Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Welcome to the work week!
Today’s quote is from a novelist: “Too much thought is bad for the soul, for art, and for crime. It is also a sign of middle age.”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top101 Comments to “Whirled Views 1.28”
Good morning folks! I just wanted to thank you all again for your sweet words of wisdom last Friday when I came on here and vented…Many of you were virtual Titus 2 women to me!
I have my focus back on the Lord now, so I feel strengthened again. The music of Chris Tomlin really ministers to me, and as I was listening to some of his old songs, it reminded me that God is all I need, even if dear hubby is sometimes less than perfect! Gee, I knew that, but it helps to be reminded!
Blessings on your week, all!
Report comment to moderator
A sign of middle age??? So, that explains it….
The point in which I started becoming more analytical about my life, directly corresponds to the accumulated time elapsed since March 31st, 1961, my day of birth.
Sheeesh, and all this time I thought I was getting a bit smarter every day.
BAAAAH HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAA
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t been able to think in …let’s see how old is my son… four years and eight months.
Report comment to moderator
KBells don’t worry. He will start school and some not all of your brain cells will start to regenerate.
Cheryl D. I left a msg for you at the end of yesterdays Whirled Views.
Report comment to moderator
Justus331: “A sign of middle age??? So, that explains it….”
I had the exact same thought!
KBells’ post reminds me of when my sister who had three kids relatively close together called us and said: “I just want to talk to someone over the age of 5.” She went back to being a teacher once her kids were in school fulltime, so there is a future for you KBells!
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I plan to go back to work when he starts to school, so I have seven months to construct a résumé with my new limited parental vocabulary. “No!”, “Stop!”, “Come here!”, “Why did you do that?” And dialogue from Scooby Doo.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour, I’m glad that you have regained some peace, but I still don’t think that you should simply tolerate verbal abuse from your husband. That’s not God’s way. Please talk to somebody face to face that can help you. If you don’t want to do it for your own sake, then do it for your kids. I was one of those kids, and believe me it’s damaging to see your father run down your mother.
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
We’ve had some disagreements over the age of Unitarianism in this nation for which my newest post tries to explain some of the reasons. Because Unitarianism was considered “heresy” or “infidelity” it had to for the most part remain in the closet until the rights of conscience were more firmly established, one of the projects of America’s Founders, a disproportionate number of whom were theological unitarianism. For instance, in 1815 Jedidiah Morse an orthodox figure wrote a pamphlet attacking Unitarianism which he described as only 30 years old, and sent a copy to the proud Unitarian John Adams. Here is Adams’ reply:
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/01/jefferson-was-not-open-heretic-some.html
Report comment to moderator
KBells, you want to teach in dog obedience school? (only kidding!)
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour, I just reread your post from the other day, and I hope you take KyleA’s post of today to heart. I don’t know if it is possible that you have substituted your current medical problems for your earlier one, but your earlier experience leads me to believe that you should be encouraged with positive reinforcement rather than what your husband uses to essentially put you in your place, or where he thinks your place is. He’s using an unacceptable tactic. He’s supposed to be protecting you, building you up, not putting you down. And Kyle’s right — your kids shouldn’t see that.
Report comment to moderator
It’s very rare for me to agree with Kyle A and NJLawyer, and especially both in the same thread, but here I do.
At the risk of poking my nose into someone else’s personal business, MomOfFour, I’ve known people in that situation. Putting up with that kind of behavior only ensures that it will continue and likely worsen.
Report comment to moderator
For those of you in churches with young people needing to raise funds for missions trips (or even Boy Scouts needing money for camp), may I suggest an idea that’s been working beautifully at our church?
The young adults–college and above–are going to be making a second trip to Nicaragua this summer to run an eyeglass clinic with the local Rotary (our senior elder is a Rotarian). To raise support, two Saturdays a month they work in teams doing “whatever you need us to do.”
All sorts of odd jobs have come their way, both this year and last when they did it as well–from cleaning gutters for the elderly, to spreading bark for me last spring, to reading one of our pastor’s text books into a casette recorder so he could listen while on a long drive. Last weekend they cleaned out a house for a woman moving into assisted living and I think they’ve even done some babysitting.
