Explaining the 37% Religious Bigots? Uninformed? or Calculating Liberal Democrats?
By jjfuller72 Posted in User Blogs — Comments (84) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, there were two articles here (Bloomberg) and here (LA Times) reporting on a poll gauging what religions Americans feel least comfortable about in hypothetical presidential candidates. I linked to these articles and gave some opinions on the results a couple of blog entries ago. However, further thought, discussion, and reading on the matter has brought some other interesting findings to the surface.
If there's one thing I know, it's to NOT trust the conclusions (or even impressions) of journalists when they are analyzing data (sure, there are some really bright ones . . . but it's well established that, among educated adults, they aren't the bastion of brains that many would have you believe). Also, I always look at the source of information when gauging it's possible "agenda", and the L.A. Times is well recognized as one of the most liberal news sources in the nation; that they would want to cast doubt on a prominent GOP candidate who stands to draw significant support moderate voters is not surprising.
Also, to reach sound conclusions one must start with sound premises . . . in this case, a poll must ask the right questions and to the right people (I think that the actual questions asked should be made public if they are going to publicly publish the "results.") This poll, unfortunately, neither ask the right questions nor did it ask the right people; the resulting incorrect conclusions may discourage some potential Romney supporters.
First off, the explanation of how the poll was conducted states " The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll contacted 1,321 adults nationwide by telephone June 24 through 27. . . . Results were weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and region." Conforming with census figures is a bad way to gauge what "likely voters" would do in at the ballot box. The number opposed to a hypothetical Mormon candidate dropped to 35% among registered voters and, I would guess, would drop even more among those that actually would make the effort to get to the polls (AKA "likely voters").
"Support for a Mormon candidate tends to rise with education and income levels, the poll shows. Sixty-six percent of college graduates and 70 percent of those with incomes of more than $100,000 a year say they could vote for a Mormon presidential candidate."
So the number drops to 34 % for college graduates and 30% for high income earners. So, who are these 30% of high income earners that are opposed to a hypothetical LDS presidential candidate? I propose that nearly all of these are Democrats, mostly coming from self-described "liberal Democrats" who, as a political group, are the most intolerant to the idea of a Mormon president at 50%. They know that Mormons are, almost invariably, the antithesis of their pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, socially and fiscally liberal platform and policies. Obviously, this large block of voters won't matter in the GOP primary, and I don't think Romney would be expecting to get their vote in a general election anyways. So I count them as a non-factor.
As the articles describe, there is as much political ideology represented in the 37% figure as possibly, anything else. How else do you explain the following?
" . . . 22 percent of registered voters say they wouldn't support an evangelical Christian . . ."
The same group of liberal Democrats are rearing their heads here. One alternative explanation is that there is a proportion of moderate or fiscally conservative Republicans that are opposed to strongly religious hypothetical candidates (still wary of the sometimes radical "religious Right").
So, in an attempt to exclude these politically calculating liberal Democrats simple subtraction between the "registered voters" opposed to Mormons (35%) and Evangelicals (22%) is only 13% (I will address this remaining 13% below.) These two religious groups are as near to "block voters" for Republicans as any of the other religious designations and so the opposition to them is understandable.
"14 percent wouldn't back a Jewish candidate, and 9 percent say no to a Catholic. Fifty-three percent say they wouldn't vote for a Muslim."
Catholics are definitely more politically diverse as evidenced by prominent politicians on both sided of the aisle; Sam Brownback and Jeb Bush for the Republicans/John Kerry and the Kennedy's for the Democrats. Most people have either already voted for a Catholic for president (Democrats/Independents) or know they would support someone like Jeb Bush.
The Jewish number can be ascribed, in part, to the fact that people are hesitant to fulfill the stereotype of being an anti-Semite. Also, the popularity of Joe Lieberman comes into play . . . again, because nearly all Democrats have recently already voted for a Jew on a presidential ticket. I don't completely buy the conclusion from the articles that Americans are really that much more tolerant of Catholic or Jewish religions than the other religions listed.
This highlights a major point, that we are all creatures of habit and generally fear to tread into the unknown. Who can say that they've already voted for a Mormon for a high office? The percentage has to be somewhere in the low single digits. This is part of the reason that their implication that Mormonism is a major obstacle for Romney is vastly overblown.
So, back to the 13% difference between Mormons and Evangelicals . . . this is the only percentage that I think potentially relates to a religious/doctrinal objection to a hypothetical LDS presidential candidate and the only percentage that would matter in a GOP primary or among the "swing vote" in a general election. This fits pretty closely with the 1998-9 figure from the fledgling Orrin Hatch campaign where 17% of Evangelicals said that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon (I think I'm quoting that one right . . . I've heard it lots, but if anyone could point me to the source I would appreciate it!)
Turning those two figures on their head, we could stretch to say that 83% of Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon and 87% of people from the recent poll do not have a religious/doctrinal objection to a hypothetical LDS candidate. Any viable candidate could work with those numbers!
But wait, there's more! (Is this reading link an "infomercial" yet?). The religious objection will assuredly abate as the campaign wears on. Much of the objection is based on misinformation or lack of information altogether. As people realize that Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for over 100 years, that Mormons believe all that Christ taught and view him as the Savior, and that Mormons are pretty darn normal people in day to day life who usually try to live what they believe, there will be less and less concern about having one as a Chief Executive.
However, the majority of any remaining objection will disappear as people evaluate Romney as a candidate and are impressed with his candor, accomplishments, and policies. In the end, I see the fact that Romney is LDS being the deciding factor for maybe 3-7% in a GOP primary and definitely less than 5% in a general election. This handicap will be offset by the strong grassroots movement and financial support that individual mormons will give to Romney, especially in a swing state like here in Iowa.
History tends to repeat itself . . . the LA Times article says:
Indeed, in a Roper poll from June 1960, 35% of respondents said either that it might be better not to have a Catholic president or that they would be against it. Then-Sen. John F. Kennedy gave a speech on the subject of his religion that September, and he was elected president two months later.
So, the answer to the question in my title about what factor is responsible for the 37% is, not surprisingly, "All of the above."
...I was attempting to conflate Scientology and the various pyramid-schemes that blight our fair land. Structurally unfair, granted, but they're methodological cousins.
re: Freezones How positively religious! Compared to the orthodoxy, of course...
meant to be litally interpreted. Thats just the kind of judges liberals are looking for!!!
When I was 16 I read Mission: Earth (10 books, what a boon for someone who was always looking for stuff to read) and Battlefield Earth (only one book, but awfully long).
Looking back years later though, now that I've learned about his other venture, I can see how each influenced the other.
I don't think I'd be able to stand reading Mission: Earth again, what with the wild global consipracy stuff, Jet Heller as the ideal scientologist, etc.
For Scientology to be a multi-level marketing scheme, they'd have to have multiple levels. They don't, though.
They're just an extremely kooky religion combined with grossly overpriced 'services' to prey on the religion's adherents.
Note that not all Scientology followers are in the official church anymore. Some have left and formed the 'freezone' where they do their auditing and whatnot with their own developed materials and tools.
"In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, through literal interpretation of religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.
Fundamentalism is a continuing historical phenomenon, it is increasingly a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.
Similarly, Fundamentalism, as the term is used today, is a fairly recent creation closely linked with the historical and cultural contexts of 1920s U.S. Protestantism (e.g. the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the Presbyterian Church). Since then the term has been 'exported' abroad and applied to a wide variety of religions including Buddhism, Judaism and Islam.
