Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, December 14, 2007
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
He's Not Satan, He's My Brother
by Kathleen Parker
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Live From Des Moines! The recent controversy over whether Jesus and Satan are brothers has prompted Iowans to demand a new debate among Republican candidates.

Given the subject matter, organizers have invited an expert to moderate. Enid Strict, known to some as the Church Lady from "Saturday Night Live," has graciously agreed to get to the bottom of this confusing issue for the sake of the republic.

Church Lady: Hello, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to interrogate -- I mean interview -- these fine gentlemen, every one a sinner except for Mike Huckabee. Hi Mikey (makes kissy sounds).

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

Mr. Huckabee, is there something you'd like to say about the heretic Mormon standing to your right?

Mike Huckabee: Well, you know I would never question another person's religion, especially Mormonism, because I don't know anything about that doctrine, even though I have a degree in theology and am a Baptist minister and was once a speaker at the Southern Baptist convention that, ironically, was held in Salt Lake City.

Look, I don't know if Mormons are heretics or not. The sister of the wife of a friend of my first cousin mentioned something about Mormons believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers, but what do I know? I hardly even glanced at that book they handed out at the convention, "Mormonism Unmasked."

Church Lady: Did you say SATAN?????

Huckabee: Only as something I heard. Again, I would never question another person's religion. I have a hard enough time explaining my own.

Alan Keyes: Well, I can explain it.

Church Lady: Nobody asked you.

Alan Keyes: Forty million fetuses later, and you're bickering over whether Satan and Jesus are related. At least they were alive!!! Unlike 40 million souls obliterated in the womb, denied their constitutional rights and abandoned by the heritage of the Republican Party as Rudy Giuliani would do!

Church Lady: Are you insane??? How did you get on this stage? Who are you?

Fred Thompson: If I may interject, I think what the country needs is leadership. Thank you.

Church Lady: Well, isn't that special? Before we move on to Mr. Giuliani's love muffin, let me get back to Mikey -- I mean, Mr. Huckabee -- who is, I think, on to something here. Just to clarify: If the heretic Mormon thinks that Jesus and Satan are brothers, what else might he believe, hmmmmmm?

Mitt Romney: Excuse me, Madame Church Lady, but if I could just make a brief comment.

Church Lady: I'm not talking to you. Mikey, you have 30 minutes.

Alan Keyes: Why does he get 30 minutes and I get 30 seconds?

Church Lady: Because your eyes are popping out of your head.

John McCain: Excuse me.

Mike Huckabee: Thank you, Enid, if I may. And I wish I could take every minute of your generous offer to explain why I am the only real Christian standing on this stage, to tell the good people of Iowa and evangelicals everywhere why I -- and not Mitt Romney -- am The One, but I do have to part the Red Sea later today and so will have to cut my remarks short.

Let me just say, though, that I am really very sorry I ever mentioned the Jesus-Satan thing to that New York Times reporter, who took those words among 8,000 and made it sound like I was trying to remind voters that Mormonism is a false religion. I wasn't. Like I said, it was just something I heard.

Mitt Romney: Madame ...

Church Lady: I'm not talking to you.

Alan Keyes: I was for fetuses before Mitt Romney was for fetuses.

Fred Thompson: Madame, if I may just point out, I am the tallest person here today and should be president.

John McCain: Excuse me ...

Church Lady: Alrighty, alrighty, everybody shut up. We're out of time and we didn't even get to talk about Giuliani's naughty parts. Well, I guess out of Christian charity, we should give heretic Romney five or 10 seconds. Make that three.

Mitt Romney: Thank you, Madame Moderator. I just wanted to say that as president, I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. And, of course, I forgive Mr. Huckabee, even though he knows exactly what he's doing.

Church Lady: Isn't that special.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(309 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Dec 23, 2007 - 1:41 AM EST
Rob - "Fundamentalist" is GOOD, not bad.


Hi Rob,


Rob writes: "And you wonder--why people think fundamentalists are loons?"


Since you refuse to answer the question yourself, I'll explain what I was trying to get at. It wasn't a trick question Rob, I was just hoping to make a point.


If you have a child, do you want your child taught "new math", or the fundamentals? Same question for reading, would you want your child to learn the “fundamentals” (including phonics), or the “new” method that is creating a generation of children who can’t read?


