Reagan Schmeagan!
I've just about had it with Republicans invoking Ronald Reagan's name as if he walked on water and gave sight to the blind. Let's face it - America was horribly divided under Reagan and there is ample evidence that a significant segment of the American population believed the big R was actually the antichrist. All this looking back as if the 80s were some grand period of pax americana is ludicrous.
Reagan was a good man with a great vision. In that order. That candidates seem intent on defining themselves by their relation to this man is a reflection of the lemming-like behavior of the voting population. Don't people know that Reagan is not on the ballot? Instead of playing Six Degrees of Separation with a dead actor,no matter how beloved, how about we play To Tell the Truth and let the candidates stand on their records?
Given the field of presidential candidates, it's hard to even know where to start complaining...
Clinton (D), much like her husband, is a pandering opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. The fact that her husband couldn't define the word "is" speaks volumes about Bill's amazing ability to live in an alternate reality and his ingrained inability to be honest. Hillary's anti-war pro-war vote explains why she and Bill are a perfect match. They have pathologies in common and speak the same convoluted dialect of the English language.
Obama (D), much as I hate to say it, I like this guy. Not his politics, since it still remains largely unclear what they are, but he is tall, dark, and handsome, striking the veritable jackpot of fairy tale physicality. You go, boy! If only the wizard would give him a brain.
McCain (R), every time I hear him say "straight talk" I feel like I'm trapped in that SpongeBob episode where it's opposite day. I'm wondering if his forked tongue resulted from some torture during his POW time because it's just not natural to be able to equivocate so adeptly. Furthermore, I have absolutely had it with his resorting to the fallback position of "I'm a war hero" every time he gets called out for lying or his voting record. Two words, deceptajohn, "Murtha and Kerry." Just because someone went to war doesn't make him good presidential material.
Huckabee (R), ought to be selling igloos to eskimo with that silver tongue of his. He is charismatic and articulate but that doesn't change his liberal record. I was willing to give him a pass on most things and was tempted early on to vote for him but now that it is clear he is only in the race to be McCain's veep and his intentions are more about tanking Romney than pushing a real agenda, I'd love to see evangelicals throw him under the bus. They won't, however, because like Huckabee, they believe even Hillary is better than a Mormon.
Romney (R), what a waste. This guy has experience, smarts, and a desire to reach out to conservatives but couldn't get out the gate because most of his party hesitated in supporting him. He has a great record as governor and in the private sector which has been distorted by his detractors and left him looking like a flip-flopper. In short, he's got Kerry-itis. He has thoughtful positions that can't be explained in a sound bite world and that combined with Huckabee's opportunism is defeating him.
Paul (R) the best fiscal conservative on the ticket but lacks the ability to see the difference between foreign entanglements in the middle east and a 200 year old Europe-based international policy. Although a smart guy in most respects, Paul fails to see the big picture of social policy and his libertarian ideas would legalize many behaviors that would ultimately weaken the nation.
So... I'm voting Romney in the primary and if he is not the party nominee, I'll do one of two things.
McCain v. Obama, I'll vote Obama - hell, I've always wanted to gamble ;-)
McCain v. Hillary, I'll stay home and and actively campaign for all of my conservative friends to do the same.
don't bet on it ....many evangelicals I know feel the same way you do about Huckabee
McCain v. Hillary, I'll stay home and and actively campaign for all of my conservative friends to do the same.
I think you'd be better off holding your nose
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)
The party obviously didn't learn anything from the 2006 elections. I won't vote GOP unless they give me someone to vote for.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 07:55 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:15 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:15 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/03 @ 03:21 PM — (Reply)
It will be interesting when our good friend Harry chimes in on this.
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/02 @ 07:59 AM — (Reply)
I just heard this moron on Fox news say that "if the right wants a candidate, they'll line up behind McCain because he can beat Hillary." ROTFLMBO. How does the fact that McCain could beat Hillary make him the right's candidate? Even if he beat her, we'd still lose!
These people just don't get it.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 08:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 08:31 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:12 AM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/02 @ 08:21 AM — (Reply)
How about a write-in campaign for Alan Keyes? I've always adored him though he's never been a serious candidate.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 08:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 08:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/03 @ 03:19 PM — (Reply)
but then you're voting for Hillary or Obama, cate..you know that. I can't imagine you won't feel buyer's remorse. I just can't! You have children....at LEAST with that awful (REALLY AWFUL) McCain, we have a chance at the Supreme Court seats..there could be 2 in just the first four years of the next administration!! I keep thinking about the Supreme Court, abortion, gay marriage.......
Comment by Z— 2008/02/03 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Social conservatives - values voters - are talking about justice appointments like they're the holy grail but I'm afraid that we are being duped into thinking real change can come through the Court. We still have Roe v. Wade almost 40 years later.....
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 05:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 05:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 06:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 04:14 PM — (Reply)
nah we just elect someone (Bill Clinton) who gives Chrisitianity nothing but lip service.
(pun intended)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 04:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:26 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 08:33 AM — (Reply)
What's next? Tom Cruise 2012?
He's also a warpig who'd like to continue a war that was admittedly based on lies. To me there's no forgiving that - and I'd hate to see him get his finger on the button.
He probably is a good buisness man and good with budgets - but Ron Paul wants to actually back our dying dollar with gold and kill off the fed that keeps printing paper with nothing behind it - I don't think Romney has any ideas like that.
And Barry, you have a republican who is definitely bringing you a new and positive message - no war, no irs, no fed, no UN, no dept. of ed., - Nobody in my life has had this message. We just need to back him!