We then write a check to the church for however much we feel God is leading us. We probably can’t deduct it from our income tax, but it gets needed chores done, funds their mission project and everyone so far is happy. And the folks in our congregation are really behind this idea of getting some practical work done.
Not to mention the people in Nicaragua who will get an eye exam and glasses for free in July. This year the group will be riding donkeys far into the interior for their project. Vaya con dios!
Report comment to moderator
Lynn was wondering about the decline of comments on these WV threads.
Comment #8 and similar items are one of the biggest blocks to me. Nothing personal Jon Rowe, but I did want to share my view. Big sigh.
Report comment to moderator
It is indeed rare, SteveG, but I often agree with parts of your posts. The truth is when people from opposite sides of the spectrum come together, they should probably be listened to. I am not saying that to upset MomofFour. I will be praying for her, and I hope she feels free to speak up here any time she feels the need. In fact, I would urge her to do so.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want MomofFour to feel we’re “ganging” up on her because I actually feel it’s the opposite but want to share something I’ve been observing in my own family.
I have a nephew with a wife and two small children; in their situation the wife is the aggressive one and she has been very caustic and rude to my nephew on a regular basis to the point that this behavior is showing up in the kids and the way they are mimicing the parents. Their 3 year old daughter has taken to being sarcastic and bossy and demeaning to her 4 year old brother – to watch the little girl in action is to see her mother. It’s so very sad.
And I am praying as well!
Report comment to moderator
#9. NJLawyer LOL. That is a thought. Working with TV people wasn’t much different than working with pets or children.
Report comment to moderator
Why are my comments a “block”? If you don’t like what I have to say you can just ignore me.
Report comment to moderator
John, I agree with VS. Like I told our friend Random Name, this stuff belongs on your own blog.
Report comment to moderator
Indiana has a new program called INSPECT (which stands for something I’ve forgotten). Any time you fill a prescription for a narcotic, the transaction goes into a database. The information is available to subscribers, including physicians and their designees, pharmacists, and law enforcement.
As I see my share of drug seekers, I’ve already found the program useful. I confronted a patient recently after learning that she was receiving narcotics from multiple sources. She’s in rehab now, and I don’t think she would be if I hadn’t busted her.
Still, it doesn’t feel, um, upstanding, I guess. I’m sneaking around, looking for information the patient would rather not reveal.
What do you think? Is this program a helpful tool or an unwelcome intrusion?
Report comment to moderator
StuBob,
I’m sure it was an unwelcome intrusion from the woman’s point of view, but I hope that after going through rehab she will be grateful for the intrusion. As a physician you are not just a friend or acquaintance. Prescriptions are required for narcotics (among many other legal drugs) because they do have such a potent effect on the body, and their use is to be only under a doctor’s supervision. By getting the narcotics from multiple sources she was nullifying the intended effect of the limitation (narcotics being by prescription only). As a society we seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on to what extent we should prevent other people from hurting themselves (though in many cases they do become a burden on society, and drug use is certainly one of those areas), but if we’re going to limit narcotics by requiring prescriptions, it only makes sense to have a system like this that prevents abuses.
Report comment to moderator
momoffour please do not feel bad for sharing with us. We are a community and we are here for you. I have been in similar shoes in the past. It is a thousand wonders I never developed an eating disorder. My ex-h used to continually tell me “Tonights the night. I am going to kill you” He WAS joking but even after I begged him to stop, he continued. I told him if anything ever happened to me the real killer would get away with it because EVERYONE had heard him say this. Eventually it eats away at you and words are worse because you keep repeating them to yourself. These things can escalate. George never physically abused me and to this day I don’t believe he ever would, but I had a woman in group therapy (who had been a therapist herself before she became ill with lupus) come to me one night and tell me it was only a matter of time.
There are some excellent on line support groups. I am posting on a co-dependent site but for anonminity I cannot share with you which one. Good luck and stay with us for the support you can get here.