If you're having a house built, and it's your money on the line (and roof over your head), do you want an architect grounded in the fundamentals of engineering and architecture, or do you just want somebody to “wing it”?


If you have a private banker, or even own a mutual fund, do you want a fund manager who is grounded in the “fundamentals” of finance, or are you going to trust your hard-earned cash to some guy who took a course he bought off of late night TV and then stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?


The point is, “fundamentalist” is not a bad word, it’s a GOOD word. Most people would choose a “fundamentalist” over the alternative when it comes to just about anything that’s really important to them…


…and I can think of nothing more important than our souls…


“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36, KJV)


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Dec 22, 2007 - 8:52 PM EST
And you wonder--
--why people think fundamentalists are loons? Signs? Prophet tests? Magic books?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Dec 22, 2007 - 7:17 PM EST
Rob
Rob, you mean Athanasius. Anyway, what good ol girl says is true - authority was inherent in the books because of eyewitness authorship or close connection to one of the disciples, and they were already accepted and used as Scripture by the many churches for years. If another book of certain authorship were discovered today, e.g., one of the missing letters of Paul, it would be included in the canon only after a long period of testing, maybe 100-200 years, and not by formalization or decree by some group of church leaders.

Now regarding fear of "additional knowledge", show me a prophet so we might test his prophesies and see whether or not he is from God. One problem we have is that Jesus said that there will be no more signs, so any signs you might wish to recognize are not of God, but Satan.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Dec 22, 2007 - 11:15 AM EST
Build it and they will come
Scott, you can google up any definition you want for a Christian fundie and it isn't going to change. Nor is it a political definition. Maybe the Brittanica is more up your alley.

Girl, you are certainly earnest but you enforce every stereotype of the mindless fundamentalist and probably create new ones. Are you aware that the first indication of canonization was written by Athaniasius, in Greek? That is very sweet that you all believe what you are being told but it is nonsense to most of the world and indefensible, which is why we get the extreme reactions to the findings of anyone who has spent their lives learning from original documents and archeaological findings. That is what I appreciate about the Mormons. They do not live in fear of additional knowledge.

Back to the topic, Huckabee has now alienated his own Republican president and the most popular conservative talk show host in the nation. Only a true fundamentalist could pull that off in a matter of days.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 4:30 PM EST
Canon
Savage...

When the decision was made as to what books were canonical, they used the Latin term recipemus, which means "we recieve", what the church said is that we receive these particular books as being canonical, as being apostolic in authority and in origin, and therefore we submit to their authority. It's one thing to make something authoritive, and it's another thing to recognize something that already is authoritative. Those human decisions did not make something that was not authoritative suddenly authoritative, but, rather the church was bowing, acquiescing to that which they recognized to be sacred Scripture.

For example: Origin Matthew..Apostle...Mark was not an apostle, but Mark was a writer for Peter and we know that Peter's authority stood before Mark. Pauls letters were accepted from the beginning, even Peters letters call Pauls letters "scripture".
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 4:00 PM EST
Savage bids adieu
Poor Savage has to bid adieu...guess it's just as well since he doesn't seem to get the fact that I just addressed the Trinity question in God's words not man's or my words. And sweetheart it's the little things that can either add to or take away from God's word and that is an absolute no,no.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 12:17 PM EST
Savage Alum
Savage Alum writes: Wednesday, December, 19, 2007 6:56 PM
Girl and Rich

"Godhead is different I admit. We believe in God the Father who created everything. That He has a body otherwise Christ his Son would not be at His right HAND, but we also claim modern day revelation which has revealed that to us."

Please cite to whom this revelation was given and the relevant texts. I am aware that not all of Smith's writings are considered scripture, and that your doctrine of God has changed since the beginning.

I have also read this article:

http://www.answeringantimormons.com/Mordocdeity.htm

Are you basing your arguments on it, or do have different arguments to make?

"We differ here too, because you believe God is mute or doesn't have anything to say or no interest or no ability or something, unless you are Oral Roberts asking for what was it $8 or $9 Million that God spoke to him to raise."