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 11:33 AM — (Reply)
The Jews thought Christianity was a cult. Catholics thought Protestants were heretics. So I suppose it's nothing new that Protestants think Mormons are a cult. Welcome to the world of religious one-up-manship.
I won't argue with you over Mormonism because we get our info from different sources and mine are primary, not weird conspiracy websites ;-) or thinly veiled online religious "encyclopedias" run by one or another congregation of the Southern Baptists.
Paul could've been a reasonable candidate if it weren't for his backward foreign policy. Even if we weren't in Iraq, Islamic extremists would still be blowing themselves up and killing innocents. They'd still be chanting death to the US and they would still be fighting democratic governments everywhere. So... Paul's naivete lost him a presidential nomination.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 12:30 PM — (Reply)
But its a fact that Mormons wouldn't allow blacks in their "church" before the 1980's and that wasn't too long ago.
Who cares really? Let everyone else worry about themselves. It's their problem - not ours. Do they come here and feed the appalachian children or clean up our messes, run the illegals out for us? No.
We're worrying about everyone else and our own house is falling down.
Your links tell the story of your sources and frankly, infowars just isn't going to cut it. And you are mistaken about the blacks issue. Flat out wrong, in fact. Black free men crossed the plains with the Mormons and settled Salt Lake City alongside them - as free men and members of the church. They could not become lay clergy until 1978 but were baptized members from virtually the beginning. Unlike much of the nation who wouldn't let their children share classrooms with blacks until the 60s, mormons were baptizing and welcoming blacks into their non-segregated congregations for over 100 years by the time Martin Luther King had his dream. Try again.
Re: Paul's foreign policy
Let me ask you, Dugg. If everything we do causes such blowback, why aren't there violent Koreans, Vietnamese, and Germans blowing up bystanders in malls or at bus stations? The radicalism of the middle east is an entirely different breed than what we have seen in the rest of the world and it cannot be dealt with using the same kind of policy no matter what Ron Paul says.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/02 @ 03:48 PM — (Reply)
We don't need to live in fear.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 06:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/07 @ 04:08 PM — (Reply)
As far as Infowars - you guys drive me crazy with the sources. You guys use the msm that I think is biased, corrupt and controlled as your source for every story. If I use ANYONE who's not a part of the MSM you all say they aren't a reliable source. I'm in a catch 22.
All I can say about infowars and Alex Jones is - he caught them on videotape dancing around their Molech statue at Bohemian Grove. I don't know how you discredit video proof. He had a great story the last time I was on there that talked about how a recently reported captured Alciada prisoner was already reported as captured two years ago. He shows the news stories - hard to discredit. He continuosly shows what a sham the msm is - and in return he is labeled a kook. I trust him more than Bill O'reilly to tell me the truth.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/03 @ 03:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 08:47 PM — (Reply)
I exactly share your thoughts on Obama...would you believe this conservative was willing to give him a listen? I admit, the listen lasted 30 seconds, but I WAS willing! "if I only had a brain..." A heart's just not going to be enough for the Wizard of the United States, is it.
Vote, cate......Romney. I have to say I'm voting against our PRAVDA media every bit as much as I"m voting against McCain. I will NOT have the media set our country up; tell us who to vote for.
Thompson had THE best position papers, from what I hear. Did YOU see them? I sure didn't.
Everyone wanted him but added "except he can't win". WHO SAID? the media. scary, scary.
I'm voting against the RNC and our media.
holding my nose for Romney. z
Comment by Z— 2008/02/02 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/03 @ 03:17 PM — (Reply)
but then you're voting for Hillary or Obama, cate..you know that. I can't imagine you won't feel buyer's remorse. I just can't! You have children....at LEAST with that awful (REALLY AWFUL) McCain, we have a chance at the Supreme Court seats..there could be 2 in just the first four years of the next administration!! I keep thinking about the Supreme Court, abortion, gay marriage.......
Comment by Z— 2008/02/03 @ 08:46 PM — (Reply)
McCain opposes lasw forcing business to favor homosexuality
Romney doesn't
McCain refused to support gay pride celebrations
Romney doesn't
McCain opposes curriculum that promotes homosexuality
Romney doesnt
Are this issues important to you? Do you consider Romney more of a conservative than McCain?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:45 PM — (Reply)
The MSM will make sure she crushes either one.
Vote Ron Paul.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 09:01 PM — (Reply)
I support an assault weapons ban in some instances. That's a grey area that I think requires some flexibility on the part of conservatives - no one is hunting deer or fighting off a burglar with an AK47. Does the right to bear arms include the right to keep napalm at home or a nuclear warhead? Those are arms. There are reasonable lines and this is one.
There is a difference between forcing businesses to ignore homosexuality and forcing them to favor it. As sickened as I am by homosexuality, it is not right to use their sexuality as a discriminator any more than I would want people to discriminate against me for my few, relatively imperceptible, sins ;-)
I haven't seen anything about Romney supporting "gay" curricula but if your facts come from MassResistance.org you should get them elsewhere. The folks behind that website have been called out by fellow social conservatives at townhall for misrepresenting Romney's record. If your friends call you deceptive...
I think what conservatives don't want to hear is that Romney said he'd uphold the laws of his state as governor and he did. He didn't radically change them to suit his agenda, that is what the legislature does. What he did do, as executor, was appropriate and within the bounds of his office. Bush didn't singlehandedly overturn Roe v. Wade either and he didn't send troops into San Francisco to stop gay weddings there. Gays marched on Washington while he was in office and pro-abortion rallies were held on the national mall all while federal dollars were still being funneled into Planned Parenthood. Why is Romney held to a different standard?
