Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Theologically squishy?
A funny thing happened on the way to last week’s religious-right summit in Washington, D.C.. WORLD’s Jamie Dean reports:
When Margo Hamilton stepped off the escalator in the hotel lobby, she didn’t want a Romney button, but she did want to ask Nancy French a question: “Excuse me, are you Mormon?”
“No,” replied French, “I’m Presbyterian.”
“Do you know what Mormons believe?” asked Hamilton. “You know they’re not Christians at all, right?”
For the next few minutes, the pair sparred over the nature of Mormonism, and whether Christians should support a Mormon for the highest elected office. Near the revolving doors at the lobby’s exit, a frustrated Hamilton told WORLD that she believes evangelical support for Romney is a “gross mistake.”
French finds the argument that a Mormon presidency would legitimize a false religion equally frustrating. While she acknowledged Mormonism “is not orthodox Christianity,” she added, “You do not have to be theologically squishy to support Gov. Romney. We are different, but we are politically allied.”
Who’s right, Hamilton or French? Here’s the rest of Jamie’s summit coverage.
back to top46 Comments to “Theologically squishy?”
Every religion believes every other religion is loony. No matter the religion, things can be worded in such a way that no one would take it seriously. You can do the same thing with science and with news (See Fox news). Respect is the only way around it.
A supernatural being who may or may not have had wings like a dove and a glowing golden circlet floating above his or her head appeared to a virgin girl impregnated by a mystical unseen occult being that no one has ever seen, possibly by a ray of mystical power. The girl fled for her life because a wicked king was given an occult warning that a new king was going to be born and soldiers that presumably lived in the area, without any protest, ruthlessly butchered all the babies that lived around the soldier’s families, possilbly even killing some of there own brothers or sisters or even their own babies.
The baby king was born in an animal barn where three really smart guys were told by supernatural forces to visit the babe and was guided by a mysterious floating light to get there so they could bestow gifts like perfume and other things that smell really good.
Report comment to moderator
Life is full of interesting oxymorons. Would you rather vote for a pro-choice Christian or a pro-life non-Christian?
Report comment to moderator
Lynn: Who’s right, Hamilton or French?
Frank: While I agree with Hamilton that the LDS sect is not biblically orthodox, I generally disagree that a Christian shouldn’t vote for a LDS. I’m much more interested in the candidates’ political philosophies, positions on the issues, and what they’ve done in office.
Report comment to moderator
I was hoping that there would be a third choice…
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know much about Romney so I can’t say if I would vote for him, but I certainly wouldn’t choose not to based on fear that Mormonism might be viewed as more acceptable.
Report comment to moderator
Like CCC, for me it comes down to pro-life or not. We’ve elected plenty of Christians in name only over the years and our society has trumpeted over and over that all religions that call on God are the same.
Now, I don’t believe that, but I do want a pro-life president. There will be judges that need appointing, y’all, and that should be a factor when we choose our president.
Report comment to moderator
#1: “Every religion believes every other religion is loony.”
They are all correct. Every religion is loony. All man-made gods are equally imaginary.
Report comment to moderator
“All man-made gods are equally imaginary.”
Just to be clear, all gods are man-made.
Beliefs in gods really are childish, they are nothing more than a belief in an invisible friend.
I laugh at people who think their invisible friend is better than somebody else’s invisible friend.
Report comment to moderator
Let me guess. I can’t vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, but according to some evangelical leaders I can vote for Guiliani who is “Catholic” but probably closer to agnostic at best.
Go figure.
Report comment to moderator
I love how you people actually believe Romney is pro-life! If you are that gulable, why not just vote Hillary?
Report comment to moderator
Or let me put it this way:
Mormon + net worth of 120million = “my kid can have an abortion”
Mormom + net worth of 45K = “your kid needs to get married”
That’s how abortion works for the mormons.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, do you know lots and lots of Mormons? If not, how do you know that what you are saying about them is generally true?
My cousin and her husband are Mormons, and they are most certainly pro-life. I have more in common with them than with other relatives who call themselves “Christian”.
Report comment to moderator
Mitt Romney was born into a Mormon family and has remained loyal to the religion, which, however odd in the eyes of Christians, does a remarkable job of producing faithful, hardworking, disciplined men and women.