Fundamentalism should not be confused with Revivalist movements which can be traced back much further in time and are not specific to 20th Century America.
Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable."
I think it'd have worked better as a short story though. To me the best part was about the Air Force Academy...
I hope the movie treated that well (never even considered seeing it), but knowing Hollywood, they probably skimmed past it.
I said at the time that Hamas won the election, that it was the best thing that could happen, because now there will be accountability. They cant say they cant control hamas anymore because hamas is in control, and we also get to see that the palestinian people are the problem. Thanks to 40 years of leadership that taught them hatred from birth.
But average people will change once they get a taste of the consequences of their choice. They will decide that its best to not have bombs rain down on them when they could be playing soccer.
Thanks for the reply....Killer
Based upon your data, I guess I am a conservative Christian, but I don't like putting political labels on religion.
I don't read KOS and wouldn't care to examine theology with them.
If they use these silly labels to try to raise money...do we have to join in an opposing effort?
for the response I've been hoping for. You raise excellent issues. In fact, your comments reflect the paradigm of the non-evangelical world.
By the way, from your context it appears you may consider evangelicals as a denomination, like Methodists. Evangelicals are Christians of all stripes; I have friends who are evangelicals that are Methodists, southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian (USA), Pentecostals and I know of Greek Orthodox members who are passionate evangelicals. The easiest way to define an evangelical is via Scripture. Evangelicals take Christ at His Word on that Great Commission thingy. Notice some who saw Him on the mountain didn't believe in Him, a dead Guy who was now alive, walking (sometimes through walls), eating, and most interestingly talking. But those of us who do believe in Him believe what He is saying is not a suggestion but a COMMAND. We are called evangelicals because we go to tell the Good News about God's human incarnation of Himself as the Man Jesus Christ, Who paid the sin debt for all mankind so God's created children (people) would be able to live in His presence as He intended prior to the man's fall into sin in the Garden of Eden.
The Bible says all people are sinners and that without proper payment for sin people will wind up in Hell, not because God sends them there but because no unholy thing or being can find a permanent home in the presence of holy God. The definition of Hell is "absent from the presence of God". A popular phrase used in our culture as hyperbole is "God forsaken". Anything that is God forsaken is technically in Hell. God the Father turned His back on Christ while He was suffering on the cross because He had taken the sins of mankind upon Himself to pay the price so people could be forgiven of their sins and have God's presence with them for eternity. During that time in history, Jesus experienced Hell on the cross in the separation from His Father due to His assumption of mankind's sins. The Bible says God will not "look on sin"; in politically correct modern day parlance, God is intolerant of sin. But Jesus took the Hell for those who believe in Him. He offers all people eternal life with Himself in Heaven to all who do not reject His call. Also, this eternal life begins at the time of salvation, in THIS life. Have you accepted God's free gift of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ?
I have now just evangelized you, giving you a clearer (I hope) understanding of what an evangelical Christian is about. The leftists/socialists/liberals like to use the term "Fundamentalist" Christian as a derogatory comment (to be associated with Fundamentalist Muslims or Fundamentalist Religious Whackos). Fundamentalism simply means that the person believes the fundamental precepts of the religion. Muslim fundamentalists do what any good student of a religion would do; read the texts that reveal the religion. When Muslims read the Koran they read the parts that Gamecock described which says that all non-believers should be converted or killed. Islam is that kind of religion. It is good that most Muslims are not fundamentalists, though they used to be (that was what the Crusades were about).
When you get Islamic fundamentalists you get beheadings of innocent civilians, suicide bombers, intolerance and hate. When you get "fundamentalist" Christians (according to the liberal interpretation, which means conservative, evangelical Christians), you get at the extreme end missionaries who sell all they have to live in some 4th world country in stone-age conditions to lead lost people to the true God of love. No one gets beheaded or even hated or not tolerated. They do (by necessity) learn about sin (liberals are intolerant of that concept). Yes, there are some whacky, ultra-fringe "fundamentalists" out there that hate and are intolerant, like the idiots who were protesting military funerals. But those are kooks that don't represent one-tenth of one percent of the religious population; probably not one one-thousandth of a percent. Most important, they may claim to be Christians but they clearly are not. The fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control; against such things there is no law. If you're not indwelled by the Holy Spirit, your not a Christian. Christianity is not a philosophy to be adopted. It is a life to be lived that is only possible by the gracious saving work of God Almighty and the indwelling of the regenerate believer by the Holy Spirit.
Grammatically, fundamentalism just means you read the book and follow the directions. If the book is bad, it will lead to bad behavior of the persons who believe the book has authority, unless some uneasy believers experience dissonance and become "liberal" in their translation and interpretation of said text. If the book is good (like the Bible) it will lead sometimes terrible people to change and start doing some of the best work mankind can do. When liberals start "interpreting" the Bible to say what they want it to say, you get great evil (like fundamentalist Muslims) such as abortion and "tolerating" sinners straight into Hell by telling them their sin isn't really sin.
I thank you again for your post. The bulk of your comments were not addressed in this reply. But my plan for this weekend is to write a new diary based on your comments. It will be something like "Why Politics Cannot Exist without Religion". It will not be a "religious" post (sometimes I do those) but will be about the realities of why religion and politics are inseparable. I've been wanting to do this for sometime and your reply to my earlier post is the perfect foil from which to develop this story.
Stand by...
I recall reading that Kennedy's religion caused concern during his election.
I'm curious if those who indicated they were concerned about voting for Kennedy because he was catholic would be more or less than the 9% who say it would be an issue today.
I do think people don't know as much about mormons and so they may react differently now than if they knew more. Wasn't Romney's Dad a Gov from Michigan. Was religion ever an issue there or then?
So let's wait for the Political Cassius Clay before we worry about that, ok? :)
"For all you know," they could be worshipping a giant stone owl out in Bohemeian Grove...
anybody can believe this foolishness, but people believe in astrology, fairies, Area 51, Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, Jonathon Edwards (both of them), mental telepathy, and the word of Kim What'shisname of North Korea. They've been conditioned to believe nonsense, so why not believe there are both 'dead space alien souls ("thetans") stuck to your body' and 'e-meters' to detect them with?
<...that Christianity is by definition Trinitarian, anyone who is not Trinitarian is not a orthodox Christian>
Oops, I certainly do not recognize this. I recognize that many Christians seek to define Christianity by adherence to the Nicene Creed, and they have sought to do so since the 4th century AD. This disregards the beliefs of many early Christians (and later ones!), since the Nicene Creed was very hotly debated at the time of its declaration by the Catholic Church.
Now yes, you might say "the Nicene Creed directly reflects Christ's teachings from the Bible", but it's clearly just the Catholic Church's understanding of those teachings. Trinitarian Christians accept the Catholic Church authority on the subject, non-trinitarian Christians reject the Catholic Church authority on the subject, and neither of these positions rejects Christianity since Christianity itself is not reliant on Catholicism.
I'm quite comfortable defining a Christian as a follower of Christ. Who exactly is a follower of Christ? I'd suggest that we be less concerned with predicting how the chips are going to fall on judgement day and focus on more mortal concerns (like who's gonna be POTUS). If someone's trying their best to follow Christ, we shouldn't find it threatening to admit that they are Christian. Naturally, this definition is not as exclusive as others (trinitarian definition being one example) and is therefore not as palatable to people who wish to dismiss other denominations out of hand.