Kim
Report comment to moderator
VS: I don’t have a problem with Jon Rowe bringing up Unitarianism here. Perhaps his post could’ve been shorter, then pointed interested parties to his own blog (hint, hint.) Still, this is an open thread.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – Because there is SO MUCH of it. And I do ignore them – just seems that it overtakes a thread when you post such long comments and then so many of them and it seems to be a lot of repeat.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, I know you don’t have a problem – I was just telling you why some of us don’t seem to be commenting much on the WV. And again, nothing personal against Jon.
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
That is truly an awful thing for a husband to say. It’s possible to say something really stupid as a joke, without thinking about what you’re saying, but when the person asks you to stop, and you don’t, it’s no longer a joke. (I have a family member who used to dish out the most hurtful jokes, but dissolve into tears at much less coming to her.)
This is why I applaud married couples who have chosen never to use the word “divorce” even as a joke–it’s too easy for the joke to become a dwelt-upon option. If the option is not there, even as a joke, the commitment is stronger. Joking about killing someone may be a less problematic joke simply because it’s more obvious it would never happen, or it could be a subtle threat–and if the spouse says, “Don’t,” then it needs to stop!
Report comment to moderator
I too ignore Jon’s posts–and sometimes that means ignoring a whole thread, once he and someone else start a dialogue.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I for one always appreciate Jon Rowe’s comments – and it is easy enough to just scroll past them if not interested.
He has been very helpful to me: I have learned a number of things from Jon. For instance, George Washington refused to take communion later in his life; this peculiarity caused no end of trauma and hand-wringing by some of the ministerial contingent of his time. George, being ever reticent, did not divulge the reasons why he refused to take communion.
Like Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, however, Jon is not afraid to go boldly into new and uncharted territory. Perhaps, Jon Rowe speculates, since there is no evidence, it was because he (George Washington, not Captain Kirk) secretly was – get this – NOT an orthodox Christian. In fact, Jon pretty much DETERMINES from the single fact that old George refused to take communion that, for all his other sterling qualities, he was NOT a Christian. Well, at least such as us bad fundyalogicals of the modern era would accept. For these deviations, presumably we would burn him at the stake (or at least stop sending him Christmas cards, which is just as theologically damning and not as messy).
Anyway, this speculation by Jon is a daring leap of deduction (so to speak) and all in the right direction (revisionism/minimalism) by the smarmy well-connected set in current academic circles, so it is both SIMULTANEOUSLY a) daring and b) guaranteed to ensure promotion and tenure, and invitations to all the best cocktail parties at the faculty club. Why, it is a win-win situation.
(Except for George, who never gets any say because he is dead and he was reticent while he was alive which proves that one should always run ones mouth as much as possible when one is alive so that one is not an enigma when one is dead, which can lead to all sorts of nonsense being floated about ones beliefs or lack thereof.)
I, Drill, am not sure, however. Perhaps George was really a secret Buddhist (Buddhist don’t take communion, you see.) However, I have a hard time imagining George Washington sitting cross-legged gazing at his navel. So maybe he just had gout and didn’t feel like kneeling for six hours while some Anglican Priestly Nabob, weighted down with two hundred pounds of clerical robes and jewelry nattered on, up front in a hot and crowded church. Or maybe he was just plain ornery, like my Grandfather.
Those are real possibilities too, you know, that I just thought up on the spot. But I bet I STILL won’t be invited to any of those fancy cocktail parties.
Report comment to moderator
As Cheryl says, we never say “divorce,” even jokingly. However, my wife (SWMBO) has been known to say something like, “You go ahead and do that. And after you’re done, have your lawyer call my lawyer.”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks everyone for your feeback. Because Lynn is the moderator, I will take her advice (or hints). I post here to test my ideas to a skeptical audience. If you have any suggestions for better places to post, I’m all ears (I post at Townhall as well). Though I’m a libertarian, because folks on the pro-evolution, anti-ID side of the battle link to my work (Ed Brayton) I get a lot of leftists who read my work and I instruct them on reasons why I think Jefferson et al. were not Deists, why they believed in an active personal God. So I’ve got points with which both sides — religious right and secular left — are skeptical and I’m trying to bounce ideas off of both sides.