Are you still trying to kill the discussion? Take the first part of your statement before the "unless" - you know it to be false, do you not? The all-powerful God can't speak if he wishes and is uninterested? Perhaps this is just a throw-away line because you wish to distract or have no argument to make. Jesus himself said that there will be no more signs.

"....In any case, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and has a body of flesh and bones as revealed to Thomas and the other Apostles."

Are you contending that he _still_ is a body of flesh and bones? I agree that he was.

If Jesus is Jehovah (an incorrect term - better is Yahweh) and the Bible says to pray to him, why do you pray only to God?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 10:30 AM EST
Girl
Learn how to read

I already addressed that. And I doubt you will find I am guilty of not capitalizing unless a typo.

Your besmirching of even the littlist things is evidence of an unstable, extreme and extremely redundant (you might have to go look that one up) mind.

I bid you adieu

PS. Still no desire or ability to answer a Trinity question and the man made creed that gave it birth. But I expect no less from you and yours.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 10:01 AM EST
Jesus is who he say's he is
The oneness of the Godhead is one of the most fundemental teaching of scripture. A denial of the truth is a violation of the first Commandment.

God is three and one in different senses. He is three persons, but He has only one essence (nature). The scripture offers God's absolute unity from the beginning to the end. In the beginning God [not gods] created the heaven and the earth. Gen. l:l. "Hear, O Isreal! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" Deut. 6:4...to expand further on this in addition read Ex.30:3,Isa.44:6,Isa.45:18,Mark 12:29,l Cor 8:4 Eph.4:6,1 Tim 2:5. The text could scarcely be clearer: There is one and only one God, as apposed to more than one.

Now what did Jesus claim:

Jesus claimed to have equal authority with God.
Jesus claimed to be God, by requesting prayer in His name.
Jesus claimed to be Yahweh (Jehovah)
Jesus claimed to be equal with God
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah-God
Jesus claimed to be God by accepting worship

Rob and Savage....just a simple question. How did you guys do in English? You do remember a proper name gets a Cap indicating a person, place or thing...Lower case are just regular nouns not real persons, places or things. When you use a lower case g for Jesus you are saying, He is not a real person. You also use a Cap H when referring to He, His or Him.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 6:06 AM EST
Rob - asked and answered ;-)

Rob writes: “I gave you a definition of a fundamentalist.”


I asked for YOUR definition of a “fundamentalist”, but you gave me Mr. Marsden’s definition, and as I pointed out (3rd time now?), Mr. Marsden’s definition was not so much a definition of a “fundamentalist” as it appears to have been a broadside pot-shot at anyone who didn’t vote for the democratic candidate for president in ’00 and ’04.



~~~



Rob writes: “You have the burden of disproving it not complaining about it.”


I already pointed out the error in Marsden’s definition (and yours, by proxy).


Let’s take a look at it again:


"An American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such as those associated with “secular humanism.” In either the long or the short definitions, fundamentalists are a subtype of evangelicals and militancy is crucial to their outlook." (Marsden)


Here’s my response (again, originally posted December 17, 5:55AM):


Not surprisingly, you (and Mr. Marsden) have it exactly backwards.


God’s Word came first.


“Liberal theology” came much later. So it is “liberal theology” that is in “militant opposition” to the established truth of God’s Word as it is written in the Bible, not the other way around.


Liberals always try to frame the debate as though they are the defender, when in fact they are the aggressor.


It is the “liberal” who is in a state of rebellion; it is the “liberal” who seeks to be the agent of change; it is the “liberal” who is always in “opposition”; it is the “liberal” who seeks revolution, and it is the “liberal” who rejects God’s Word as it is written.


But according to Marsden’s definition that you gave, approximately 51% of the voting population of the United States are “American Fundamentalists”; basically, anybody who didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry in the last two presidential elections…

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Dec 21, 2007 - 6:00 AM EST
Rob -Where are those requirements again?


Hi Rob, sorry about the delay in my reply.


Rob writes: “Scott, I'm not interested in endless silly theological arguments with people who think that God wrote to them and no one else.”


If you would reference the “silly theological arguments” so I could know what you were talking about, that would be a big help. I have requested that you quote the words of mine that you are referencing for the sake of clarity and to avoid needless confusion, a practice I use myself and which you could therefore easily emulate, but you steadfastly refuse.


I don’t know why. All I can guess is that you prefer to keep things murky and ill-defined, thereby attempting to ensure that no actual resolution to anything is ever reached. This would seem counterproductive to your entire (presumed) purpose for participating in these discussions, but I’ve seen stranger things here on TH.


God didn’t write to me and no one else. His Word in the Bible is the most published and reproduced book in all the history of the world. If they were all for me, that’s a little much, don’t you think?


Instead of saying silly things, why don’t you explain what in the world you’re talking about?