<...are sufficiently different in terms of doctrine and our view of the nature of Christ that when a Mormon says he follows Christ he is not saying the same thing that Christian would mean>
Perhaps we're talking about different things. When Romney says that he follows Christ, it means that he strives to apply Christ's teachings to his life. The phrase "follow Christ" is not a theological statement on the nature of God. Neither is Romney's phrase "Jesus Christ is my savior" anything other than a simple statement of that fact. To say that the phrase is disingenuous because of the trinitarian chasm is an over-extension of doctrinal differences.
...I've edited a few entries from time to time and so far those entries remain unedited. I have been reviewing some far more scholarly tomes in an effort to prepare the post I promised (hopefully tomorrow).
In the meantime I believe I can enhance your insight of "evangelical" (an adjective) as in "the writer had an evangelical overlay to his prose" or (a noun) "an outspoken evangelical is often ridiculed in by the liberal mainstream media". The following comments can be confirmed in William Lane Craig's monumental work "Reasonable Faith" (1994).
Christianity exists. Regardless of liberal aspersions, the Gospels, the letters of Paul and the other letters of the Apostles (James (half-brother of Jesus), John the Evangelist (or the "Beloved") and Simon Peter were all written well before 90 AD. That late date is only possible for Revelations. Paul's works predate 70AD, as do the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark & Luke). It is possible that Luke was written before 50; twenty years after Christ's execution and resurrection. NO mainstream scholarship denies early dating of the New Testament today in 2006.
These documents were believed to be factual history by the first century church and were not questioned as absolute truthful history until the Enlightenment. The documents themselves claim to be historically correct. There is ZERO archaeology that has refuted a single Biblically-stated fact, much less anything from the New Testament.
Now that is wonderful but it's not really the point. The evangelical, or the "born-again believer", KNOWS the reality of the message because of the tangible indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The HS indwells the believer at the point of his regeneration (salvation). The Bible makes many references to this personal manifestation of God in the believer, taking that individual from being "spiritually dead" to "spiritual life in Christ".
Believers know this is true by experience; the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Jesus) speaks "spiritually" to the believer giving them the "blessed assurance" that "Jesus is mine!(OH! what a foretaste of glory divine!"). So regardless of what scholarship of the world may say (which is by definition a moving and changeable target at best), the Gospel and God (in reverse order) never change. They are sufficient.
Now this sounds pretty far out if you're completely bought into the world's system (or matrix). You may think that only nuts and delusional people think this way. The reality is that millions today and millions in the past know the truth of the reality of God Almighty through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ and His indwelling Spirit Who changes our life reality.
I've asked my lost best friend (who is rich and powerful) if he would change his mind if he really believed that there was a personal God and you could know for sure; would he seek to get this understanding. He rejects the notion and apparently believes the millions who share Christ as personal Lord and Savior are indeed deluded, even the many even today who are willing to die for Him. All I can tell him is that I did not go out seeking salvation; I just didn't reject Him when He unexpectedly called me one hungover Sunday morning (I wasn't an alcoholic, just had too much that night before).
You say you believe in the Apostles Creed. That includes what I have just described. Jesus raised physically from the dead (the resurrection of the Body), He appeared to the Apostles and other believers, and the Holy Spirit is doing His work in all believers since Pentecost. If you truly believe this, and know it is true by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, then you're on your way to being an evangelical also. Evangelicals are only different in that they are obedient to the command Jesus made to all believers (Great Commission).
My good friend who is an Episcopal priest believes the Bible is allegory. I've been wanting to ask him for years if he is an agnostic or an atheist. He's a sweet guy and loves PEOPLE. But if you think the Bible is allegory, then you're calling it a liar because the Bible says over and over that it is the truth.
My Episcopal friend is an example of a non-evangelical. He's plenty religious. He quotes Jesus. He believes in prayer and prays earnestly. But my guess is he just thinks it's a placebo effect, like my best friend who is not a believer of any stripe (except possibly as a deist).
Bottom line: Evangelicals are born again Christians who have grown spiritually in their personal relationship with Christ (by the indwelling and sanctification process of His Spirit). They are then lead to evangelize the world in their own particular way (calling) according to the Great Commission. That's why I'm up typing this to you at two hours past my bedtime...
bon nuit
since my weekend was too busy to get a well-organized diary together. I still plan to do it, but in the meantime some short answers to your good comments.
You said:
"I realize that Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are Evangelical Christians and are Conservative Republicans. But, it may surprise you to learn that their influence is limited. I don't get all of my views from them. I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils."
The influence of that group is limited in my life as well; Dobson a little more than others because he's really about family living, not politics. But given the razor-thin margin of victory for GW Bush both in '00 & '04, be sure it was the work of that group that kept us from having a Democrat in the White House for the entirety of the 21st century so far. I disagree about Bush being the lesser of the two evils. Name a man who would have handled the foreign relations issues as President better than Bush. The only name I come up with is his brother Jeb. Maybe you can do better. On the other hand, I can name two who would have surely done worse: Al Gore and John Kerry.
Next item you said:
"I am sorry that I was misunderstood. I accept all aspects of the Apostles Creed. But, your terminology is subject to misinterpretation when you say things like "historically correct," "cherry picked for doctrine," "Jesus didn't agree," and the rest of the Bible is true."
"I don't have to believe that the Bible is a history book, that Christianity has only one doctrine, that you know what Jesus thought, and that "true" means that I have to take a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible. You are treading on 1,000 years of theology without knowing it."
"I don't know what Jesus thought???" The Bible is full of exactly what Jesus thinks, as well as God the Father and the Holy Spirit. That's kinda the point of Him going to the trouble of getting 40 different writers over 1500 years to write 66 books all about what God THINKS.
Fortunately, if you read the Book you'll quickly see they (the 3 Persons of the Trinity) are of One mind. And from my previous post, it is the ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit that gives us this knowledge of what Jesus thinks. Want to know "What Would Jesus Do" ("WWJD")? Read the Bible.
Regarding unknowingly treading on 1000 years of theology, heaven forbid!!! I would say you are treading on 5,000 years of God's Biblical revelation of Himself, the God of Everything, in favor of fallible man's theological musings in his weak and self-serving effort to turn YHWH, the Sovereign LORD, God Almighty into a minor deity made in man's flawed, sinful image. It is liberal theology that takes the unrefuted historicity of the Bible and allegories it. I covered some of this in my last post (didn't mean to post it twice???). But for review, if you believe in the resurrection of Christ bodily, then how many more miracles does it take before you believe His word is inerrantly true? If He gives you good tips on the stock market?
The point is, the Apostles Creed spells out a supernatural human incarnation of God into this world to take care of the sin problem started with Adam and Eve. What's harder to believe: Adam and Eve being made in the Garden by God out of (respectively) dust, God's breath and man's rib, OR Jesus dying on a cross and coming back to life physically 3 days later? If you believe the later, what about the former is more impossible?
If the Bible is not historically correct, then it is merely a man-made artifact full of sweet lies for some evil purpose. Any book that says "believe every word of this is true, so says the LORD God Almighty" and then it turns out to be just some guys humanistic opinion is evil. You can't have it both ways.
The reason people don't like arguing about religion is because many people don't want the Bible to be true because it is mainly about getting people to acknowledge their hopeless sinful condition and showing the solution as throwing themselves on the mercy of a gracious, holy God. Most people don't want to give up their fun, so they allegorize the Bible so THEIR sin is no longer sin. But were covering already covered ground.
You said:
I don't know any real Christians who don't believe in the Ten Commandments, or think that any sins don't have to be forgiven.