Social conservatives seem to want a standard bearer who will champion their causes but the reality is that such is not the job of the president. It is the job of your senators and congressmen. A president executes the laws - he shouldn't write them. BUT he does propose the budget and appoint judges and that is where McCain fails. He has NO executive experience with money and he speaks ill of conservative judges (no matter what he is saying now) all on record.
Check out the video here
On a side note, the fact that Huckabee and many of his supporters have been so adamantly bigoted against Mormons (read the comment section at townhall.com any day of the week) is what scares me most. Here are Mormons, among the most socially conservative citizens in the US and they are being devoured by many self-proclaimed Christians. I'd be afraid that a Southern Baptist would not protect the rights of a Mormon while Romney has made it clear that no matter who you sleep with or where (or if) you go to church, your job is safe and we are going to allow you the same rights as any other citizen - even if those rights include parading in the streets.
If we're going to change course in this country, it isn't going to happen through bad lawmaking. It's going to happen by fair and equal treatment and by good, Christian charity.
Sorry to ramble so much - I haven't been online much lately so when I get on I'm just typing furiously ;-) Hope you had a good weekend.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/03 @ 03:14 PM — (Reply)
I'm asking honestly Cate...just looking for your take.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/02 @ 08:46 PM — (Reply)
I think this is a false dichotomy..no ones asking to store a nuclear weapon in their house and the 2nd amendment doesn't mention the kind of arms you're allowed to use to protect yourself
As sickened as I am by homosexuality, it is not right to use their sexuality as a discriminator any more than I would want people to discriminate against me for my few, relatively imperceptible, sins ;-)
we're not talking about race discrimination, I know you realize the distinction...and your imperceptible sins wouldn't force a church organization to hire someone who is OPEN about their sin
I haven't seen anything about Romney supporting "gay" curricula but if your facts come from MassResistance.org you should get them elsewhere. The folks behind that website have been called out by fellow social conservatives at townhall for misrepresenting Romney's record. If your friends call you deceptive...
I saw it here it's not clear where he stands...he actually seems to be pandering
On a side note, the fact that Huckabee and many of his supporters have been so adamantly bigoted against Mormons (read the comment section at townhall.com any day of the week) is what scares me most. Here are Mormons, among the most socially conservative citizens in the US and they are being devoured by many self-proclaimed Christians. I'd be afraid that a Southern Baptist would not protect the rights of a Mormon while Romney has made it clear that no matter who you sleep with or where (or if) you go to church, your job is safe and we are going to allow you the same rights as any other citizen - even if those rights include parading in the streets.
Speaking on or against Mormonism isn't a crime and if you're honest about it you will admit that Mormonism is a lot different than orthodox Christianity (and is in some part a separate issue) ...the fact that someone makes these distinctions doesn't indicate that
1. Mormons will be discriminated against ....
2. That said persons hate Mormons
3. Has Huckabee said that Mormons would lose their jobs because they are Mormon? If so can you please provide the link?
4. Supporters say a lot of crap...witness Ron Paul decotee's claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy and yet RP himself hasn't supported those theories
These are strawman Cate and it makes me wonder about the implication that evangelicals will vote for Huckabee simply because he's a Christian when others appear to be voting for Romney for the very similar reason of sharing his faith
Check out the video here You do know where I live...so I am quite familiar with McCain's take on immigration
If we're going to change course in this country, it isn't going to happen through bad lawmaking. It's going to happen by fair and equal treatment and by good, Christian charity.
and I don't think it will be happening by compromising our Christian values for the sake of finding someone who "makes" good law apart from those same values
but I do agree with you in the sense that politics will not solve our problems...these are matters of the heart
Gays marched on Washington while he was in office and pro-abortion rallies were held on the national mall all while federal dollars were still being funneled into Planned Parenthood. Why is Romney held to a different standard?
The problem is as you said he is Kerryesque
even if those rights include parading in the streets.
but would it include this?
I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I'm am still undecided
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 08:22 AM — (Reply)
Remember when the Justice who said "I can't define porn but I know it when I see it"... that didn't help social conservatives did it? Drawing ambiguous lines allows for cultural shifts. Are silencers illegal? (Just curious, I have no idea)
An assault weapon is specifically designed to hunt (hence the name ASSAULT) people. They are not defensive weapons - this is not about the right to defend yourself with arms. The AK-47 was not designed or intended to be defensive - it was made (but didn't go into production in time- '47, I think) for combat in WWII. This is not even remotely the same as using a handgun against an intruder or a rifle on a deer.
Unless you intend on defending your family in muddy, wet and frozen conditions similar to that of the Soviet front line (WWII) for which the AK47 was specifically designed and your target is 300m away and you need 30 rounds to get the job done, and 1476 foot lbs of muzzle energy to drop your target, I just think this is well beyond what the founders intended.
Can I arm my garden with land mines if there is a food shortage? That would be defensive and I could just sit back and watch tv while my yard protects itself...? That seems just as reasonable to me as standing watch over my house with an assault weapon.
Hey... are land mines illegal? Are there concealed plant licenses?
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/07 @ 04:32 PM — (Reply)
they would be against the government, which as I understand it was one purpose of the 2nd amendment
I didn't use the extreme, you did (nuclear weapons analogy) and I dont' accept your premise that compares assault weapons to land mines, nuclear weapons or napalm
Look, I'm not opposed to reasonable (whatever that means) background checks etc as a means to owning an assault weapon but they're hardly fool proof in preventing some nut from going off
The primary fact is that a true "assault weapon" is a military firearm which can be fired either "automatically" (many shots per trigger pull) or "semi-automatically" (one shot per trigger pull). In other words, a true assault weapon is a machine gun and those are already regulated by federal law.