~~~



Rob writes: “If you have a point to make back it up with an expert opinion from a credible scholar who is affiliated with a mainstream university or group.”


Is that how this “Christianity thing” works? Do you need one o’ them “theology” degrees too, in order to talk about it?


Paul was educated by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), but I don’t think most of the Apostles would meet your requirement as “credible scholars” with advanced degrees, not even from the 1st century equivalent of a community college.


In fact, I don’t think most of those chosen by Christ to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15b, KJV) would be qualified to offer any information that would satisfy your requirements.


Which book in the Bible contains those university requirements again?


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 8:58 PM EST
Savage Alum
Savage Alum writes: Wednesday, December, 19, 2007 8:51 AM

"Since you ask how many works? we do our best and grace does the rest."

"We fully accept that salvation is only thru Christ and requires no works on our part. His grace is sufficient for us."

Your two sentences seem to be inconsistent, so I was responding.

"As far as rewards it appears it is again semantics that YOU want to paint us into a corner because we believe that the rewards you receive after salvation are dependent on works as stated clearly by Paul, that faith without works is dead."

James, I think you mean. Anyway, the last part of that is not related to the first.

"So obviously it is not our being alike that makes you go nuts, it is simple semantics or your vitriolic hate."

I'm not trying to do either - why do you assume so? Are you paranoid that you have to use terms like "paint into a corner', "nuts", and vitriolic hate"? Those are discussion killers.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 7:28 PM EST
Good ol girl
The arrogance and sense of entitlement displayed here are what is turning America against religion. If a Mormon or a Catholic or an Evangelical tells me they accept Jesus, it is not your place to push Jesus aside and make the decision. A person who thinks the Bible as they rewrite it tells them everything they need to know is not a rational or thinking person. Such a person carries no credibility in lecturing other people. If the evangelicals don't come to grips with how medieval they look to outsiders they are going to lose more and more educated people.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 11:10 AM EST
God and god
Geez...Savage & Rob...please excuse me for write'n over your heads...call one of those learned theological scholars you mentioned earlier...they'll explain what I was talking about.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 10:13 AM EST
Girl
I am stying way too long today

You call Rob a liar and go after him for using small case for God.

Be accurate!!!!

I was just interested and re-read his post. He never used small case so who is lying?

Girl you need to calm down and think and explain, not let hate get in the way. Didn't you watch Gibson's the Passion?

You are acting like the saduccees and pharisees that couldn't get over their hate of how Christ was misinterpreting things, per them. ...Per you?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 10:02 AM EST
Girl
C'mon

Most people don't know to use Caps in Godly reference...NOT TAUGHT IN GOVERNMENT schools

I certainly didn't mean to type bile, but typing in a hurry to get to work
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 9:58 AM EST
Girl
I have agree with Rob on this. The way you say it, it does sound like you are willing to cut the baby Jesus in half to prove me wrong.

I have never found in the Bile to follow Him or believe in Him "as us orhtodox ... [put your religion here] do.

I could really just pick up a bible without any church and believe and that wold be sufficient. So you want to crucify me for not believing the way you do, is that really what Christ taught.

I know, you want to see all the extraneous stuff, but it shouldn't matter. Believe or reject are the only two options, not "follow the worship of Calvin et al. or you are going to hell"

I think Christ can be my judge just fine without any man made coaching from the peanut gallery...not really intended but that [peanut gallery comment] was funny to me, Jimmy Carte was a Baptist. I know maybe not funny, I just hated what he did to our country, but he had an approved religion.

anyway.....I digress.

Just believe as you do and I will as I do. I think my testimony is fine, if Christ disagrees He will let me.