Re Washington & communion, Drill makes some valid points, though I would note, I’m not the first to put forth the notion that because Washington avoided communion, he probably wasn’t an orthodox Christian. In reality, a long line of scholars, most notably Paul F. Boller, have concluded this. This is the prevailing view in the historical academy as well.
Report comment to moderator
Boycott shampoo! Demand real poo!
Report comment to moderator
Here is Dr. Gary North’s assessment of GW & communion. Even though he’s a bit extreme (he’s a theonomist), his assessment is consistent with the academy’s belief that GW avoided communion because he didn’t believe in what the represents: Christ’s Atonement. Though North’s assessment is a bit harsh:
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
Report comment to moderator
When I see Jon Rowe’s picture and a post beginning with the usual “Friends” I just scroll on by. I suppose he posts here because he doesn’t get enough traffic at his own blog. I don’t know, as I have only been to his blog once and was not impressed due to all the high sounding, elitist style writings. I am intelligent, but not an intellectual (which any more seems to go along with elitist). I try not to take myself too seriously and try to avoid those who do. (Take themselves seriously, that is. I couldn’t care less if someone wants to take me seriously.) So, if anyone cares, click my name and go read my sometimes serious, sometimes not blog.
Report comment to moderator
A sign of middle age? I over-think everything, maybe I’m aging faster than my peers.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Here’s a (hopefully) helpful hint:
Think ‘theatrical trailer’. Let your posts be short and for the purpose of enticing a reader to click on to your blog.
You can preach ‘em hungry, or you can preach them full. But folks who are full, don’t go back for more.
Now I, personally, do not turn my mind to the subjects you are most interested in. They aren’t my thing. But, that’s just me.
Best Wishes
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
In any churches I’ve attended, a member is free to partake or not. There are biblical guidelines for times when a person should not partake. I’ve never heard of excommunicating someone for refusing communion, and would find it odd to do so.
I know of a situation where a believer quietly left before communion each week. I wondered his reason, but didn’t know him well enough to ask. Well, after that I came up with what I think was the reason: the church offered both grape juice and wine, and he was struggling with addiction issues. Later the church started serving only grape juice on his side of the church, and he started staying for communion; I assume the two things are connected.
We probably will never know why G.W. didn’t partake. And I for one don’t think we need to know.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding George Washington: At that time it was probably wine and served from a chalice not individual little cups. Perhaps he didn’t want someone elses backwash. Could be just that simple.
Also if you are a struggling alcoholic the sign to the priest or chalice bearer is to criss cross your arms over your chest with a hand on the opposite shoulder. The priest stops and says a special blessing over you.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I just read over the rest of Rants and Raves and just wanted you to know that I didn’t think you were blaming Mom of Four.
I think the comment about women being all-to-often blamed was less an indictment on your comment, and more of a precaution to assure that Mom of Four wouldn’t just shoulder the blame. Also, it was an admission that unfortunately, this happens too often.
In other words, you had no need to apologize. And I’m posting now because I think a little clarification can go a long way.
Mom of Four,
All of that said, I hope this conflict is resolved to everyone’s healing, growth and satisfaction.I am positive that it can, and hopeful that it will.
Even if you forgive, speaking lovingly and honestly to your husband about it. That could help. I also think he needs some accountability in how he handles his anger at peak times. A good, Christian, male friend could do that for him.
All the best.
Am keeping you in prayer.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks again for the feedback. Again, I’ll try to keep my posts as pithy as possible in the future. I’ve already explained why I post here v. my own blog. It’s for a different type of feedback not traffic issues. My group blog, btw, gets 864 daily page visits and 1,294 page views. In the few years we’ve been up, we’ve had a total of 647,496 page visits, and 1,074,056 page views. My own blog posts have been linked to by among others Andrew Sullivan, Eugene Volokh, Randy Barnett, Reason’s Hit and Run, Eric Alterman, Crooks & Liars, and Boing Boing.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps there was something George Washington didn’t think he could be forgiven for having done, or he couldn’t make amends where he should have but just couldn’t and didn’t want to take Communion because he took it very seriously. Perhaps he didn’t feel right in his heart about something. I don’t think you can conclude that he wasn’t a Christian from his refusal to take Communion.