The firearms that are covered by the so-called "assault weapons" laws are semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Some of these firearms are made to look like a military-style weapon but are mechanically indistinguishable from the traditional-looking deer rifle.
As stated by Officer William McGrath in the Police Marksman:
These [assault rifles] are little different than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more "military". . . .
(The term "assault" rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi automatic and back with the flip of a lever. There is already a ban on the impor- tation and manufacture for domestic sale of such weapons.) The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a "legitimate" hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for "legitimate" hunting rifles have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end.
The Wall Street Journal has noted that national legislation banning these firearms could cover 20-30 million of them. Legal experts in the California Department of Justice did not believe it was possible to ban so-called "assault rifles" without banning all semi-automatics.
Some states have passed legislation just this sweeping. In 1989, New Jersey State Senator Frank Graves introduced a bill which defined an assault weapon as any rifle or semi-automatic shotgun with a magazine capacity of 7 or more rounds or any semi-automatic handgun of 18 or more rounds. Any firearm which uses a detachable magazine technically has a "magazine capacity" of these large sounding numbers because it can accept a magazine of any capacity that fits that firearm.
Because of the wording used in this bill, and similar bills introduced in both the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures, a lot more people stood to lose their firearms than may have initially realized it. In this way, hunters and other sportsmen are misled into thinking that they have nothing to worry about.
By the time New Jersey passed a semi-automatic firearms ban, state officials estimated 300,000 firearms in the state were affected. Owners of many rifles or carbines designed to accept a detachable magazine of more than 15 rounds, owners of shotguns which could hold over six rounds, and owners of handguns which were designed to accept a magazine over 17 rounds learned that they owned "assault weapons."
By this definition, a Mossberg model 500 pump shotgun with eight-shot capacity, which is used by many police agencies and honest citizens, is transformed into a threat to society. So too is the Glock 17 pistol, which is rapidly becoming the choice of law enforcement for many of the same reasons which make it appealing for home defense--it is easy to maintain properly, easy to shoot and makes extra shots available if needed.
1. Officer William R. McGrath, "An Open Letter to American Politicians," The Police Marksman, May/June 1989, p. 19.
2. Calif. Political Week, Sept. 2, 1991 at 1.
3. USA Today, May 24, 1990 at 3A.
4. State of New Jersey, Bill No. 166 (as enacted) at 5.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/07 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
The guns are rarely used in crime. The study Congress required of the ban found "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders," and that the magazine limit isn`t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.8 A follow-up study found "gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [which use magazines] were less likely to produce a death than were those involving revolvers" and "the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims."9 Police reports and federal felon surveys have always shown AWs used in only 1%-2% of violent crimes.10 Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only 0.25%.11 Murders with knives, clubs and hands outnumber those with AWs by over 20-to-1.12 For obvious reasons, California`s AW bans, the most restrictive of which the anti-gun lobby considers the "model for the nation,"13 have been failures.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/07 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/07 @ 06:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 08:46 AM — (Reply)
The real problem is that Romney is being held to a different standard. Huckabee was judicial watch's 7th most corrupt politician last year but he is claiming to be the guy who speaks for the moral masses. Huh? Giuliani was pro-choice and McCain is a liar on immigration. Yet, every word out of Romney's mouth is "gotcha" fodder. Romney is Kerryesque in style not substance (while McCain wanted to be Kerry's running mate - indicating that they share substance) . I have always thought that Kerry was railroaded with the flip-flop charge and he tried too hard to explain his positions to people who only wanted sound bites. That is a flaw of style and it killed his campaign. The same is killing Romney.
Frankly, I don't see an issue with Romney's pro-life/pro-choice stance. The reality is that pro-life and pro-choice are terms that define your feelings about government intervention, not your feelings about abortion. I know plenty of pro-choice Christians who believe that abortion is a matter of morality - and for argument's sake, what's the difference between an abortion and an IUD which allows an egg to be fertilized but not implanted? Still results in a dead fertilized egg (i.e. human life). Personally, I feel because a life is involved, it is open to government legislation since the basis of laws is to moderate human interaction (your rights, my rights...). BUT I respect that not everyone feels that way and that some feel it should be a local decision. I also understand that many people think I am not truly "pro-life" because I would allow for exceptions in the case of incest, rape or the endangerment of the mother's life - but in these kinds of 'Sophie's Choice' situations, I believe God will be merciful.
So - I believe that abortion should be outlawed but with exceptions and I believe that Romney supports that position. There are qualifiers for me. And again, I feel the battle will be won by converting people to life rather than forcing them to give up choice. There is a difference.
On Huckabee's anti-Mormon stance, the Politico suggest that he was behind the negative push polling in Iowa (i.e. the calls where the questions are leading and introduce false premises to impact voters decisions rather than to actually garner poll results) and we all know about his antics at the SoBap convention in SLC. I'm not opposed to trying to win converts but I am convinced that hateful contention is not of God.
Interestingly, Mormons have voted for Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Jews and even Muslims without so much as a comment about religion but put a Mormon on the ballot and watch the fur fly. Mormons also serve in overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers in the military and yet they are cast as unfit for office, weirdos who can't possibly be patriotic. LOL!