Let's pretend I am wrong. What is Christ's promise to me if I believe in Him? Salvation. IF I were not perfect in that belief as I am not perfect in action, doesn't it stand to reason, that He will save me from all sin (error) because I believed in Him.? If it says so otherwise in the Bible, please give me a scripture and verse. (not a convuluted teaching based on an interpretation)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 9:43 AM EST
Smear Mormons
Rob your post is PATHETIC...since when is the truth a smear...when Rob does not agree with it?
The Mormons never pass up a chance to make their case for what they believe. Christians have now decided to make theirs. What a foolish cmparison to Solomon and the baby. We are not the faith that tries to cut Jesus in half...He is available for everyone that believes He is who He say's He is. God, with a capitol G. not god with a small lower case g. Now that's cutt'n him in half and call'm him a lier to boot.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 9:35 AM EST
Girl cont.
One question I had was answered by the Church of Jesus Christ (by default). Since the Devil hated Christ above all things and tempted Him with the objective of laying a trap and making him sin, as did the saducees and pharisees (correlation to today?), who did satan go after the most after Christ. It was His saints (Church). Therefore as a barometer, ... who is treated similarly today and attacked, tempted, maligned, besmirched, murdered (late 1800's) for their beliefs and professes Christ to be their Saviour? In modern history, there is no question. So I decided to see what all the hubub was about. It took me years and countless sets of teenagers that albeit were not all knowing, but were helpful, but much more than helpful, they were different.

I truly converted to Christ. Christ is my Saviour and that in the end is all I need. I will be going to heaven as will you. I would just like the rewards I receive to be as promised ... to inherit all that I have. I am sure I would be satified with any of God's gifts, but I would prefer to have as many as He is willing to give, and all He asks is that I love Him and follow Him ... I can try to do that. end 2 of 2


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 9:33 AM EST
Girl
I work so can't respond immediately. It took a whole of one moment to say what I had to say. Are you saying that I am doing what you are doing? Studying all day and getting crib sheets from a minister? Guilty conscience perhaps?

Seriously now, after being born Catholic and never (couple days a year) going to church but we lived a block from St. Michaels, then going to a myriad of other churches in search (talk about some loons, don't even look into the Assy of God, Pentacostals, JWs and 7th day folks....WAY OVER THE TOP!!!)

I was a Promise Keeper and am something of a mormon neophyte because this is where I could go from believing about Christ to actually believing Christ and having, vis a vis the spirit, a personal relationship and appreciation for my Savior and the infinate atonement.

So if I tell you about the difference between salvation and sanctification will you tell me about the Nicean Creed?

I already know you won't. It is 100% indefensible and one of the resaons I was open to a church search (rhymn unintended).

As far as "yes or no", the answer is yes, that is why I am here now after 20 years+ of actively searching and trusting no corporate or even generic (non-denominational) (I preferred generic) man minister. Part 1
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Dec 20, 2007 - 1:09 AM EST
Pathetic
Good ol Girl, your attempts to smear Mormons are weak and desperate. Your ludicrous fights over Jesus remind me of Solomon and the baby. You would cut Jesus in half rather than let someone else have him. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels as if we are slipping back into the Middle Ages with this mindless bibliolatry.

Scott, I'm not interested in endless silly theological arguments with people who think that God wrote to them and no one else. If you have a point to make back it up with an expert opinion from a credible scholar who is affiliated with a mainstream university or group. I gave you a definition of a fundamentalist. You have the burden of disproving it not complaining about it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 10:11 PM EST
Savage Semantics
Savage evidentally you had a number of hours in Mormon apologetics with an instruction to drag out the tiresome "semantics" made you (Christians) do it when you can not answer a theological question about Bible scripture and teaching concerning salvation. Now if you have the ability to correct my grammatical error, by the way, thanks...perhaps you can answer my original question...What do you see as the difference in sanctification and justification? Was Joseph Smith a student of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic when he did his commentary on Biblical scripture? By the way...I don't hate you or the Mormon people...I would like for you all to become Christians and heaven bound.