Romney graduated summa cum laude as valedictorian from Brigham Young and cum laude from Harvard Law and in the top 5% of Harvard Business. He was CEO of Bain Capital which specialized in turning around failing companies; during his fourteen year tenure Bain Capital earned 113% on invested capital.
He did a fine job of bailing out the Salt Lake Olympics and serving as governor of Massachusetts.
In my view Romney is the ablest of all the presidential candidates. It would be a shame to write him off due to religious prejudice.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles (4): I was hoping that there would be a third choice…
Frank: There is …
Report comment to moderator
“‘All man-made gods are equally imaginary.’
Just to be clear, all gods are man-made.”
Okay, a bit geometry-geeky, but here goes…
If we were 2d, and lived on a plain, all we would be able to see is what existed on our plain. If a sphere intersected our plain of existence, it would appear to be a circle (howbeit, we could tell by the curvature of the outside edge, not by looking down on it). As it passed through, it would at first be a point and gradually become a larger and larger circle before again becoming smaller to the point where it disappeared. In our 2d world this might seem impossible – something appearing from nothing! However, in 3d this makes perfect sense. In fact, the likelihood of seeing that selfsame sphere appear in the same spot on our plain as it traveled would be quite slim. As it travels through 3d space, it’s intersection with our plain might seem somewhat random and very few and far between. The sphere would still exist; it would just not be visible to us.
However, we live in 3d, and all we can see is what exists in our 3d world. If a 4d object (or being) intersected our plain of existence, it would have to take a form we could recognize as 3d (or by some other sense). It may even appear and disappear on a whim. In our 3d world this might seem impossible; however, in 4d this makes perfect sense. As it travels through 4d space, it’s intersection with our world might seem somewhat random and few and far between. It would still exist; it would just not be visible to us.
Just some thoughts. By saying all gods are man-made, you are saying that it is impossible for a being to exist outside of your 3 dimensions of experience and scoffing at those who do. That seems equivalent to saying “If I can’t see it, it’s not there.”
Flatland gets me to thinking this way
http://books.google.com/books?id=R6E0AAAAMAAJ&dq=flatland&pg=PP1
Report comment to moderator
Although I’m not a Christian or a Republican, it just seems to me that Huckabee would be the easy choice for conservative Christians. You couldn’t ask for a man who’s right about the two issues that matter most to conservative Christians, and who’s faith is any closer to theirs.
In any event, it’s going to be interesting to see how badly the split will be between those conservative Christians who want to stand on principle and those who want to go for pragmatism.
In the end, I think most conservative Christians will line up behind whomever the Republican nominee is. Dobson, et al will give their grudging support.
Report comment to moderator
#15
Derek, that is one of the coolest explinations I have ever heard of the intersection between God and Creation. I really like the way you think.
And now, I am convinced that I must read Flatland. I’ve heard of it referenced here and there, but now I need to read it.
Report comment to moderator
There’s another sort of squishiness out there, which Naomi Schaefer Riley points out on today’s Houses of Worship column in the WSJ. What is interesting is the change in language to that of “values.” Her conclusion for Republicans is a little grim: many — perhaps, a significant number — will stay home. With RG as the candidate, couldn’t blame ‘em.
Report comment to moderator
The late Francis Schaeffer, a spiritual mentor to many who read WORLD, advocated Christian co-belligerency with others, like Mormons, on issues where there is common ground. In this case the issue is protection of the unborn.
Within the last two weeks noted Evangelical Theologian Wayne Grudem of Phoenix Seminary made a compelling case at TownHall for supporting Romney over Guliani.
I maintain we are electing a President, not a pastor. In the sphere of politics I want someone who best represents my views. I believe those who reject Romney because he is a Mormon are flat out wrong, and in so doing will bring about a result they do no want – the probable election (coronation ?) of Hillary or Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (16): … You couldn’t ask for a man who’s right about the two issues that matter most to conservative Christians …
Frank: From your perspective, what are those two issues?
Report comment to moderator
#15/17: Derek, as a former geometry teacher, I like the way you think as well!
Report comment to moderator
Whenever I think of Flatland, I’m glad I live in the third dimension–all those deadly lines . . .
Report comment to moderator
Rdean: And if that 3d sphere rolled up the line and squashed all of us, we should worship it? And not wonder where IT came from? (But thanks for the Flatlands plug, anyway).
Anyhow, it seems to me that if bible-based faith is really important to one, it would be impossible to genuinely embrace a Mormon as a candidate.