As to the suggestion that Mormons are voting en masse for Romney - it just ain't so - and I can speak as an unusually legitimate source on this, EB. A LOT of Mormons are Ron Paul fans because he is strict constitutionalist. I even know some who are voting for Hillary (yep - on purpose). I'm on a lot of homeschooling web groups and Paul is by far the most supported among the Mormon home schooling mom crowd.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 10:02 AM — (Reply)
Huckabee is a Huckster and his supporters are the same ones now coming out and telling us to abandond principles and vote McCain (Kristol, Barnes, etc). This is no coincidence, EB. Rush is all over it today.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 11:11 AM — (Reply)
I don't know why Huckabee would do such a thing if it's true.
and dirty tricks isn't unique to any one candidate
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 11:38 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/04 @ 11:42 AM — (Reply)
What I'm saying is that your implication that evangelicals would vote for Huckabee simply because of his Christianity suggests that evangelicals are monolithic and the fact that you feel so strongly about Romney suggests that you're looking to vote for Romney based on his faith and in disregard to his views on the social issues
This is why I'm confused to your idea that if Romney isn't nominated you're not going to vote...this despite the fact that if McCain is nominated and his views on the social issues are more conservative than Romneys you decide to give the White House to Hillary/Obama....this won't be punishing the RNC it'll be punishing us
while McCain wanted to be Kerry's running mate -
wasn't this some dream team made up by the media?
That is a flaw of style and it killed his campaign. The same is killing Romney.
and would be difficult for Republicans to remain consistent in their criticism of any candidate Mormon or not
Interestingly, Mormons have voted for Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Jews and even Muslims without so much as a comment about religion but put a Mormon on the ballot and watch the fur fly. Mormons also serve in overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers in the military and yet they are cast as unfit for office, weirdos who can't possibly be patriotic. LOL!
Harry Reid....
Orrin Hatch
to name a few
Is this personal opinion or do you have any numbers to suggest either of these contentions?
I'm asking with all due respect so please understand.
Please correct me if I'm wrong Cate but doesn't the LDS church teach that the rest of Christianity is apostate? The reason I ask if this is true, it seems rather curious that on the one hand the LDS church rails when someone criticizes them for not being a part of mainstream Christianity but at the same time the LDS church has tried to separate itself fromt mainstream/orthodox Christianity? This may be why there is this sort of backlash from mainstream Christianity. It seems to me that there is this division on both sides. Some Christians wonder how the LDS church can try to have their cake and eat it too. Am I clear?
I mean no offense...I'm just asking.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 11:33 AM — (Reply)
Everywhere we went in the Army the numbers were like that - most noticeable at USMA because it was a small community.
EB, I was excited to see Romney run from the start, of course, but like most people I didn't think he really stood a chance. I was ready to vote for Giuliani, Thomspon and even Paul. I already told you I was willing to vote for Huckabee. But just like you, I have decided that I am voting AGAINST. AGAINST McCain. After that, if there is no evident difference between McCain and Clinton, my vote won't matter, will it?
You are missing the difference, here. Romney knows now that he needs us. That kind of leverage is important. McCain doesn't need us or want us. I want to vote for someone who knows he needs my support and will thus give ear to my causes.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 01:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 01:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 04:06 PM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/04 @ 04:34 PM — (Reply)
McCain -1
looks like this to me
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 04:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)
Yes the church does distinguish itself in very important ways. I think what bothers most members is the insinuation that we don't believe in the same Jesus of the Bible. Practically from the day after the ascension, Christians have been trying to define Christ and then because some church leaders took a vote in Nicea, suddenly that's it. A very political vote according to most historical accounts, btw, this creed was born of necessity not inspiration. Then a couple of millinea later, someone who doesn't even believe in prophecy or modern revelation goes to a seminary where he is taught what others before him say the scriptures mean and he coins the definition of a cult. So now anyone who thinks Christ has attributes outside the voted on definition is suddenly non-Christian, rooster sacrificing, horns hiding under their hats, eternal kindling?
My King James Bible says that believing that Jesus Christ atoned for my sins, died and rose again and that through Him I can be forgiven and have eternal life makes me a Christian. Am I wrong?
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 06:41 PM — (Reply)
Woud you use an NIV or any other version?
define eternal life?
who do you believe Jesus to be?
as you said these definitions seem to differ and hence these distinctions become very important
and I understand your frutstration, but the early church was facing heresies from the Gnostics and others who wished to deny the eyewitness testimony of the disciples themselves...it seems to me it was very important to decide such things as
Did Jesus physically raise from the dead? (something the Gnostics wished to deny)
As I've told you before I believe God will deal with us as individuals and so I leave that to God
I do question as to whether certain doctrines appear to be Biblical
the Bible says to 'study to show yourself approved' and to be 'ready in season and out to give a defense' (apologeia)
So I've tried to study these things from the original language, for e.g. I believe any English or other translation has errors
an example which I'm sure you're well aware of is this:
In Greek there are at least three words for 'love'
phileos - (where we get philadelphia) brotherly love
eros - (erotic) sexual love
agape - unconditional (the type God has for us)
If I read the English version alone then I would not be getting the full geste of what God intended
I say this because I think it's very important to determine the definition of these words in context and by original definition and grammar
this is called hermeneutics...this is a science, system or method for interpretation
if we cannot agree on the method of interpretation, it will be very difficult to come to an agreeable conclusion
this is where most denominations can agree...that there is a proper way to interpret scripture
when this is done the distinctions between these denominations usually come down to a matter of practice/application rather than one of 'salvation'
for e.g. Charasmatic chuches emphasize gifts, Christian Missionary Alliance churches emphasize sending missionaries, others providing social programs to the poor and needy
and this in and of itself seems to me to be quite Biblical
When Paul spoke of the gifts of the Holy Spirit he says there are different parts...some are hands etc.
and so many of these differences (at least in my experience) have not been dividing
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 07:20 PM — (Reply)
Yes I could use another Bible - the church uses KJV as a basis for lesson manuals and such whch provides for a nice level of uniformity across the church.
eternal life - immortal life with God
yes - Jesus literally rose from the dead
You say that a method of interpreting scripture was decided upon - by whom. By men. How does that make the system infallible? At best, it is an educated guess.