Savage...if what you believe were not true would you want to know about it. YES or NO
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 6:59 PM EST
Girl and Rich cont
That is my Godhead. Now as I understand it from many orthodox books starting with Constantine and accepted by Luther, Wesley, Calvin, Roger Williams, etc.. to today's date, many "christians" abide by the political decision by Constantine, his pagan administration, (fellow sun-worshippers), the roman body politic and a number of reluctant christians wanting to keep the peace, they agreed to a creed about 400 AD that redfined the Godhead and made them a three in one configuration, a blob, for lack of a better word, and it satisfied the political mess with a compromise that then had to be taught anew to the former day christians as the new and accepted orthodoxy of the definition of the Godhead. As that is a working and creed of man, we fully distance ourselves from such a teaching.

By the way Girl. if you are referring to plural books it is, BOOKS or Mormon not book of mormons, grammatically speaking. 2 of 2

sorry if I sound sarcastic, not personal, just these threads are almost always filled with noxious lies and twists of the truth ala Michael Moore
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 6:56 PM EST
Girl and Rich
Guess you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about us. We fully accept that salvation is only thru Christ and requires no works on our part. His grace is sufficient for us. As far as rewards it appears it is again semantics that YOU want to paint us into a corner because we believe that the rewards you receive after salvation are dependent on works as stated clearly by Paul, that faith without works is dead. So obviously it is not our being alike that makes you go nuts, it is simple semantics or your vitriolic hate. Since Paul refers to a third heaven and as you already know we believe there are three kingdoms in heaven aka: rewards.

We don't worship the cross so we don't deny the cross. We worship Jesus Christ. But I get your gist.

Godhead is different I admit. We believe in God the Father who created everything. That He has a body otherwise Christ his Son would not be at His right HAND, but we also claim modern day revelation which has revealed that to us. We differ here too, because you believe God is mute or doesn't have anything to say or no interest or no ability or something, unless you are Oral Roberts asking for what was it $8 or $9 Million that God spoke to him to raise....In any case, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and has a body of flesh and bones as revealed to Thomas and the other Apostles. The Holy Ghost is a personage but has no body and testifies of the divinity of Christ. part 1 of 2

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 2:31 PM EST
Works Heresy
(From another thread, but appropriate here to Savage Alum:)

It is an absolute heresy to say that anything you can do will merit salvation - there is none good but God, the wages of any sin is death, and only by being washed in the blood of the Christ can you be regarded as righteous. To say anything else cheapens and demeans the sacrifice of our Lord and denies the Cross.

If you choose to be judged under the Law (works), you will utterly fail every single day. The sum total of Scripture testifies to this, so if you think that you read any other doctrine from James, Matthew, or Revelation, you are misinterpreting Scripture, or misunderstanding the doctrines of your church, or your church leadership is seriously failing you.

Works are only the visible evidence of faith. Sure w/o works, faith is dead, but dead faith is not faith at all! If your husband is dead, do you still have a husband?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 2:28 PM EST
Trinity
Savage Alum writes: Wednesday, December, 19, 2007 8:51 AM

"An other key difference in our discipleship is that we don't adhere to the creeds of the man Constantine as you do. The triniity was defined by him and his pagan lot and you guys sucked it down in 400 AD and since."

The three persons of God are revealed in the Bible, not defined by men. Just what do you mean by the Godhead?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 9:08 AM EST
LDS - Works
Savage...Christian salvation is not dependent on works...and never ever in all of Pauls writings did he say such a thing, When judgement of works is used for a Christian it is for rewards, not salvation...Now, answer this question according to your Book of Mormons...can you recieve salvation without good works? Please quote scripture and verse. What do you see as the difference between sanctification and justification?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 8:51 AM EST
good ol girl
LDS do indeed follow and believe in Christ although you may wish to tell them what they believe or how to believe.

Since you bring up key differences and mention works, I will tell you from my multiple readings of the bible that every time Paul is chastising the new christians and former jews about "works" he is doing in context (do you understand that term? CONTEXT) of their trying to continue to keep the law of Moses and the circumcision. He and others throughout the bible to include Revelation (IN YOUR OWN BIBLE) talk about faith and works and even how the judgement involves works. Since you ask how many works? we do our best and grace does the rest. Remember the invitation is to come follow me (Action verb - works) not come say you're saved and pay a minister.