The idea that a risen Jesus came back yet again and hung out in North America for a while to sort out the black from the white and that he still communicates with a selected prophet in Salt Lake City is just a bit of stretch for most Christians.
On the other hand, if purely conservative values are the issue, Romney is probably a decent choice. Middle and lower class conservatives can root for him to stamp out evildoers while he makes the world safer for his industrialist buddies.
Cameron or CCC: Apparently you are convinced that your Christian God spoke out extremely clearly against all abortions. What’s your scriptural basis for that?
Given that the Catholics didn’t adopt that position for 1700 years and the Southern Baptist Conference welcomed Roe when it was decided, it is a bit mysterious to me why so many Christians are so convinced that their God spoke so clearly about it.
Report comment to moderator
If it comes to a choice between Rudy G and Mitt R, I will lean towards support for MR (at this point at least). If someone like RG won’t defend the lives of the defenceless, well, that tells me all I need to know.
In politics no one gets all that they want. But for me, pro-life promises are a necessary starting condition for support. Sure, promises don’t always translate to actions, but we live in an uncertain world. And voters on left and right all get scammed sometimes. Just ask the hard-left anti-war supporters how they feel about Nancy Pelosi right now.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Job 31:15; Psalm 22:10; Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15; Galatians 1:15;
http://www.olivetree.com
Report comment to moderator
Evolution occurs not only in nature with animals, but also in history and culture with ideas and values.
When a belief system becomes old enough and gets a sufficient patina of age, and learns some table manners, it transitions from being a “cult” to being a “faith.”
Christianity made the leap a couple thousand years ago. Mormonism is in the process of making the transition before our very eyes. Scientology has a century or so to go.
Report comment to moderator
#15 Derek: I like the way you think, too. But it still makes my head hurt
Report comment to moderator
Ivan said it well, we’re electing a president, not a pastor (or even a theologian). I’m not thrilled about Romney, but that doesn’t have anything to do with his Mormonism.
Conversely, Jimmy Carter is the president most outwardly evangelical, but he never convinced me to vote for him.
Report comment to moderator
Orthodoxy. The issue is orthodoxy.
Never mind pastor; Mitt Romney couldn’t be an usher or an organist in an orthodox Christian church, because his beliefs are biblically unorthodox. And this is as it ought to be.
But when the matter turns to the orthodoxy of our federal republic — as measured by adherence to the US Constitution — my fellow conservative evangelicals go all … squishy.
The same people who wouldn’t have Romney as their pastor because his beliefs are biblically unorthodox support politicians whose promises, positions and practices are constitutionally unorthodox — people who’ve violated their oaths of office twelve ways from Sunday.
Now that’s “squishy.”
Report comment to moderator
#15
“The basic idea behind all string theories is that the constituents of reality are strings of extremely small size (possibly of the order of the Planck length, about 10−35 m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies…
“In addition to strings, this theory also includes objects of higher dimensions, such as D-branes and NS-branes. Furthermore, all string theories predict the existence of degrees of freedom which are usually described as extra dimensions. String theory is thought to include some 10, 11, or 26 dimensions, depending on the specific theory and on the point of view.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
Report comment to moderator
Now RN is making my head hurt…
“String Ducky” is more on my level – http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid716091875/bclid686943766/bctid687029421
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: Job 31:15. So what? God “makes” lots of things. And he has no hesitation in destroying them and directing and allowing them to destroy each other whenever he wishes. Sometimes he even makes women EAT their babies.
Psalm 22:10; See 22:14–there is no hope until after birth
Psalm 139:13; So kidneys (reins) are sacred, too? And, as stated later in the same Psalm, we are actually made deep in the earth?
Isaiah 44:2; Once again, the lord made lots of things. Is destroying any of them forbidden?
Isaiah 44:24; Same language, only here it is clear simply that the lord is taking credit for making all things. There is no hint whatsoever that a fetus is somehow “special”.
Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; These are interesting. Clearly we are only talking about Jewish fetuses here. Those “from far lands” need not apply for protection. While you are contemplating this, consider that nowhere in the Bible does God command any mercy for fetuses of captured enemy women, or, for that matter, did he choose to save any “innocent babies” or fetuses when he chose to destroy all humans in the Flood.
Jeremiah 1:5; This one is limited to Jeremiah. What about the rest of us?