And I disagree with your suggestion that this eliminates the misinterpretations. Some churches baptize, others say baptism is irrelevant. Still others sprinkle while some immerse. Some think baptizing babies is good. Others believe that you must choose to be baptized - requiring some sort of age of accountability. The uniformity you suggest doesn't account for the overwhelming historical differences between Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others, why some Christians fought for freedom while Quakers abstained.
I believe that several sects have come together over core issues (the literal interpretation of the Bible, for example) and have used them to redefine Christianity. It is not enough to believe in Christ for some, your women have to wear denim jumpers (you know the uniform;-) and stop cutting their hair, and your children are all home schooled through Bob Jones or Alpha and Omega. LOL! You know the folks I am talking about, the ones who refuse to accept me into their home school associations because I won't sign a statement denying my faith. The ones who kicked my friend out of their homeschool co-op when they found out she was a Mormon. If you have not run into that class of Christian in your sunny state then you are a very lucky man indeed, the Bible belt is rampant with them and I'll admit that my references to evangelicals are usually directed at this crowd because that is how they characterize themselves.
But then the SoBaptists in my hometown fought over who got to run the first showing of anti-mormon films on Sunday nights, so it's hard for me to feel the love there, either. Though I have campaigned for, voted for and worked hard for many from each of these groups who probably would have outright rejected my help if they knew where I went to church.
I think the real assessment of a Christian is not just what he professes but what he does and by that measure we can only be judged individually.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 10:11 PM — (Reply)
Mormon representation in American politics has grown beyond demographic equilibrium. With over five million members living in the United States (11 million world wide), Mormons account for 1.6% of the U.S. population, but more than 5% of elected representatives in congress. Please don’t tell Jesse Jackson.
Just a few examples: in the House of Representatives there is Jeff Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). All except Udall are Republican. (Udall notes his faith as unspecified, but he comes from a long historical line of Mormon politicians) There are 21 Mormon members in the House of Representatives all together.
In the Senate there are 5 Mormons. Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, both from Utah, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho and Gordon Smith from Oregon (the latter is considered a moderate Republican). The fifth member of the Senate is the ultimate exception to the rule: Senator Harry Reid, senior member of the Democrat leadership and, by all accounts, left-leaning.
Outside Washington you have the successful gubernatorial candidacy of Olympic organizer Mitt Romney, Bay Buchanan, radio talk show host Glenn Beck, and most recently, former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was confirmed as Secretary of the EPA.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 12:06 PM — (Reply)
I was prepared to vote for Hunter, Thompson and Giuliani in that order...
now quite honest I'm flumoxed
my point here was not to start an argument with you but
1. to understand better your argument for not voting if McCain was to gain the nomination
While I am still not quite clear why you are willing to give the White House to Hillary...I certainly respect your reasons
2. because I respect you...I admit to struggling with who to cast my vote for and thought your reasoning may help me to make up my mind for or against
Thanks for engaging me
I appreciate you
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 01:11 PM — (Reply)
As I have said elsewhere, simple pragmatism.
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/04 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
Is it true that LDS scriptures claim that the LDS church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30).
Joseph Smith stated: "This [the LDS] Church...is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"
(Doctrine and Covenants 1:30).
President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).
Bruce McConkie stated: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).
Marion Romney (LDS First Presidency) said, "This Church is the ensign on the mountain spoken of by the Old Testament prophets."It is the way, the truth, and the life" (Conference Report, April, 1961, pg. 119).
Is this what the LDS church believes and teaches about the rest of Chrisitianity? If so then isn't the LDS church then condemnatory as well?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 05:11 PM — (Reply)
If a church didn't believe it was the body of Christ then would you bother being a member? Would you attend the church of "We don't offer salvation but our communion wafers are never stale and we have the best BINGO tournaments ever"? Every sect believes it is singular - otherwise we'd all still be Catholics.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 05:57 PM — (Reply)
Again, I ask, does your church teach that Lutheranism is the way to go? Do they tell you that you can be just as "saved" in the Anglican church? I bet they don't. Here, in the Bible belt, the key phrase is "A Bible believing church". That means that evangelicals think that anyone who doesn't believe in the most literal translation of the Bible had better buy a flame retardant burial suit.
The difference is, that Mormons don't circulate movies about how the other churches are cults. They don't stand outside other churches passing out fliers about how people are going to burn. With the exception of teaching about the general apostasy that established a need for "restoration" of the gospel, church, and priesthood authority, the LDS church doesn't put out statements about other churches.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 06:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/04 @ 06:35 PM — (Reply)
Well you're theologians seem to say otherwise
Joseph Fielding Smith said: [There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).
Brigham Young stated: "no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).
Brigham Young also declared, "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312).
President George Q. Cannon said: "If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]" (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142).