Me either. But how are the sins forgiven? The Bible says there is no other solution to man's sin problem except the atoning death of Christ on the cross. The demonstration that the sins are forgiven is by the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The confirmation to the "believer" is the indwelling Holy Spirit Who confirms to the believer that God is real and not just some sociological superstitious religion construct. If there is this supernatural Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Jesus) that indwells human beings (including you and me), then how much more preposterous is it to say that the Bible is allegory and not historically true. Again, you can't have it both ways.
You said:
You can find so-called experts to say anything. I doubt that such an argument would be accepted by more than 10 percent of organized Christianity
I was trying to make that point: The point is it is a very small and liberal segment of theologians (historically speaking) that deny the inerrancy of the Bible. Until the 1940s Princeton's divinity school was the gold standard world wide for it's apologetic of the inerrancy of Scripture. The theology done by it's masters (Charles Hodge the principal genius, along with his son and others), remains rock solid. The liberal nonsense they teach at Princeton and most major university divinity schools today is essentially atheism or at best agnosticism.
Be sure if someone says something in print, there are always plenty of people who will get on the bandwagon. The Bible says adultery is a sin, but people do it all the time, get divorced and then go to church to marry the people they cheated with. Then they do the whole thing again. People don't want the Scripture to be inerrant for one reason: they don't want to be held accountable for their sins.
Finally, I said:
"Politics exists because of religious differences which ultimately are founded in Biblical interpretation (or the lack thereof). "
You replied:
"I completely disagree. Moral issues are just one factor in politics. You cannot even say that persons vote
entirely based upon political philosophy or ideology, let alone religious morality. Mixing religion and politics is a very dangerous thing. I wouldn't vote Liberal Democrat, but I certainly wouldn't think that any Christian who did, was committing a sin."
My point is that all we do, all of life, is ultimately tied up in morality. The Bible says God puts all our leaders into their positions of authority, both statesman and despot.
If Christianity is true and the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding believers, what part of life is He to be cut out of? Sorry, Lord, you can't come into the voting booth with me as I vote for this pro-abortion candidate (because he might give special benefits to my line of work).
Again, you can't have it both ways. If God is real we are commanded to live our life for His glory according to His purpose. To deny this is to deny a legitimate theology in favor of an agnostic, Sunday morning-only philosophy.
There can only be one true religion. They all say they are true and yet they are all completely different. Unlike the liberal psychobabble, there are not many ways to God; not when Jesus says things like:
"I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE; NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME." (John 14:6)
A companion verse to this is:
"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." John 10.9a
If you believe Jesus is your Lord and Savior (as the Apostle's Creed describes) then you subscribe to a theology that requires your obedience to His will. He will have no other god before Him (as the First Commandment demands); this includes me and you acting in the role of god. Our secular world today deifies man. It is man on his (or her) throne saying "you better not mix religion with politics; it's dangerous". I couldn't disagree more: the safest thing is when people vote according to the Bible. We're in the mess we're in because people don't.
For an agnostic or atheist, the choice has to be made based on the effect the religious belief might have on the candidate's subsequent behavior once in office. In the case of Scientology, someone's choice to follow that religion calls his ability to make critical decisions into serious question, compounded by a complete lack of information about how his belief might affect later behavior.
Christians (even Catholics!) have already proven by past actions that their religious beliefs are generally either only indirectly relevant to their political stewardship, or the beliefs are beneficial to that stewardship. Mormons in public office are included in that broad statement.
Muslims, OTOH, have shown by their behavior in high office in other countries that their religious beliefs are generally inimical to the concepts of a country that values tolerance of 'any' religion (see comment on Scientology above). As such, this is problematical when it comes to electing one to high office in the US.
We might hope that, just as there are a variety of Christian methods of putting faith into action, there might become a variety of ways that American Muslims could put their faith into political action that is acceptable within our system. Has it been shown to be possible as yet? I don't know.
I recognize that many Christians seek to define Christianity by adherence to the Nicene Creed, and they have sought to do so since the 4th century AD. This disregards the beliefs of many early Christians (and later ones!), since the Nicene Creed was very hotly debated at the time of its declaration by the Catholic Church.
You might want to let the Orthodox know this. I mean, I agree, but they might differ.
Trinitarian Christians accept the Catholic Church authority on the subject, non-trinitarian Christians reject the Catholic Church authority on the subject, and neither of these positions rejects Christianity since Christianity itself is not reliant on Catholicism.
Actually, putting that little religious war to the side, adherence to the teachings of the first six ecumenical councils is considered the sine qua non of standard Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox, what have you. And Trinitarianism is part of that.
I'm quite comfortable defining a Christian as a follower of Christ. Who exactly is a follower of Christ? I'd suggest that we be less concerned with predicting how the chips are going to fall on judgement day and focus on more mortal concerns (like who's gonna be POTUS). If someone's trying their best to follow Christ, we shouldn't find it threatening to admit that they are Christian. Naturally, this definition is not as exclusive as others (trinitarian definition being one example) and is therefore not as palatable to people who wish to dismiss other denominations out of hand.
The Jesus Seminar thanks you.
Neither is Romney's phrase "Jesus Christ is my savior" anything other than a simple statement of that fact. To say that the phrase is disingenuous because of the trinitarian chasm is an over-extension of doctrinal differences.
Not really, but you clearly have an axe to grind here.
I clearly still don't understand the < blockquote > concept. More tutilage for the html newbie please?
but he's right
Mormons and evangelicals can use a few words in common, if they really try to smooth over their differences. But their understandings of these words are extremely different. I think that Romney, a former missionary and bishop (same article), knows his statement is disingenuous.
Absolutely true. Even true when Catholics talk to Protestants or when mainline Protestants talk to the non-liturgical Protestants we usually associate with being evangelical.
Christian have, or should have, the same problem relating to Muslims who claim that they recognize Jesus (they do but not in a form recognizable to any Christian) and by extension honor the same God even though they use the same words.
He's not saying that Romney doesn't know what he believes, to the contrary he's saying that Romney knows exactly what he believes but the language he uses has a markedly different meaning from Mormon to virtually all Christian denominations.
Streiff,
Of course there are many differences in meaning of language and doctrine. Trinitarianism, as you pointed out, is a core difference.
I also don't want a deep theological discussion. It's enough to say that mormons and most other christians both claim to believe in Jesus Christ exactly as He's described in the Bible. They just disagree over the correct Biblical description (traditional trinitarianism vs. non-traditional), and over other sources of authority (Catholic Church creeds vs. continuing revelation).
As far as I know, many evanelicals hear the word "non-trinitarian" and say "well, those mormons don't believe in Christ". This is plainly disingenuous, as it would be far better to say "well, those mormons don't believe in the trinity".
My two cents. Again, I'm not looking for doctrinal rumbles. I just get irked when people say that another man's claim to follow Christ is not sincere.
use < blockquote > minus the spaces, of course.
I don't want to get into comparative theology here you are right that Muslims to not see Christ as their Savior, but if we Trinitarians are right then we either have to believe Islam is a false faith, because God does not lie, or we have to believe we adhere to a false faith (the whole Trinity thing and Christ being God and Man, the Resurrection, etc.). Ergo, when Muslims say that they honor Christ and we worship the same God they are either speaking from ignorance and using their terms of reference to an audience that perceives the same terms really differently or, if they understand their faith, they are being disingenuous.