Luke 1:15; Another “special case”. Luke has several of them. But John 7:39 says this is impossible because the resurrection had not yet occured.
Galatians 1:15; Paul annoints himself. One might think that a teacher in this circumstance might make clear that this cloak of protection is extended to future generations, if that were the case.
Cameron, at the very best, your passages demonstrate that perhaps fetuses of Jewish or Christian women are somehow sacred. But it is extraordinarily clear from a host of other passages that there is no special status accorded to fetuses generally because of their claimed innocence. Your passages can generally be broken down into two categories. In one category are prophets claiming that they (or some select individual is so special that God Himself blessed them. In the other are instances where prophets are using pre-natal “knowledge” merely to demonstrate the power of God, as in “God is so great that he can even reach into the mysteries of the womb.”
Extending those biblical lessons into some kind of broad prohibition against abortion, especially when, as we know now, a large percentage of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions, even before the woman is aware she is pregnant, just doesn’t make any sense.
And making God’s purported opposition to all abortions a cornerstone of one’s theology or politics is highly suspect.
Report comment to moderator
My better angel would say that we really should not vote for someone based on their religion, but rather on their policies. My jaded devil side really has hard time with the underwear and the pretentiousness to believe one can become a god.
Report comment to moderator
Wayne Grudem, who I suspect most evangelicals who know who is respect him as a theologian, wrote an article saying Christians should support Romney and that he does himself. I think I saw it on Townhall.com
Report comment to moderator
correction. . .
who know who he is.
Report comment to moderator
#31
It’s my job to make your head hurt. As a radical agnostic, I suspect reality is a lot more complicated than people think. With all due respect, I think the analogy you gave just scratches the surface of how complicated reality really is. For real.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, to Cameron’s list of verses, I would also add Luke 1:44 and Psalm 51:5. The problem, though, is not whether the Bible explicitly condemns abortion (of course, we would both agree that it would be absurd to require the Bible to condemn the specific medical practice, in specific terms, that goes on in present day America; it would be along the same lines of expecting the Bible to specifically condemn handguns as a guide to whether or not you should shoot your neighbor), but how the Bible treats the unborn child. In the Old Testament, the same Hebrew word (yeled) is used of children generally, whether they are born or (e.g., Exodus 21:22) unborn. In the New Testament, you have a particular Greek word (brephos) being used to refer to both born children (Acts 7:19) as well as the unborn (Luke 1:41, 44). So it seems very reasonable to assume that the Bible sees a fundamental continuity (or lack of distinction, if you prefer) between the “preborn” and “postborn” child.
You wrote: “Given that the Catholics didn’t adopt that position for 1700 years and the Southern Baptist Conference welcomed Roe when it was decided, it is a bit mysterious to me why so many Christians are so convinced that their God spoke so clearly about it.”
This is a bit historically inaccurate. For instance, the evidence is overwhelming that the Early Church condemned abortion-like practices. The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 2nd century) both forbid procuring an abortion or committing infanticide. Tertullian writes, “For us, homicide is forbidden, it is not lawful to destroy what is in the womb…. To prevent being born is to accelerate homicide, nor does it make a difference whether you snatch away a soul which is born or destroy one being born.” The 4th century Council of Ancyra (314 A.D.) denounced women who “slay what is generated and work to destroy it with abortifacients.” Augustine likewise condemned the practice. To treat this as something the church did not address for nearly two millenia is not really accurate.
And as far as women eating babies, you might wish to read thess to clear up any misunderstandings: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/cannibal.html
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cannib.html
Report comment to moderator
Is the crap below the word of God?
No. It’s just more evidence the people who wrote the Bible were sick in the head. No sane person would say these things or even think about them.
Jer. 19:9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
Ezek. 5:10 Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.
Lev. 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.
Report comment to moderator
Derek (#15),
If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting the Magician lives in another dimension not visible to people.
That would explain why God is often called the Invisible Man.
However, your idea, while original, is not evidence for anything, and it looks like the usual wishful thinking theists like to invent.
By saying all gods are man-made, you are saying that it is impossible for a being to exist outside of your 3 dimensions of experience and scoffing at those who do. That seems equivalent to saying “If I can’t see it, it’s not there.”
The claim there is some god somewhere is a very wild claim. Just because most of the world is so gullible they believe it, does not make this claim any less wild.