Bruce R. McConkie is an LDS Apostle and son-in law of Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth LDS President and Prophet, but he is also one of your best theologians. He wrote about the word, “Christendom,” saying, “The term applies to the whole body of
supposed Christian believers; as now constituted, this body is properly termed apostate Christendom” (ibid. p. 131). And on page 132, McConkie said, “A perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom.” McConkie then said,
“This (LDS) Church is ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth’
(Doc. & Cov. 1:30), the only organization authorized by the Almighty to preach his gospel
and administer the ordinances of salvation, the only church which has power to save and
exalt men in the hereafter” (ibid. p. 136). He also said on p. 670, “There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” McConkie’s statements show that Mormonism is a very different kind of “Christianity” from that found in other “Christian” churches.
These sound condemnatory to me.
If a church didn't believe it was the body of Christ then would you bother being a member?
Our church doesn't offer salvation...Christ does.
Would you attend the church of "We don't offer salvation but our communion wafers are never stale and we have the best BINGO tournaments ever"? Every sect believes it is singular - otherwise we'd all still be Catholics
Um not really....most of the distinctions in protestant churches is in the practice and not in the theology...I know people who've attended many different denominations but know that those distinctions do not divide us...I even know someone who attends an 'evangelical' Catholic church but attends Protestant Bible studies
My point was if the LDS church believes they are the ONE true church then how can those who are LDS try to have it both ways if the LDS draws this distinction themselves. It seems the LDS church is more exclusionary than evangelicals including Catholics.
I'm not Catholic with a capital "C" but with a little "c", it's a Greek word from the Bible that means universal
So is the rest of the Christian church apostate? and if so are they going to spend eternity with Christ or not?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 06:37 PM — (Reply)
Re: donations to other churches - of course, we give money to all kinds of good faith based causes -
Re: condemnation of non-Mormons - Read the source document, Doctrine and Covenants 76. McConkie should have used the word exaltation instead of salvation - a common misuse among church members - though they understand the meaning in context where non-LDS usually don't. The doctrine is that your ultimate goal isn't just to become forgiven but to become godly (exaltation). The church teaches that you must make sacred covenants with God to become like him and that those promises are made through the priesthood authority re-established through the prophet Joseph Smith. All of those are doctrinal points up for dispute but the correct response to your question is that NO -Mormons don't believe all non-mormons are going to hell. But unless you understand a lot about the theology and the terminology in context, those quotes seem like a condemnation. And I've heard stranger things come out of the mouths of church members who don't understand their own faith :-( But that is true of any church.
I think using the loaded word "cult" is just hateful, EB. You know just as I do that that word has Charles Manson and Jim Jones written all over it. Anyone who gets that from the LDS church had mental problems long before they entered the waters of baptism. There is no brainwashing going on - no super secret squirrel meeting with the pentaverate. No nighttime rituals in the Meadows with the Colonel...
If other Christians want to keep Mormons separate or vice versa, fine, but let's not pretend that calling the LDS church a "cult" is merely a terminological distinction - it's a loaded word with only negative connotations.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 09:40 PM — (Reply)
while I understand your aversion to the word 'cult' and the connotation of 'brain washing'
I disagree and here's why
a Christian definition of cult would be this
Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity
I don't think it's hateful...as I said...I don't take offense that Jews consider Chrisitians a cult because by their definition we're not orthodox Jewry
certainly you won't deny that the LDS church is not part of orthodox, historical Christianity and would actually wear this as a mark of pride
exaltation - define this term
The church teaches that you must make sacred covenants with God to become like him and that those promises are made through the priesthood authority re-established through the prophet Joseph Smith. All of those are doctrinal points up for dispute but the correct response to your question is that NO -Mormons don't believe all non-mormons are going to hell. But unless you understand a lot about the theology and the terminology in context, those quotes seem like a condemnation
then tell me what they do think
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 09:59 PM — (Reply)
I am enjoying our conversation so don't take my passion as anything other than that. It's great stimulation to talk about something outside of the first and third grade curricula that occupy most of my day
You know I think the world of you ;-) and you couldn't make me mad if you tried.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 06:45 PM — (Reply)
I hope you remember our email conversation from some time ago, so that you'll know how I feel
I'm trying to be careful and I to address the doctrine or issue and avoid individual beliefs as I know those can differ
and you know that I love sincerely love you as a friend
I hope I am sounding civil...if not please call me on it
I'm asking these questions honestly..if you wish we could carry on offline..if you prefer
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
Jesus talked about it as an acutal location....the story of Lazarus for e.g.
yes definition of terms is important and this is why orthodox Christianity and the LDS church are mutually exclusive
Again, I ask, does your church teach that Lutheranism is the way to go? Do they tell you that you can be just as "saved" in the Anglican church? I bet they don't.
This is the first time you've asked me. No they don't teach this at all.
Here, in the Bible belt, the key phrase is "A Bible believing church". That means that evangelicals think that anyone who doesn't believe in the most literal translation of the Bible had better buy a flame retardant burial suit.
So you're saying that a church that doesn't believe in the Bible is okay? Not sure what you mean here as any Christian church would want another to be 'Bible believing'.
Again the LDS church draws their own set of distinctions and it's doctrines are exclusionary
do you want the LDS church to ignore those distinctions between itself and mainstream Christianity or not?
If on the one hand the LDS church wishes to be included in mainstream Chrisitanity and on the other hand has decided itself that that same mainstream Christianity is apostate then it's ignoring its history and doctrine
and appears at least on the surface to be contradictory
neither can orthodox Christianity ignore those distinctions between itself and other sects
No the churches I have attended have never claimed to be the sole arbiter of truth...some have been Armenian and others Calvinistic but non have ever said for example:
Anglicans are going to hell and Baptists are not e.g. I think this is a common misconception among many. For example I am well aware of the distinctions between denominations but I have allowed my children to attend other churches.