Nice table of contents but Christians believe the Era of Public Revelation closed with the death of the Apostles, therefore Joseph Smith's revelations are de facto false, either through mistake or design. Here is the most dispassionate description of the difference I could find. Which goes to show that Christians and Mormons have very different beliefs about the meaning of exactly the same words.
So I disagree with both of your points. As Mormons disagree with Christians on the very nature of Christ it matters not a whit your views of salvation as we are discussing differnt things. Throwing out the statement about accepting Christ as your savior, without prefacing it with something to give the listener a clue that you don't believe in their idea of Christ -- and we don't have the same idea at all -- to begin with is not a terribly honest thing to do.
So he may be genuine in presenting his faith, the disingenuous part comes in when the listerer is led to believe they share the same faith when they manifestly do not.
was leaked to the Internet in the mid-90s. (See here, for instance.) The "Xenu" stuff, BTW, is from OT III, not IV. It explains, in essence, that all human weaknesses are caused by having dead space alien souls ("thetans") stuck to your body, which is what they purportedly detect with "e-meters".
There have been occasional defections which bring out information; this lady defected six years ago, after reaching OT7 and working as part of Scientology's Internet counterintelligence team.
that Christianity is by definition Trinitarian, anyone who is not Trinitarian is not a orthodox Christian. So you really make my case.
And you are constructing a false arguement here.
I just get irked when people say that another man's claim to follow Christ is not sincere.
No one is saying that. What is being said, and I believe justifiably so, is that Mormonism and Christianity are sufficiently different in terms of doctrine and our view of the nature of Christ that when a Mormon says he follows Christ he is not saying the same thing that Christian would mean. It is not saying his claim is not sincere but it is saying it is disingenuous to finesse a doctrinal chasm by a throwaway line.
something used to remove warts.
The reason I and so many others can know about Xenu, is that there was a lawsuit in some European country (I want to say Denmark but I'm not sure, it might have been the Netherlands). And the evidence in that case included excerpts from some of the OT levels, including the story of Xenu.
Otherwise the materials are copyrighted, and of course Scientology does its best to enforce its copyrights, lest the kooky stuff at the high levels dry up the cash flow of walk-ins and the 'celebrity center' high-profile converts.
I should have added: Operation Clambake is an excellent source of information about the Church of Scientology and its organized crime-like tactics.
without cable because conservative Christians have been in the forefront of the political debate for decades. Here's a few names you might want to Google if you middle westerners haven't heard of them (that's assuming you have Google out there}: Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George W. Bush. Down here in this narrow, sparsely populated backwater of the Bible Belt (it's called the southeast), we elect people to office who are conservative Christians (like GW Bush).
Gamecock's post was dead on correct. Who decided that the historically correct records of the life of Christ (the Gospels) were to be cherry picked for doctrine? Jesus didn't agree with that approach. If you believe in the Apostles Creed, you believe in the resurrection of the body of Jesus from the dead. If you believe that is true, then why is it hard to believe the rest of the Bible is true? It is because there are lots of people who don't want it to be a sin for committing adultery, having homosexual sex, for stealing or any other long list of fun things that work against the civilizing efforts of God.
In other words, if my sin happens to be homosexuality (to take a topic in the news today), then I'll get together with my fellow travelers on that Highway (don't want to break posting protocol). We'll decide that the Bible doesn't say that homosex if a sin. When you point out that it does, then we'll get our expert Liberal theologians (a contradiction in terms) who will contend that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. It means that Israel was being untrue to God, or Paul was just referring to some specific bad apples. But he surely wasn't talking about US.
Politics exists because of religious differences which ultimately are founded in Biblical interpretation (or the lack thereof). Just check my signature below to see how the Apostle Paul defined the dispute; he said that 2000 years ago. And it hasn't changed one bit to this day.
This was a very long post, H, and from your heart. I want your sleepless efforts to be appreciated. This is my research.
Fundamentalist and Evangelical equal Protestant( except possibly some Anglicans). Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the concept, "born again." We were born, again, at baptism. You cannot be "evangelical" as a Catholic or Orthodox, unless you make it clear that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not tenets of the faith. We also do not believe in the "priesthood of all believers" when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Most Catholics would say that divine revelation didn't begin or end
with the King James Bible.
Pre-Protestant Christianity determined that some parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and some parts taken, allegorically, and that Church Tradition ( religious scholarship through the ages) would determine what is necessary to be a true Christian. You have freedom of thought beyond the Nicene Creed, and some other essential Church documents.
The Bible, as a whole, has never been determined to be a history book, and everything in the Bible has never been determined to be factual (in the modern sense). It was divinely inspired, but only certain passages are essential as determined by Apostolic Succession. This has been majority thinking since
the 5th Century. How you look at the Bible is primarily an issue for Protestants.
The Age of Enlightenment (Reason) affected Protestantism more than Catholicism. Much of the Evangelical Movement is a rejection of the Protestant Modernist Movement that developed. Catholics and Eastern Orthdox think this is mostly an "internal fight" among Protestants. Our approach to interpretation of Sciptures has been consistent.
A majority of devout Catholics and Orthodox would probably agree with Evangelicals on most moral issues, but that doesn't mean that they can become evangelicals in the Protestant sense.
I am not not a theologian, but that's my interpretation.
I believe most voters would agree with your original sentiment. Religion may be an issue in voting, but in most cases it would not be a deal-breaker.
It would be difficult for me to vote for an athiest or agnostic candidate because I would be unsure upon what they base their morals. I am more comfortable with candidates who have and hold dear religion-based morals, regardless of their specific religion.
..the Qur'an's a strict constructionalist kinda document, ain't it? Unlike the Bible, it's supposed to be the literal word of God. (Which is why it's such a big deal to treat the book disrespectfully).
There is, however, legitimate debate on word choice in Arabic that can cause highly different interpretations. And, the biggest interpretion debate is on the Hadith.
Are you asking who you would me most scared of in the White House, or what religious beliefs you find objectionable in general? The former would more relate to the polls and the politics, the latter to a general intolerance. I sincerely hope it's the former.
"It seems from those two sentences that you are placing the creeds over the revealed word of God. Is that what you really meant to say?"
There is no contradiction between the creeds and the New Testament. They were extracted from the New Testament as those essential beliefs that are needed to be a Christian.
All Christians believe that the New Testament is
divinely inspired, but they don't have to believe in Sola or Prima Scriptura. This gets into a theological discussion which doesn't belong in a political discussion.
< blockquote>Text< /blockquote>
(without the spaces)
...is a multi-level marketing scheme, not a religion!
The Germans are right about them.
as President about equally, but for different reasons. Both can be asummed to be under the control of either an odious or simply idiotic theology.
Since 1993 hadn't exactly awakened us to Al Qaeda, why not worry about the Sea Org and Clearwater?
After all, the Pentacostals are the fastest growing population in the Christian world, and don't conservative evangelicals outnumber the liberal Christians here in the U.S.?
And the Catholics aren't exactly liberal, either...
But this is just off the top of my head. Let me know if I'm wrong.
arent very good muslims, as defined by the Koran.
In one sense they are not even muslims. They are something else that borrows from islam.
Much as many mainline christian churches that do not accept the bible as authoritative are really setting up a new religion.
But they want the credibility of being associated with the Church of Histroy as an institution.
We discover Christ in the Bible. Christ affirmed the truth of scripture. Every word. The Bible defines what God meant to reveal of himself. To depart from the book is to create an idol. Liberal Christians like to pick out selected verses of Christs teaching and create a new liberal christ, all the while ignoring other parts. And yet, if these other parts are not true, then why should the parts they like be true?