Jon Rowe, I don’t always engage you with your posts, but I have learned a great deal from you and would miss you if you didn’t post here. I enjoy the historical posts most. Unitarianism doesn’t do much for me.
Report comment to moderator
Hi friends. Just so you know, I didn’t take anyone’s comments from my discussion last week as negative. You *all* were very helpful in this situation. Blessings, and thanks for the offerend prayers.
Report comment to moderator
Hey y’all…
Does anyone else have any luck with the search tool on this website? I don’t ever seem to get the results I want.
I posted this in a very recent thread yesterday and wanted to check back on it this morning:
So I went to check on it, but couldn’t remember what thread it was on. (Yeah, I know, I could remember where it was… but that’s a different technical problem.) So I ran a search for “logic” (among other things). But I never did find the post using the search tool. I finally found it by picking it as the only one I hadn’t looked at….
I invite you all to try and find where I made that post using any of the words in that quote….
Report comment to moderator
Not to boast BUT in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that extensive genealogical research (performed by a helpful and trustworthy firm in Nigeria specializing in that sort of thing) has shown that my distant but direct ancestor in the late 1700’s had an ACTUAL first-hand kind of relationship with George Washington. Which makes me kind of authoritative on this particular topic, if you know what I mean. Not to boast, of course.
It seems that my ancestor was (very briefly) a sort of waiter in a sort of Inn in Virginia around 1787 when General/President George Washington and aides rode in.
My ancestor (let us call him Very Old Drill) was actually privileged to light and hold a match for a cigar that the General had placed between his lips, shortly after he had retired from the dining table.
Unfortunately for Very Old Drill, he accidentally held the match to close and caught the General’s wooden teeth on fire, and was shortly thereafter sacked.
But the important thing is that Very Old Drill KNEW George Washington, however briefly. It is indeed humbling to know that one is related to such an important person as my ancestor.
So that is why I feel strongly about George Washington and also am a big proponent of fire prevention and safety, especially for people with wooden teeth or other wooden body parts, like pirates with wooden legs.
You see, I hope you people are learning important cutting-edge really factual historically accurate information from me too, and not just from stuffy ol’ Jon Rowe.
Report comment to moderator
Today’s quote is by Homer Simpson:
So what do I win?
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
You can brag all you want, but until you have been a pirate with a wooden leg, you can’t be called an expert, nor proponent about either pirates or wooden legs.
Well then, you can be a proponent of anything, can’t you?
But, I don’t believe that part about it being an accident.
And MIM, You don’t win nothing for Homer Simpson.
Report comment to moderator
Thinking too much in middle age?
Could it be because we have to spend so much time trying to remember what we were just going to say or do? And even trying to remember what we were trying to remember!
Report comment to moderator
This was good, Drill, but I still laugh when I think about the Aerostar story. Keep ‘em coming.
Report comment to moderator
ATTN: Mumsee, EYG and others – I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I thought Mumsee was blaming MomofFour either!
Thank you for clarifying that EYG! I quite often post in haste or don’t always word things quite like I wish I could!
Report comment to moderator
Thinking too much? Sometimes I feel like I don’t even know how to think anymore!
Report comment to moderator
StBob #19- That kind of program could have helped a friend who attempted suicide. She was even taking meds prescribed for her dogs! It’s not sneaky-peeky spying. It’s a physician knowing a patient’s whole profile before prescribing medication.
Report comment to moderator
#38 Jon Rowe:
Now that was way more than I needed to know. I’m going back to scrolling past you.
Report comment to moderator
#41
Make It Man,
No luck finding your comment using the search feature.