We send missionaries out to convert them to Christianity, not our particular denomination, my wife and I support mission organizations that are not affiliated with any denomination at all.
Would members of the LDS church support the Wycliffe Bible translators for example? or TransWorld Radio? The Gideons?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
Therefore one ought to differentiate between Christian and Jewish Biblical hermeneutics: although there is an overlap between the two (and some form of dialogue), since they share part of their scriptures, they do arise out of different faith traditions and thus developed their own notion of hermeneutics.
Said another way:
Therefore one ought to differentiate between Christian and LDS Biblical hermeneutics: although there is an overlap between the two (and some form of dialogue), since they share part of their scriptures, they do arise out of different faith traditions and thus developed their own notion of hermeneutics.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 07:35 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/04 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
I believe those religious types who won't vote for Romney WOULD vote for a Jew with their same values....what's THAT about?
Comment by Z— 2008/02/05 @ 02:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 07:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
out of curiosity would you mind naming a few
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 10:05 PM — (Reply)
I give to practically everyone that asks ;-) AFA, I ran a fundraiser last year and gave the entire proceeds to the local Catholic church, my church women's group ran a craft fair and gave the proceeds to a women's shelter run by another church... you want me to go on? Salvation army, the local church kids from the same churches that hate "my type" when they come around selling stuff or taking donations. And you know what I tell them when they leave with my money (that they'll be using to print pamphlets about how I am a disciple of the antiChrist) I just smile and wave and say "Jesus loves you." And then I close the door and laugh til I nearly pee because only I know that I gave them tainted Mormon money - bwaahaahaa (evil laugh)
It's so late here it's early and I am getting silly... I've got to get some sleep! Catch you tomorrow.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 10:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 10:36 PM — (Reply)
So this isn't true? Is this the official word of the church or not?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 10:09 PM — (Reply)
Catholics believe it passed down to the popes via Peter. Mormons believe the line of authority was severed and had to be restored through divine intervention. I guess protestants don't believe in a literal line of authority because either they abandoned it (upon the "Protest") or they also considered it lost (hence the need for reformation?).
The word apostasy literally means "without apostles" and refers to the time when the world was without apostles. Paul wrote of it in 2 Thess 2 when he warned the church not to get caught up thinking the second coming of Christ was nigh at hand - he said that there would come a falling away first. (2 Thess 2:1-3) mormons consider the falling away or apostasy the time between the death of the apostles and corruption of the early Christian church and the restoration of priesthood authority to Joseph Smith.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/04 @ 10:20 PM — (Reply)
We don't have a need for a priest other than Christ anymore
Heb. 4
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
the falling away
this suggests more than not having apostles
or apostasy the time between the death of the apostles and corruption of the early Christian church and the restoration of priesthood authority to Joseph Smith.
are they going to spend eternity with Christ?
You say that a method of interpreting scripture was decided upon - by whom. By men. How does that make the system infallible? At best, it is an educated guess.
I could ask you this of Joseph Smith as well.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 11:03 PM — (Reply)
If you believe God is accessible to every man then seek Him out, sincerely, with an open heart and ask Him in prayer if Joseph Smith was a prophet. I did and I know that he was. That spiritual knowledge is necessary only as a basis for accepting the premise of apostasy and restoration upon which the church is based - not because Joseph Smith is seen as some sort of new messiah (that is anti-mormon nonsense).
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/05 @ 07:03 AM — (Reply)
Hermeneutics is much more than that
And I disagree with your suggestion that this eliminates the misinterpretations. Some churches baptize, others say baptism is irrelevant. Still others sprinkle while some immerse. Some think baptizing babies is good. Others believe that you must choose to be baptized - requiring some sort of age of accountability.
Yes there are differences in practice but the vast majority of orthodox Christian churches do not believe for e.g. that baptism is essential for salvation
what they disagree on is whether or not it should be done by immersion or sprinkling and is not something that typically divides us
The uniformity you suggest doesn't account for the overwhelming historical differences between Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others, why some Christians fought for freedom while Quakers abstained.
I'm not merely suggesting it, I've experienced ever since my conversion. My own conversion was through a high school released time class that included Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Nazarenes etc with a non denominational teacher...I attend Christian concerts, conferences and other events with Christians from many different denominations
Those outside of orthodox Christianity believe these differences are much larger than they really are
Would you allow your children to attend a church outside of the LDS church?
I believe I implied that those interpretations while causing disagreements on issues do not separate mainstream Christians denominations and the basics of the faith
yes - Jesus literally rose from the dead
I wasn't questioning your belief in this only the need for the early church to establish what it knew of Christ early on to prevent heresies
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 10:31 PM — (Reply)
I must comment on something you keep saying - the early church needed to clarify/establish its positions. These positions were established long after Christ ascended and as you say, by the CHURCH. Why not by God? You say they had to decide what they believed/knew - but if they really KNEW, why the vote? Why the hashing out over definitions? If no priests were needed, then the early church was irrelevant anyway, right?
Which way is it? Did you need the church to define Christ's attributes or was that arrogant priesthood really just superfluous? Sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
You can't claim that authority is irrelevant but then rely on post-Christ priests as an authority for your doctrine.
Comment by Cate— 2008/02/05 @ 07:11 AM — (Reply)
from The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
yes it was formally done sometime later but the Church had been acting on these matters much earlier
You can't claim that authority is irrelevant but then rely on post-Christ priests as an authority for your doctrine.
The arrogant priesthood in in reference to the Catholic church whose priests at one time gave the only interpretation to the unlearned masses
this is why the Bible says to study to show yourself approved and why I have