An other key difference in our discipleship is that we don't adhere to the creeds of the man Constantine as you do. The triniity was defined by him and his pagan lot and you guys sucked it down in 400 AD and since. You being a branch albeit a broken off branch of the catholic faith, we prescribe to the biblical definition of the Godhead of three. God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. We find it hard to worship a blob, but hey, fundamentalists are free to do as they please. Not ony do we not care what you care to believe, we don't spend our time trying to tear down your faith with countless anti books, films and websites. I would assume if you were so confident of your faith, your faith in a positive light would be sufficient
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Dec 19, 2007 - 1:33 AM EST
So What ... ?
If we can elect a stinkin' islamofascist to the Congress (screwball Minnesotans) what's so bad about a Mormon in the White House? At least he isn't trying to convert us to prayers 5 times a day and burkas - or cut off our heads if we refuse!

Wake up people! Stop the stupidity! We've got a hell of a lot more to seriously worry about than whether or not there will be an evangelical or a mormon in the White House!

We're talking about our lives and our WAY of life, so get off the penny ante crap and pay attention to what's REALLY endangering our nation.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Dec 18, 2007 - 1:57 PM EST
OK, I confess
I am both a fundamentalist (reborn by sola fide through sola gratia, claim sola scriptura, and claim Christ as the only redeemer), and an evangelical, believing in and attempting to spread the eu angelion to all who will hear.

No apologies.

That should clear up any definitional difficulties.

Now, I also admit to being quite less than partial to democracy, preferring a constitutional republic instead. Is that what makes me a threat?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Dec 18, 2007 - 8:00 AM EST
The key Difference
Scott and Bob...The Mormon's do not, I repeat do not believe and have faith in Jesus Christ in who He say's He is. They believe that salvation is a product of sanctification, not the other way around. They are a works religion that can not really explain how much work is enough to guarentee a place in the Kingdom. In other words, how good a Christian do you have to be to obtain Salvation, which is kinda like say'n how virgin is a virgin, you either are or your not. Christian's believe they receive the free gift of salvation given by God in our faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. We believe Jesus was the final blood sacrifice to settle the question of sin for those that are believer's...our sins have been forgiven...past,now and future. We believe Jesus died on the cross...was buried and arose on the third day...He left us with the gift of God's Holy Spirit before he assended into the Heavens. Now the Mormon's have their own commentary on scripture from the Holy Bible, that in most cases has been either, added to or taken from the original text.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Dec 18, 2007 - 2:16 AM EST
Rob- the inspired Word of God is the key


(cont. from previous post)


If everyone who professes to be a Christian applied the same standards of reason and logic to their own religious beliefs as they do to those with whom they disagree, and eliminated the things that cannot be reconciled with the Bible, I believe there would be much less Christian religious division and much more unity.


I don’t expect any acknowledgement of obvious error from any large ‘religious body’, there’s too much at stake (money, political power, prestige, etc., all worldly reasons) in maintaining the status quo; but on an individual level, people are certainly capable of recognizing the truth if they want to.


It requires an honest appraisal of what we believe and why. It requires the temporary suspension of long-held assumptions, doctrines and beliefs, at least long enough to compare those doctrines and beliefs to what the Bible *actually says* with an open heart, and an open mind.


The only source of Authority recognized by ALL professing Christians is the Bible. If a doctrine or belief is contradicted by God’s Word in the Bible, we can’t just keep believing it because we *like it*, or because we *want to believe it*, or because we’ve *always believed it*.


We must lay it aside as a false doctrine if it is irreconcilable with God’s Word, and eliminate it from our practices and beliefs, and move forward with what we CAN reconcile and harmonize with God’s Word in the Bible: the only source of Authority all professing Christians can hope to agree on.


In the final analysis, anything that contradicts God’s Word amounts to nothing more than the words, wisdom and traditions of men, and these things are the cause of Christian division.


Or put another way, there is generally much agreement about what is actually IN the Bible; it is what the Bible does NOT Authorize, but which people do anyway, that divides us.


The inspired Word of God in the Bible is the key; always has been, always will be.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Dec 18, 2007 - 2:09 AM EST
Rob - We cannot apply a broad-brush...