I think this explains an analogous situation in Islam. The moderates water down what Mohammed said and they know they cant win an argument on it in public.
so they cower
I had never heard of a liberal or conservative Christian before reading this blog. It is still somewhat vague....something about having to take a literal interpretation of the Bible. I thought these guys were called Fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestants, hardly the majority anywhere except in parts of the Bible Belt.
The point is that you don't win votes by waiving a Bible at people.
If you come to my part of the Middle West and start equating so-called liberal and conservative Christianity to liberal and conservative politics, you will lose votes. They don't like mixing politics and religion anyway.
A Christian is simply a person who believes in the tenets of the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. His interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with it.
It seems from those two sentences that you are placing the creeds over the revealed word of God. Is that what you really meant to say?
Scientology is remarkably cruel to the unfortunates it's tricked and the foremost among its critics. But much as I'd enjoy seeing David Miscavige and his "officer corps" dragged off to rot in jail, they're unlikely to try to gas the New York subway, say, for not being Scientologists.
"The term evangelical has several distinct meanings:
"Evangelical", in its original sense, means "belonging or related to the Gospel'" (Greek: euangelion).
In mainland Europe, especially in the German and Scandanavian countries, 'Evangelisch' ('Evangelical') is a general designation for churches adhering to beliefs of the Reformation (otherwise known as Protestantism) e.g. Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Reformed Church, or Evangelical Methodist Church, in contrast to Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. In this sense, it comprises everything from a liberal state church to a conservative free church in the Baptist or Pietist tradition.
However, in German there are now two words used which are commonly translated 'evangelical': 'evangelisch' meaning Protestant, and more narrowly the Lutheran and Reformed churches, and 'evangelikal', pertaining to evangelicalism. In Austria, the United Lutheran and Reformed Church (Evangelische Kirche in Oesterreich) claims a monopoly on the former term and has in the past sued independent churches using the designation "evangelisch".
In Canada, the UK and the United States, it most often refers to adherents of evangelicalism. However, with certain US churches that descend from mainland Europe, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (or with some congregations of the United Church of Christ that maintain 'evangelical' in their name), the word maintains that European meaning specified above (i.e. 'evangelical' essentially equaling 'Protestant')."
a religion, they vote for a candidate (as some of the above comments have shown).
If you asked folks if they would vote against Romney because of his religion, my guess is that at least 95% would say "no".
Asking folks if they would vote against a Mormon is not much more than asking them how they feel about Mormonism. It doesn't tell us much of anything about the chances of Romney as a candidate.
that debate, or, better yet, if moderates other than in Afghanistan and Iraq would take up arms themselves against the jihadists that have supposedly hijacked the faith.
The moderates don't engage in that debate. They are afraid. And their fear seems to be tied to that fact that they don't seem to have the confidence of the truth on their side, much like secular Europe is unwilling to fight for anything since they don't beleive in anything.
If the moderates felt they had God's will and the words of his book on their side, they might have the courage to stand up to the facists and risk death knowing that they would get the 72 virgins. Or is that one of those arguable passages? What about killing the infidel? Legitimate debate?
Of course, there is truth and there is lie. I certainly don't believe the Koran in the word of God. But the writer of the Koran meant one thing only. There can be no two legitimate interpretations.
Muslims can read and they now that. Unlike the liberals in US colleges that renforce each others lies, the muslims apparantly have a harder time speaking lies with a straight face. They know what the book says.
What they need is to throw away that book and seek
Jesus Christ.
as does Europe.
CoS: Church of Scientology
OT: Operating Thetan
OT IV is the course they teach at a very high level of Scientology, well beyond what most people ever get to and I don't think it's even offered at most of their establishments. It's the one with Xenu, the volcanos, nuclear bombs, and the idea that Christianity was 'implanted' into humanity.
but then we are back to the question of trust. I'am sorry but Islamics have not as of yet earned much trust from me.
When they manage to mostly purge the xenophobia from their culture as most other Religions have, then we can talk.
I had never heard of a liberal or conservative Christian before reading this blog.
Of course there is a liberal and conservative dichotomy in Christianity in America.
Nanoboy over at DailyKos has talked about it explicity, way back in 2005. His thesis was that conservative Christian morality "will not function in daily society."
You can read more about liberal Christians and their views over at Street Prophets, A Daily Kos Community.
Salon also got into the act waaaaaay back in 2003, explicitly defining the terms (or redefining them, preemptively, according to their proclivities and presumptions) for us:
"Paul of Tarsus" is now "Jesus"
"John the Evangelist" is now "Jesus"
the author of Leviticus is now "Jesus"
Jesus is now a Republican
"Republican" is now "Christian"
"Apocalyptic Christian" (Falwell, Robertson, etc) is now "Christian"
"conservative Christian" is now "American"
"liberal Christian" is now "appeaser," "communist," "terrorist" or "traitor"
"Quaker" is now "appeaser," "communist," "terrorist" or "traitor"
"Unitarian Universalist" is now "Satanist"
The liberals certainly are all worked up over defining just what a "Liberal Christian" is. And the main reason for that is that they have recognized that people of faith tend to give more money to charities and political organizations than skeptics or agnostics.
If you haven't heard of this meme before, don't blame it on this blog.
Is going to have a problem with his Mormonism at the same time all those Generic Democrat Candidates take over Congress. This kind of polling is completely worthless. I'm not concerned.
...I've edited a few entries from time to time and so far those entries remain unedited. I have been reviewing some far more scholarly tomes in an effort to prepare the post I promised (hopefully tomorrow).
In the meantime I believe I can enhance your insight of "evangelical" (an adjective) as in "the writer had an evangelical overlay to his prose" or (a noun) "an outspoken evangelical is often ridiculed in by the liberal mainstream media". The following comments can be confirmed in William Lane Craig's monumental work "Reasonable Faith" (1994).
Christianity exists. Regardless of liberal aspersions, the Gospels, the letters of Paul and the other letters of the Apostles (James (half-brother of Jesus), John the Evangelist (or the "Beloved") and Simon Peter were all written well before 90 AD. That late date is only possible for Revelations. Paul's works predate 70AD, as do the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark & Luke). It is possible that Luke was written before 50; twenty years after Christ's execution and resurrection. NO mainstream scholarship denies early dating of the New Testament today in 2006.
These documents were believed to be factual history by the first century church and were not questioned as absolute truthful history until the Enlightenment. The documents themselves claim to be historically correct. There is ZERO archaeology that has refuted a single Biblically-stated fact, much less anything from the New Testament.
Now that is wonderful but it's not really the point. The evangelical, or the "born-again believer", KNOWS the reality of the message because of the tangible indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The HS indwells the believer at the point of his regeneration (salvation). The Bible makes many references to this personal manifestation of God in the believer, taking that individual from being "spiritually dead" to "spiritual life in Christ".
Believers know this is true by experience; the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Jesus) speaks "spiritually" to the believer giving them the "blessed assurance" that "Jesus is mine!(OH! what a foretaste of glory divine!"). So regardless of what scholarship of the world may say (which is by definition a moving and changeable target at best), the Gospel and God (in reverse order) never change. They are sufficient.
Now this sounds pretty far out if you're completely bought into the world's system (or matrix). You may think that only nuts and delusional people think this way. The reality is that millions today and millions in the past know the truth of the reality of God Almighty through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ and His indwelling Spirit Who changes our life reality.
