson might be a true conservative but his "sizzle" is a let down. And John McCain is strong on national security and "gray" on everything else. Maybe I am asleep when the media reports on the Democratic presidential candidates, because I do not hear them proclaiming Hillary's religious affiliation or her socialist tendencies, Barack Obama's Muslim educational past or John Edwards's distinctly socialist tendencies. History has shown that a media sound-bite is not a predictor of how a president will sign legislation when it reaches his desk. President John F. Kennedy reduced taxes for the first time in decades, and he was a Catholic Democrat. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was a Texas southerner. And Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative after being governor of California, one of the most liberal states in the country. Go figure! This country needs a president who has a sensible, common sense solution or idea for the tier one issues that we face. National security in our fight against Islamic fascism, sustaining the positive growth of our economy, market-based incentives to make our health care system more affordable and accessible, restructuring a dysfunctional social security system, replacing an outdated and unfair federal tax code, and harnessing the unbridled growth of government and entitlement spending. Religious affiliation is a good indicator of integrity and character, but it is not the only predictor of presidential performance. And since the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from a president imposing his religious preference on the rest of us, I would rather have a president with some religion than one whose religion is suspect. "In God We Trust" was no accident by our Founding Fathers.
Christians like you do not even know the Jesus Christ that you speak of. Apostasy is the reason.
Like I said, most Christians on Earth. Catholic + Orthodox + “Oriental” Orthodox= Most Christians on earth.
Like I said, the truth of something isn’t determined by the number of folks who believe it or don’t. Not trying to start any fights.
Freegards
It is a profitless argument. All that matters is that Jesus was born to a virgin. It is sort of a side show to speculate about possible brothers. I don’t see that it makes a difference one way or the other.
“The only denomination that believes Mary and Joseph didn’t have children after Jesus is Roman Catholicism (actually, Eastern Orthodox might believe this too, but I don’t know enough about them).”
Just adding that this is my understanding, also. There are many, many references the Christ’s mortal siblings in the Bible, including the verses you cited and several others. James, Joses (Joseph), Simon and others, for example. Of them, James is the one most referenced, to my knowledge.
Herman is confused if he thinks Mormons believe the same as Christians.
And Romney’s religious faith is an indicator of his core values, and his ability to reason. If he can’t spot the obvious contradictions between what the Mormon self-proclaimed prophet taught and what scripture teaches then Romney is not fit to lead the country.
So Cain agrees with Romney’s policies - big gov’t. Well we, also, know that by Cain agreeing with Barry that the voters should not be allowed to see the pics of bin laden but the officials can that he’s big gov’t vs. we the people - no matter what he says! He’s already against our ‘rights’ and for romneycare!
And he has no idea that Mormonism is a cult. Cain is one clueless dude. And he bought the liberal media’s lie - I hardly doubt that voters were concerned about his religion but Cain bought the bait to become a media darling.
When will Cain be vetted? This will be repeat of barry voters - no vetting necessary - he’s the man.
You are obviously TRYING to start a fight. Have fun with your little game.
EOM. END of Thread.
Wish I could have stated that so clearly. Go Herman Cain!
I didn’t realize that my direct answers to a poster’s question could be construed as some philosophical argument. He asked what the doctrine of a particular religion was, and I answered him as best I could.
“I don’t see that it makes a difference one way or the other.”
Then there’s no further comment, is there?
Right, to my understanding most Protestants believe that Jesus had siblings. There are probably some Lutherans and some Anglicans that still believe that he didn’t, at least to my understanding. I could easily be wrong about that, though.
Freegards
A politician should not engage in a theological debate. He was obviously in over his head when he wrote this.
“You are obviously TRYING to start a fight. Have fun with your little game.”
I agree with you, (s)he does appear to be attempting to trying to create an argument, and I’ll follow your lead. Thanks for pointing it out. Have a blessed day!
“You are obviously TRYING to start a fight. Have fun with your little game.”
OK then.
Freegards
Moronism came out of a talking hat, and they do not believe what Christians believe.
I was trying to warn you off discussing this with that poster. He obviously has an agenda.
Understatement.
I've never seen such loathsome comments as I've seen posted here about Mormons. I don't understand it. Is it because of Romney?
Thanks!
Freegards
No, you were trying to revive the anti-Mormon discussions.
I can’t stand Mitt Romney. I just don’t trust him, but his religion doesn’t play a part in that and trying to makes it so, demeans the process.
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.