Rob writes: “Os Guinness, Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to do About It. (page 17)”


I read some reviews of Mr. Guinness’ book on Amazon.com and I agree with some of his criticisms, but these criticisms apply to most religious people to greater or lesser degrees. It’s the kind of thing we debate here on TH all the time. Specifically, a lack of (or misapplication of) logic and reason as it applies (or should apply) to God’s Word, the textual evidence, archeological evidence, secular historical evidence, etc.


But you can’t approach it by painting everyone with the same broad brush, it’s much more complicated than that. The beliefs and practices of all the various Protestant denominations and their offshoots, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (and all of their respective offshoots), the mega-churches, etc., vary widely all across the spectrum. A valid criticism of one does not necessary apply to another, and vice-versa.


You can see this clearly right here on TH when any combination of Mormons, Protestants and/or Roman Catholics trade jabs. Each has a good enough grasp of the other’s doctrinal beliefs to point out obvious errors of logic and reason, things which simply CANNOT be reconciled or explained satisfactorily, but each categorically REFUSES to acknowledge the errors of logic and reason in their OWN beliefs and practices. It’s maddening. It’s like a real life re-enactment of Luke chapter 6:


“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [42] Or how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:41-42, KJV)


(cont. next post)

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Dec 18, 2007 - 1:46 AM EST
Rob - "evangelical" threat to democracy!


Rob writes: “It's not about you.”


Okay… but who IS it about?


That’s the question I can’t seem to get an answer to…



~~~



Rob writes: “So here are the facts I am being asked for. This book is written by the founder of the Trinity Forum: ‘For example, among leadership groups in the 1980’s--business leaders, government leaders, academics, priests, and rabbis--evangelicals were perceived as the greatest “threat to democracy.” Thirty-four percent of academics rated evangelicals as a menace to democracy, compared with only 14 percent who saw any danger from racists, the Klu Klux Klan, or Nazis.’ ”


Only 34% of radical left-wing academics saw “evangelicals” as the greatest “threat to democracy”? I expected the number to be closer to 95% (allowing for 5% who just didn’t understand the question).


Did they also poll “evangelicals”? Who did the “evangelicals” think was the greatest “threat to democracy”? Did they choose themselves?


Seriously Rob, what are we supposed to learn from this two-decade old “research”… that people who didn’t like Christians to begin with think “evangelicals” are a “menace to democracy”?!?


I’m suspicious of that phrase… seems unlikely that a significant number of people would spontaneously “volunteer” that expression…


I wonder how the question was worded that led to calling “evangelicals” a “menace to democracy”?

Did they ask “do you think evangelicals are a menace to democracy, yes or no?” Was it that blatant?


Or maybe they asked “You do think evangelicals are a menace to democracy, don’t you?”. That’s not a leading question, that’s just “hard science”! LOL!


This is not meant to be a ‘defense’ of “evangelicals”, I don’t even know who “evangelicals” refers to anymore (and no one will tell me). I’m just saying that the methodology of the poll, the motives of the participants and the agenda of the researchers in this “study” you cited are all extremely suspect…


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Dec 18, 2007 - 1:28 AM EST
Rob-Mormon & fundamentalist are not same


Rob writes: “It is not my concern if you think "fundamentalist" is your name. I am going to say fundamentalist in the same manner people say Mormon and talk about them in the same manner I have seen people here talk about Mormons.”


Except that it doesn’t work that way, Rob. Mormons self-identify. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an official organization that seeks to define itself as a distinct body of believers.


There is no corresponding “Fundamentalist Church” or similar organization that has defined itself in such a way.


The term “fundamentalist” is simply an adjective, a descriptive term that is often used as a pejorative toward people who actually believe what the Bible says and take God at His Word.


So you see, a member of the LDS and a “fundamentalist” are entirely different things. One refers to a specific body of believers (“the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”), and the other is an adjective to describe a believer’s approach to the Bible. Don’t you see the difference?


You can declare that you’re going to talk about these different things as if they are the same, but doing so ignores the reality that these are “apples and oranges”.


BTW, I did not (and do not) think “fundamentalist” is my name, but you throw the word around without ever defining it to the point of who you include in that group and who you exclude, preferring to rely on Marsden’s definition which, as I pointed out, is so vague and nondescript that it encompasses everyone who didn’t vote for Kerry or Gore in the last two election cycles.


That definition is essentially meaningless, except as a political football, and that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Flag as Offensive