I've asked my lost best friend (who is rich and powerful) if he would change his mind if he really believed that there was a personal God and you could know for sure; would he seek to get this understanding. He rejects the notion and apparently believes the millions who share Christ as personal Lord and Savior are indeed deluded, even the many even today who are willing to die for Him. All I can tell him is that I did not go out seeking salvation; I just didn't reject Him when He unexpectedly called me one hungover Sunday morning (I wasn't an alcoholic, just had too much that night before).
You say you believe in the Apostles Creed. That includes what I have just described. Jesus raised physically from the dead (the resurrection of the Body), He appeared to the Apostles and other believers, and the Holy Spirit is doing His work in all believers since Pentecost. If you truly believe this, and know it is true by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, then you're on your way to being an evangelical also. Evangelicals are only different in that they are obedient to the command Jesus made to all believers (Great Commission).
My good friend who is an Episcopal priest believes the Bible is allegory. I've been wanting to ask him for years if he is an agnostic or an atheist. He's a sweet guy and loves PEOPLE. But if you think the Bible is allegory, then you're calling it a liar because the Bible says over and over that it is the truth.
My Episcopal friend is an example of a non-evangelical. He's plenty religious. He quotes Jesus. He believes in prayer and prays earnestly. But my guess is he just thinks it's a placebo effect, like my best friend who is not a believer of any stripe (except possibly as a deist).
Bottom line: Evangelicals are born again Christians who have grown spiritually in their personal relationship with Christ (by the indwelling and sanctification process of His Spirit). They are then lead to evangelize the world in their own particular way (calling) according to the Great Commission. That's why I'm up typing this to you at two hours past my bedtime...
bon nuit
I realize that Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are Evangelical Christians and are Conservative Republicans. But, it may surprise you to learn that their influence is limited. I don't get all of my views from them. I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. He might be Evangelical (I thought he was a Methodist.) But, he is definitely not a Conservative. Incidentally, lots of Methodists, here, vote for Democrats.
"Gamecock's post was dead on correct. Who decided that the historically correct records of the life of Christ (the Gospels) were to be cherry picked for doctrine? Jesus didn't agree with that approach. If you believe in the Apostles Creed, you believe in the resurrection of the body of Jesus from the dead. If you believe that is true, then why is it hard to believe the rest of the Bible is true?"
I am sorry that I was misunderstood. I accept all aspects of the Apostles Creed. But, your terminology is subject to misinterpretation when you say things like "historically correct," "cherry picked for doctrine," "Jesus didn't agree," and the rest of the Bible is true."
I don't have to believe that the Bible is a history book, that Christianity has only one doctrine, that you know what Jesus thought, and that "true" means that I have to take a literal intepretation of everything in the Bible. You are treading on 1,000 years of theology without knowing it.
" It is because there are lots of people who don't want it to be a sin for committing adultery, having homosexual sex, for stealing or any other long list of fun things that work against the civilizing efforts of God."
I don't know any real Christians who don't believe in the Ten Commandments, or think that any sins don't have to be forgiven.
"In other words, if my sin happens to be homosexuality (to take a topic in the news today), then I'll get together with my fellow travelers on that Highway (don't want to break posting protocol). We'll decide that the Bible doesn't say that homosex if a sin."
You can find so-called experts to say anything. I doubt that such an argument would be accepted by more than 10 percent of organized Christianity.
"Politics exists because of religious differences which ultimately are founded in Biblical interpretation (or the lack thereof). "
I completely disagree. Moral issues are just one factor in politics. You cannot even say that persons vote
entirely based upon political philsophy or ideology, let alone religious morality. Mixing religion and politics is a very dangerous thing. I wouldn't vote Liberal Democrat, but I certainly wouldn't think that any Christian who did, was committing a sin.
I think the original post overlooks one of the figures in the Bloomberg link - that roughly 1/3 of Republicans and Independents also claimed they would not vote for a Mormon. Perhaps this is overstated, but it can't just be cast to the wind.
While the Republican party is home to many religious conservatives of different faiths, do remember this is NOT based on respect for each other's religions. Religious conservatives often absorb their church's old disputes with other churches. Certainly I'm delighted that my own church cares enough about doctrine to do so. If people are saved by believing in Christ, surely false statements about him are terribly dangerous.
What does help unite religious conservatives in the big tent is a common understanding that the governemnt has a mandate to impose some public decency. While we might quibble about details, this opens a vast chasm between us and the do-what-feels-good faction of the left. Keeping government from meddling with our religious practices is another common goal.
Certainly Romney is a skilled enough politican to draw attention to this common ground. Further, his past history shows he's not going to abuse his power on his church's behalf. But he faces a problem that Kennedy didn't. From the Times article in the orignal post:
But he regularly describes himself as a Christian, saying, "Jesus Christ is my savior."
Granted, word meanings differ between faiths. Yet an evangelical can't agree with his claim. Mormons and evangelicals can use a few words in common, if they really try to smooth over their differences. But their understandings of these words are extremely different. I think that Romney, a former missionary and bishop (same article), knows his statement is disingenuous.
An evangelical Protestant can think of a Catholic as a fellow believer who's just mistaken on a few points of theology. Even known non-believers can be credited capable of good government. But conservative theology is very harsh on false Christians and teachers. And Romney seems to have auditioned for the role.
In this poll, I would have said I could vote for a Mormon. But based on these reports, I won't be voting for Romney. I'm not willing to give him a bigger microphone for such comments.
I definitely agree that one-third of Republicans won't hold my position, once they have to choose between Romney and a typical Democrat. But expecting such a huge change in those with doctrinal objections seems overly optimistic.
example of a non-Trinitarian Christian. Don't bother. There are none.
You are on some sort of tear about Catholicism and the Nicene Creed which doesn't enter into the picture.
A lot of evangelical denominations do not hold the Nicene Creed it doesn't make them not Christian and the Trinity is not created in the Nicence Creed.
This is the key difference in why protestants and Catholics recognize they are part of the same Faith separated by various forms and practices. We recognize each other's baptisms. None of us recognize Mormon baptism.
But no Christian denomination is not Trinitarian. It is simply impossible. Moreso is the impossiblity of denying that Christ and God are one in the same as the John 1 is devoted to establishing that they are the same.
What you are saying is just nonsensical. I can say I am the King of Spain it doesn't mean that I am and if I tell a Spaniard that I'm following the teaching of the King of Spain, referring to me, when he is thinking of a completely different King of Spain that is disingenous.
Anyway, I'm done here.
but it's not applicable to reality today. The evangelical movement is alive and growing worldwide, and it is the only part of "Protestantism" that is growing. Our non-denominational church is filled with life-long Catholics that finally understand what faith in Christ is all about.
I have a high regard for the Roman Catholic church, but it has generically the same problem as the liberal Protestant denominations; the reality of the truth of Scripture. (By the way, it is far more "real" and makes for clearer conversation to discuss these issues without reference to outdated divinity school constructs.)
Let's start at the beginning:
You said:
"Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the concept, "born again." We were born, again, at baptism."
I was not taught the concept of born again at the liberal Methodist church I attended as a child, lead by two Duke divinity school pastors. I'm going to go out a limb and posit that Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox priests do believe in the concept of regeneration. I have heard priests acknowledge so in debate format. In fact, I've heard priest acknowledge complete authority of the Scripture in those same discussions.