A rational person requires fantastic evidence for fantastic claims. What REAL evidence is there for any god? There is none, not a thing. All the theists got is “I’m to dumb to figure out the natural world, so everything must be magic.” That’s only evidence for the laziness, ignorance, and gullibility of theists.
Report comment to moderator
To me, Roman Catholicism is as far from true religion as Mormonism is, yet I could see myself voting for a candidate of either religion. I would even vote for a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu if he/she held the same political views I hold. Why, I would vote for an atheist. As has often been mentioned here, we are voting fro a president, not a pastor. If someone is going to vote based on the religion of the candidate, then I would rather that voter stayed home!
Report comment to moderator
Wow Peter L. Except for your implication there is a “true” religion, that’s the most common sense I have ever seen coming from a Christian. Please keep up the good work.
Report comment to moderator
Abortion rights
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02
“Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society This can’t continue.”Speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life Mother’s Day Pioneer Valley Dinner, 5/10/07
Amendment to ban gay marriage
“Mitt does not support it…As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.”Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 3/22/02
“When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision.”Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07
Reagan Republicanism
“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”Boston Herald, 10/27/94
“Ronald Reagan is … my hero. … I believe that our party’s ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan’s brand of visionary and courageous leadership.”Boston Globe, 1/19/07
Desire to serve in Vietnam
“I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam…”Boston Herald, 5/2/94
“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”Boston Globe, 6/24/07
ELECTION 2008
2002 Romney flier promotes ‘gay’ rights
Candidate reportedly handed out leaflet at Boston ‘Pride’ parade
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57786
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t the Mormon church have a record of its elders conveniently getting messages from God when it is time to “adjust” their church beliefs?
Going from plural wives to singular wives?
Letting blacks become members of their church?
Romney has just accelerated the calibration process a little and skipped the middle man (Mormon elder) a bit.
Report comment to moderator
@RN: “I suspect reality is a lot more complicated than people think. With all due respect, I think the analogy you gave just scratches the surface of how complicated reality really is. For real.”
I agree.
@Qwerty: “What REAL evidence is there for any god? There is none, not a thing. All the theists got is “I’m to dumb to figure out the natural world, so everything must be magic.” That’s only evidence for the laziness, ignorance, and gullibility of theists.”
That, my friend, can just as easily be flipped on its head and still be just as valid an “argument”:
“What REAL evidence is there for no god? There is none, not a thing. All the atheists got is “I’m too smart to bother with spiritual stuff, so everything must be natural.” That’s only evidence for the laziness, ignorance, and gullibility of atheists.”
“There is no god” is also a fantastic claim that needs fantastic evidence to be believed by a rational person. Due to you being so deeply steeped in your “faith” as it were, it may not seem like a fantastic claim to you, but it is just as difficult a task to prove as what you say I cannot prove.
Report comment to moderator
“There is no god” is also a fantastic claim…
There is no pink elephant orbiting Pluto. Would you call that a fantastic claim Derek? Do I have to have faith to say there’s no pink elephants circling planets? The evidence for your invisible magic man in the sky is as improbable and has as much evidence as an orbiting pink elephant. Just because somebody dreams up some nonsense, that could never have any real evidence, and is nothing more than wishful thinking, or a lazy non-solution for some problem, is no reason to call a denial of that nonsense a fantastic claim.
If somebody comes up with a goofy idea, he should prove it. Until he comes up with powerful evidence, it’s fair to call the goofy idea nuts.
Report comment to moderator
Ha ha, pink elephants, eh? I see you get into these discussions frequently.
“If someone comes up with a goofy idea, he should prove it.”
The audience of an idea lends to its “goofiness”, not necessarily the idea itself. “There is a god” is only a goofy idea when announced in the presence of an individual like yourself. “There is no god” is a goofy idea when announced in the presence of a pastor or theologian. “There are pink elephants” is goofy when announced in the presence of an earthling who only ever sees gray ones. Not sure where in the universe this might not be goofy, but it very well may be pluto.
So, on a website largely dedicated to Christian values, in the context of many Christians (who, by the way, believe in God), you’ve just come up with a goofy idea, so prove it. Until you come up with powerful evidence, it’s fair to call this goofy idea nuts.
Honestly, I don’t expect you to prove anything. I’m just saying that you can’t expect us to have evidence that meets your expectations and in the same breath say you don’t need to provide evidence for yours.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!