It would appear that it is effective in finding words used in the original post that starts a thread. Naturally if you use words in your comment that were also used in the post it’ll be easy enough to find. But as our conversations here tend to wander far afield – and I have had the same experience of having commented but don’t remember what thread because it wasn’t exactly on the topic that started the thread – the search feature doesn’t appear to be any help in tracking those down. (And of course if you knew what thread it was you wouldn’t be searching to begin with…)
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Personally, I read what you post regarding Unitarianism but skip the rest. I had an uncle who was very active in his Unitarian church, so it is something that has always interested me. I am interested in religious history but not in the beliefs or practices of any particular individual, so I have little interest in the attempts to classify some historical figure or other in this religious box or that one, especially as the “boxes” they had back then were different from the ones we have today. It’s an interesting discussion in general terms, but I lose interest in the nitty-gritty (which I realize is very important to scholars, but I’m not a scholar in that sense).
Report comment to moderator
Okay, okay, Jon Rowe has a web site.
Well, I had a web site once TOO, you know. It had a high-res 5 BGTH bandwidth; very impressive, actually.
I had almost five hits per year (the high point), including one hit that was not even from someone in my own family. (Okay, that one was accidental – it turned out that it was an inebriated dentist in Zambia looking for information on new types of dentist drills.) Some famous websites linked directly to my website too, like ‘Composting Eggplants:Q&A’ and ‘Web Cam on Drying Paint’.
Anyway, unfortunately I had to close the web site down. Barney the Dinosaur and some of his buddies hacked into it and pasted up inflammatory anti Intelligent Design reptilian messages all over it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s an open thread, and people complain about Jon Rowe discussing what he wants? Yet they all rave about Drill’s incessant, unfunny, boring, page filling japeries.
BTW, Janie is supposed to drop by WV and tell us why she thinks Mormons don’t burn in Hell. Hope no one minds.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, re comment #10 under “Mormon leader dies”:
I don’t presume to know who does or does not “burn in hell” as you put it. I realize that some people do try to figure all this out from the Bible and make pronouncements about it. However, I am not convinced we can or should try to know God’s mind to that degree. What I do know is that, for myself, I’ve chosen to receive assurance of my own salvation by trusting in Christ’s atoning sacrifice for my sins.
I have lived among Mormons most of my life. They, too, believe that Christ died for their sins. In addition to that, they have some theology that I don’t subscribe to and find a little strange. But I have experienced them to be, for the most part, sincere and loving people and I have a lot of respect for the way they live. I guess you could say I find that the ones I know seem to display what the Bible calls the “fruits of the Spirit”.
God is both sovereign and gracious, and he will do with all of us in the end what he sees just and merciful. As to whether I will “fit in” here if I don’t assume Mormons are going to “burn in hell”, I don’t know. There does seem to be quite a wide variety of people around here.
Report comment to moderator
Gosh, I DO fit in! I think Drill is very funny and Jon Rowe is pretty boring. Especially when he’s telling us how many hits his website gets and all the famous ones that link to his.
Report comment to moderator
Drill is at least funnier than Jon Rowe. And they’re both funnier than Night Train.
Report comment to moderator
That was really uncalled for and hurtful, Kbells.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I’m just pulling your leg, Kbells.
Report comment to moderator
1)..I would like for some one to show me some doctrinal belief of Mormonism that disqualifies them from salvation, using our NT as a reference.
2)..What I see from some people is akin to tribalism. Constitution be damned.
I don’t care if someone worships a Coors light bottle cap..as long as he guarantees me my right to worship God how I see fit.
I don’t want to live in a theocracy.
Your version of Christianity is most likely different in some ways than mine.
I don’t want this country to be led in any particular denominational direction, via political action
Christ will set up his own kingdom on earth.
Let’s worry about running our country, which is facing serious issues, right now.
I think that refusing to vote for a candidate, simply over his religious affiliation is absolutely insane..and irresponsible.
(and please…no ridiculous comparisons between electing a muslim and a mormon)
I don’t care how many wives so and so’s great great grandfather had.
Let’s worry about the best way to govern ourselves. Let’s leave the judging to the judge.
Report comment to moderator
That was said in response to comments in the Mormon Leader Dies thread.
Report comment to moderator
Funny is in the eye of the beholder.
Report comment to moderator
I cannot BELIEVE that NightTrain accuses me of JAPERY. I have never even BEEN to Japan. Sure, I drink TEA but never out of those ridiculous little delicate bone china cups. I ALWAYS drink it out of a big plastic John Deere mug. And I don’t SIP it politely either, like the Japanese do. I GUZZLE it and make sure I slurp alot.