Jesus said to Nicodemus: "you must be born again". That is the continuing thread throughout both Testaments. The Catholic church has done a good job of convincing it's parishioners that they don't need to read the Bible. Certainly through antiquity literacy issues required the priesthood to do the reading. But now we can all read. I suggest to you that you take some time with BibleGateway.com and read the Bible. See what it says. Biblegateway has virtually every translation of the Bible available, including Catholic versions if that is important to you (they all come from the same ancient texts). I recommend the NIV (the largest scholastic Bible study ever conducted, including participation by Roman Catholic scholars). (This deal about the King James version is ridiculous; that is in no way the mark of the evangelical movement, beautiful though that translation may be. Most evangelicals use NIV, NAS (New American Standard) or New King James. Hardline fundamentalists sometimes say only the King James is valid; that is obviously ignorant.
Jesus said that the truth would set you free, and that He is the Truth, His Word is truth, and He is the Living Word. What you have done is bought into a system of religion that is "works" driven. Now I greatly admire good works and God demands them. But the book of James teaches that good works are a function of being born again. Good works can be done but if you are spiritually dead they won't get you into Heaven. But when you have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit then He will guide you to do the good works that bring glory to God.
You continue to make the point about the Bible not being a history book. I'll continue to make the point (it is true) that there has never been any archaeological finding that disproved one word of the the Bible. "Scholars" said Moses couldn't have written the Pentateuch because there was no writing at that time. Then we find writing in Mesopotamia from before the time of Abraham. A New Testament issue was found in the last few years. An ossuary (bone coffin) of Caiaphas, High Priest of the Jews and of the Bible, was found in Jerusalem. It is confirmed and authentic. There are engravings confirming the existence of Pontius Pilate. "Straight Street" in Damascus, cited by Luke in the book of Acts, was found.
The Bible is historically true. Today Luke is regarded in historical circles as an "historian of the first rank", so many of his comments have been confirmed by modern archaeology.
Just because you get "saved" doesn't mean you cannot be a Roman Catholic. I suggest you read the book of John (use the NIV because it is so easy to understand) and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Try just one chapter a day. Take your time.
Gotta go. More later, Lord willing!
is not what I had planned to do this morning. But see if you agree the following is applicable to our discussion...
Maybe you've seen my devotional posts (diaries) I made in the last week or so? This morning I was having my devotions time and God apparently wanted me to pass along some things to you. Call it coincidence or my own design (it's not that: I've got a busy day of work ahead), or maybe just God doing what He does. Who knows?
In morning devotions I always listen (and maybe sing along a little) to two hymns first; I've been stuck on the two that follow off and on for a few weeks. "Be Thou My Vision" is of Roman Catholic tradition; a poem written in the 8th Century, conceivably (but probably not) by St. Patrick. "And Can it Be?" was written by Charles Wesley; the title and lyrics speak for themselves.
The point that made me think of our (yours and my) discussion came in the Oswald Chambers reading for today, beginning with the text from Philippians. "My Utmost for His Highest" is a daily devotional written in the early 1900s. I did not select today's reading: it is the reading for today's date. It occurred to me that Chambers (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was speaking to you far better than I've been able to articulate. I'd be interested in your reaction.
My next step in my devotions is to select a a Bible text that may or may not relate to the previous steps in the process. I've been on the Psalms lately but for some reason the Lord lead me to Acts (I mentioned Acts and Luke the physician and historian, in my comments last night). I recommend you click on the audio link on the page so you can listen to Max McLean read the text; you can read along. Again, without interjection, see if this gives any insight to what I've been attempting to articulate to you.
Have a good day...
Streiff,
First of all, could you tell me how you quote someone in a snappy little box like you just did? For the time being you'll have to put up with my sloppy quotes.
"Christian have, or should have, the same problem relating to Muslims who claim that they recognize Jesus"
I'll just point out that Muslims make no claims that Jesus Christ is their savior, while Romney does make this claim. This difference, while simple, is so significant that I see little advantage in comparing Muslims to Mormons. But this isn't even my main point...
"he's saying that Romney knows exactly what he believes but the language he uses has a markedly different meaning from Mormon to virtually all Christian denominations"
The language Romney uses ("Jesus Christ is my savior") actually means exactly what nearly all Christians think it means.
For fun, here are the index listings found in the Book of Mormon (which has the subtitle, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" on the cover):
*Jesus Christ
*Jesus Christ - Advocate
*Jesus Christ, Apperances of
*Jesus Christ, Atonement through
*Jesus Christ, Condescension of
*Jesus Christ - Creator
*Jesus Christ, Death of
*Jesus Christ, First Coming of
*Jesus Christ - Good Shepard
*Jesus Christ - Holy One of Israel
*Jesus Christ - Immanuel
*Jesus Christ - Jehovah
*Jesus Christ - Lamb of God
*Jesus Christ - Lord
*Jesus Christ - Lord of Hosts
*Jesus Christ - Mediator
*Jesus Christ - Messiah
*Jesus Christ - Only Begotten Son
*Jesus Christ - Redeemer
*Jesus Christ, Resurrection of
*Jesus Christ - Savior
*Jesus Christ, Second Coming of
*Jesus Christ - Son of God
*Jesus Christ, Type of
This covers six and a half pages of index. My point in all of this is certainly not to proselyte to anyone. My point is that when people claim that "Romney is being disingenuous" about claiming Christ as his savior, they are:
- Either themselves disingenuous, or
- Operating under misconceptions about what it is mormons believe (very common, given the "education" programs in certain other churches)
All of this has a certain relevancy to the supposed 37% of voters who wouldn't vote for a mormon. The conservative christian portion of those voters would do well to learn what Romney actually believes...not so they can elect him as their minister, but so they can realize he is being genuine with presenting his faith in Christ.
Been a while since I read about it. I think I'll be cheap and say it's a good thing that I'm getting so out of touch with Scientology that I forgot which OT was which, heh.
"Yet an evangelical can't agree with his claim...I think that Romney, a former missionary and bishop (same article), knows his statement is disingenuous."
Whitfox, help me understand what you mean. Are you trying to say that the simple statement from Romney that "Jesus Christ is my savior" is disingenuous? Are you suggesting that Romney doesn't mean what he says?
I have a lot of difficulty with broad statements dictating to another person that he or she does not believe/worship/etc who or what he or she claims to. We as Christians have a long way to go if we prefer dictating a person's beliefs to them than understanding that person's beliefs.
choice in the poll.
Yep...back when Al Qaeda was this obscure group that sometimes blew up foreign embassies and the Big Threat would either be internal or China deciding to grab Taiwan?
I began writing "The Atrocity Archive" in 1999. For Bob's trip to California and his run-in with some frighteningly out-of-their-depth terrorists, I went digging and came back with an apporpriately obscure but fanatical and unpleasant gang who might, conceivably, be planning an atrocity on American soil. But by the time the novel first came into print...it was late 2001--and editor Paul Fraser quite sensibly suggested I replace Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida with something slightly more obscure...
--Charles Stross
But what I'm saying is that someone who is running for President as a self-identified Muslim in my opinion would not be a Muslim who literally interprets many passages in the Qur'an. Whether or not they are "good" Muslims or "true" Muslims is a whole 'nother debate, one that I've vowed to stop getting into because it makes my head hurt.
Your mileage may vary on that point though...I can see where one would disagree. People sitting in council positions in Britain for example can be of either type, and part of the huge legal immigration debate here on RedState is whether or not the same lack of assimilation will afflict the U.S. My belief is more based on personal experience and all the second-generation Muslim-Americans I know, family and friends.
Of course, most of the ones I know are liberals, so I wouldn't vote for them anyway.