Neuhaus - go get a bunch of degrees and then start a contrarian blog. It's really a tired formula, don't you think?

If most Roman Catholics are willing to equate the testimony of Martin Luther to the testimony of Joseph Smith, sheesh, I'm dumbfounded.

Speak up, RC's. Do you think Martin Luther and Joseph Smith are equivalent heretics?

quote:

---

Speak up, RC's. Do you think Martin Luther and Joseph Smith are equivalent heretics?

---

Absolutely not.

Thanks - I want to keep this civil - I just think Neuhaus is making a pretty pathetic reach. (see article)

quote:

---

If most Roman Catholics are willing to equate the testimony of Martin Luther to the testimony of Joseph Smith..

---

Huh? I don't see where he was doing that at all. He very superficially remarked that Romney's "so be it" stand reminded him somewhat of Luther. That's hardly an "equation" of Joseph Smith's testimony with Martin Luther. In fact, Joseph Smith isn't even mentioned in the article.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 12/10/2007 11:23a).]

I assume this is the part of the piece in which 94chem has a problem.

quote:

---

Few Catholics believe that a candidate is disqualified by being a Mormon. The reason is obvious: Catholics are accustomed to having heretics in the White House. Jews likewise are not offended that the president is not one of their own. This is and always has been a dominantly Protestant country. With the exception of JFK, who, sad to say, was not much of a Catholic, Catholics are accustomed to having presidents who are, in their view, religiously wrongheaded. Evangelicals, by way of contrast, are accustomed to thinking of America as a Christian nation, meaning a Protestant nation. For many who lack a fully developed ecclesiology, America is something very much like their church. You don’t want a heretic as the head of your church.

---

As for his question about Luther and Smith being equal heretics, no I do not. This, however, does not invalidate the point made here by Fr. Neuhaus.

I could never vote for a Mormon due to the bizzare beliefs and world view they have. I don't care how conservative they appear.

I could never vote for a so-called Christian candidate who couldn't vote for any Mormon.

I wonder what my grandfather who fought in WWII would think of all this, if he were still around.

He fought as did mine so that I can vote for whomever I want....

Would you vote for one of Jim Jone's followers? a Moony? a Manson girl?

Why not? Study the mormon faith the positions are nuts, God is on another planet, only Mormons go to heaven, they will all become Gods, God was once like them, Chist is not a diety ... bla bla bla.

You act as though I am somehow denying Romney's rights to not vote for a candidate that holds to beliefs I think are bizzare. You calling me a "so called" Christian is more intolerant than I am in exercising my right to vote for whom I please based on how I think they will lead the country.

AgCPA, many Mormons have served their country with distinction. Are you aware as to the number of Mormons currently serving in the House of Representatives and Senate?

Can you point to a single instance where one of them has done something unbecoming of an American leader, due to their religious affiliation?

You fundamentally misunderstand Mormonism, you don't understand how Mormons see themselves, and how they articulate their beliefs and world-view. I'm not mad at you, because I know you have been told things in a way conceived to make you skeptical and cynical. Mormonism does not equal Jim Jones. I challenge you to educate yourself.

And I challenge you to do the same...

Yes there are Mormon leaders in Congress. One Senator that I have great respect for. However, leading our nation is different to me. My opinion, I realize this.

According to diaries and letters of people from the Midwest in the 18th and 19th century as to crimes committed by Mormons, some from that time period might consider them worse than other cults I mention.

If you are someone that is versed in the history of the midwest from that period and you have come to the conclusion that Mormons are among the worst and most perverse and evil group in the history of this country (as you seem to imply), then I realize I am dealing with someone that is not ignorant. I am dealing with someone with blackface and mask.

I won't waste your time any longer. I know who you are.

This thread makes me glad I don't live in Texas and am not associated with evangelicals, most of whom are unfamiliar with the debates leading up to the debates of Arius and Athanasius. They would not recognize the doctrines of adoptionists, gnostics or other ancient Christianity or Cristology, believing instead the politics of theology. Apparently the only revelatory efforts allowed are by convention without inspiration.

Bottom line is bigotry is alive and rampant in our nation, in terms of race, gender, creed and ethnic origin. We like to pat ourselves on our collective backs, but although the debate may have changed, the narrow-minded still exists. There may even be persons here who completely reject the Documentary Hypothesis or accept creationism as a valid form of "scientific inquiry and observation."