Anyway, I categorically deny that I never ever have not nor will in the future ever never practice JAPERY.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks to NJ Lawyer et al. for the kind words. I’ll try to be funnier as well when I post. Didn’t I share with you guys the post on Robert Reed that Boing Boing linked to?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Drill. I think the correct term is “Asian-Americanery”. Don’t want to be all PC police on ya, but facts is facts.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, is that the one abour Reed writing long, angry memos to the writing staff of The Brady Bunch, explicating the differences between Comedy, Farce, Burlesque, etc., and expounding on “internal consistency” and “the maintenance of the suspension of disbelief”, etc? I read that from somewhere. It was sad and hilarious at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
Not trying to change the subject..
But I just saw my first genuine political ad of the year.
It was from the hobbit.
Un-believable.
Report comment to moderator
MR MEANER,
“I would like for some one to show me some doctrinal belief of Mormonism that disqualifies them from salvation, using our NT as a reference.”
I’ll give you one example (even though there are many) for the sake of brevity.
It is by grace that we are saved, AFTER ALL WE CAN DO.
2 Nephi 25:23
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God— NOT BY WORKS, so that NO ONE CAN BOAST.
Ephesians 2:8,9
I think you know which reference is from the NT.
Report comment to moderator
(Not knowing the particulars of Mormon doctrine)
I’d have to ask, does anything in their text suggest that they do not believe that God “gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”?
Seriously..If there is something there, I wouldn’t mind knowing.. though it wouldn’t effect whether or not I’d vote for him.
Man..
Your comments always make me want to begin a bible discussion..
While it’s true that you are saved only by faith..you are rewarded only by your works.
Report comment to moderator
That’s it. I might have been the source for it.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. I’m absent for about a week and when I come back we have Comment Preview again (and other changes, it seems). Guess I should take off more often!
Report comment to moderator
MR MEANER,
They qualify only begotten Son by saying he is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. Because according to them, we are all the Father’s spirit children before we are born in the flesh on earth.
(I have a long commute from work so I won’t be able to post for a while)
Report comment to moderator
“he is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. Because according to them, we are all the Father’s spirit children before we are born in the flesh on earth.”
I have to say that I agree with that statement entirely.
(I realize that will be a minority opinion…but one that is backed up by scripture)
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, the Mormons I know do indeed believe that God’s Son Jesus Christ died for their sins, and that believing that is necessary for salvation. The theological problem is regarding some beliefs about the nature of God, the future of humans (they can become “gods” of other worlds)and the nature of heaven, and such convictions as that baptism is absolutely necessary to the point of their being baptized “by proxy” for unbaptized dead relatives.
As I previously said, I find these beliefs strange, but don’t feel I can judge whether they “disqualify” them for salvation. The Mormons I’ve known personally live exemplary lives and are very loving people.
Report comment to moderator
“Mr. Meaner, the Mormons I know do indeed believe that God’s Son Jesus Christ died for their sins, and that believing that is necessary for salvation”
I guess that’s all that matters as far as we’re able to judge.
I can’t say how weird their beliefs are to me personally. But I can say that from what I’ve seen from other various doctrines, their speculation on what will happen to our souls in the distant future, is no more ridiculous that what some teach will happen to our souls upon departing flesh.
Oh boy..I’ve probably started something, now.
” and such convictions as that baptism is absolutely necessary to the point of their being baptized “by proxy” for unbaptized dead relatives”
I’ve always been confused about that one. I’ve known Christian sects. that practice baptism for the dead… I don’t get that one..
Is that a Mormon practice, too?
Report comment to moderator
There are Christian sects which practice baptism for the dead? I never heard that. Which ones?
Report comment to moderator
Some people don’t appreciate Martin Luther King Day. Not sure why Luke hasn’t brought this story to our attention.
http://snipurl.com/1yh2k
Just imagine the uproar if a bunch of white kids had done this.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never heard of excommunicating someone for refusing communion, and would find it odd to do so.