You registered to post that?

Not "associated with evangelicals?" Do you even know what one is?

You want to play the big word game??? You'd better bring it better than that, rook.

i wont vote for mitt because some of his fellow brothers woke me up at 8 in the morning on a sat.
who cares why i wont vote for him. maybe i dont like the color ties he wears. maybe i dont like his political stances. who cares?

Yes 94 most persons know what an evangelical is, it is a loosely affiliated religious person who does ascribe to certain aspects of the Nicene Creeds, while rejecting authoritarian and sacerdotal claims. There is a tendency amongst evangelicals to reject any other doctrine than grace, with a favorite scriptural reference being the epistle ascribed to Paul addressed to Romans.

94 you basically possess weak sauce and apparently little or no academic knowledge.

quote:

---

94 you basically possess weak sauce and apparently little or no academic knowledge.

---

Well, I did quit after my first Ph.D.

More later - I've gotta go work on my book.

Your definition of "evangelical" is pretty weak. How would you describe a "fundamentalist?"

Seamaster, I'm not sure why you're asking if Liam "loves mass" when Romney said he loves the "profound ceremony" of it.

I'm not a big fan of fundamentalism, so I have a very negative view of them. I see them as literalists, non-empirical, and enemies of science, knowledge, ontology, epistemology, and normal axiologies.

In my mind, "redneck religionist" is tantamount to fundamentalist. Guys that support "intelligent design" are usually fundamentalist.

Literalist in biblical interpretation instead of metaphorical interpretists.

Enough of all this serious discussion of about Gov. Romney's speech, time for some humor with a freindly poke from The Weekly Standard.

Mitt's Notes on Religion - A Parody

quote:

---

I'm not a big fan of fundamentalism, so I have a very negative view of them. I see them as literalists, non-empirical, and enemies of science, knowledge, ontology, epistemology, and normal axiologies.

In my mind, "redneck religionist" is tantamount to fundamentalist. Guys that support "intelligent design" are usually fundamentalist.

Literalist in biblical interpretation instead of metaphorical interpretists.

---

Wow, that was a mouthful.

I believe in the inerrancy of scripture (with qualifiers), the Virgin birth, miracles, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, a literal heaven and hell, and the mystery of the Trinity.

I wear the label "fundamentalist" gratefully. I do not appreciate the negative connotations, nor the changing definitions, that have been ascribed to it in the past generation.

I also believe in some form of theistic evolution, that reason and evidence should point toward faith rather than away from it, environmental stewardship, Christian thought, and that it is likely that there will be many people in heaven from our "current" A.D. world who have never heard of Jesus.

I have broadened my mind. Yourself?

Are you sure?

Anybody who accepts the inerrant label for scripture knows nothing of the traditions how what we possess came to be. From the fact that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but instead by post-exilic Jews, to the fact, we don't even possess the original autographs of various New Testament authors, is really naive as to the origins of our biblical traditions.

Because the the non-empirical sensitivities of "fundies", I'm not even certain most of the time on which plane to engage the debate of Platonic Aristotelian tradition with persons of such suspended belief systems.

Do you speak English as a first language? Your writing could really use some cleaning up, if indeed you are the academic you purport to be.

That said, can you name the only OT book that was not found at Qumran?

Also, if you have ever read the OT, can you think of any reason why a group of post-exilic Jews would want to tell their history that way?

Can you list the prophecies of the Pentateuch that were fulfilled by Jesus?

Can you provide a source for your "facts?"

Since when did textual criticism require the presence of original autographs?

Since when did inerrancy require the existence of original autographs?

You don't even know what a funadamentalist is, but you spew a bunch of name-dropping and terminology in broken English.

I'm just not impressed.

Do you guys go to one center to groupthink, but fail to read anything yourself?

I might even link the website you use to come up with these unoriginal questions and responses. Come back to me when you guys have answers to the Duke or UNC Divinity School questions.

It would be interesting to see which version of inerrancy you are currently using but Ehrman runs circles around the ridiculous claims of fundies.

I've had friends at both of those divinity schools. I'm not intimidated by ole Bart. He can renounce his faith every day and twice on Sunday for all I care. Ain't tenure great?