Cheryl D., this is probably due to the fact that church discipline is rarely (if ever) practiced in churches anymore (excommunication would be the last step in the discipline process, btw, per Matthew 18). But, just to give a bit of historical perspective, when I was pastoring a rather old Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in northern Mississippi, I would peruse the old minutes of session from time to time (always a bit laborious, as the handwriting could be difficult to decipher). I remember one meeting (this would be mid- to late-1800’s) where two church members were called to appear before the elders because they had missed the Lord’s Supper (presumably on more than one occasion). Of course, they were not immediately excommunicated on the spot (almost a straw man to suggest so), but the elders were doing their duty of watching over the flock. Frequently absenting oneself from the Lord’s Supper was often viewed as a possible sign of some unconfessed sin in the life of the individual (as sin that needed to be dealt with). Of course, in our day, it could simply be laziness — but that’s something that needs to be dealt with too.
On a side note, when I was in seminary, communion was sometimes served at chapel, but I did not participate during those chapel services. It was not done properly (not according to the standards of our denomination), since there was no spiritual oversight being offered in conjunction with the administration of the LS (i.e., no ordained body existed who could oversee the spiritual condition of the students — communion services are supposed to be conducted under the authority of the session of the local church). I was advised by my pastor at the time not to participate, so I did not. No one ever asked me why, btw.
Report comment to moderator
#76..NT
Well, it was practiced by most of Christianity until the 4th century.
The neo-apostolics still practice it today. It is still practiced by those who carry on the Coptic tradition. I have heard this debate, and it’s relation to the verses in 1st Cor. Ch.15.
It’s really not that uncommon to hear this subject discussed. I’ve heard people of many different denominations that were confused about that verse.
It’s just a mis-interpretation of one verse (29) that throws everyone off. That doesn’t mean that Mormons, Neo-apostolics, or Coptic Christians are any less “saved” than someone who realizes what that verse is really saying.
Report comment to moderator
This is what Washington’s own minister, Dr. Abercrombie, had to say on Washington’s avoidance of communion:
In a letter, dated November 29, 1831:
The Deists and Unitarians in the Church were the ones who got up and walked out on the Lord’s Supper because they didn’t believe in what the act stood for. John Marshall, like Washington, was one such Anglican/Episcopalian. Here is his daughter on the matter:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/10/proto-unitarian-founding-fathers.html
Report comment to moderator
And pretending to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood is disgusting. There’s no other word for it. And some churches believe it actually does turn into his very flesh. How revolting.
Report comment to moderator
“They, too, believe that Christ died for their sins>”
Ah, but in the case of Mormons, Christ’s saviourhood is more as an example than a substitutionary death. And therein lies the whole problem.
Being primarily an example of how we can merit becoming Gods, and having God die in our place so we can be redeemed from a fallen state are two distinctly different beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
MR MEANER,
#73 – You agree with the statement about us being spirit children of the Father prior to our birth. So do you believe that the Father has a divine wife as the Mormons do? And how is that backed up by scripture? Just curious.
To your question about salvation -
Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins. Murder and repeated adultery are exceptions. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.)
Report comment to moderator
When I was a Baptist, we had communion every 3 months. And every service, which was very solemn, we’d sing a cappella There Is A Fountain Filled With Blood. Many people would weep openly; I sometimes did myself. But have you ever actually, really, paid any attention to the words of that song? I can’t believe I used to love singing about a fountain spurting blood and shoving “sinners” into it. The imagery is like a Freddy Krueger slasher movie.
Gross.
Report comment to moderator
“So do you believe that the Father has a divine wife as the Mormons do?”
Nope…did not realize that was an element of their belief. My belief in the pre-existance of the soul would be described quite differently.
“There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God”
Can’t agree with that either.
That is, in fact, nutty.
But they’re entitled to be nutty.
My defense is of Mitt Romney as being fit for president. I’m not going to endorse his religion.
I just feel that it shouldn’t keep “main stream” Christians from voting for him.
Report comment to moderator
My dear VS,
You were just pointing out that women too often get blamed. That’s how I took it, and it’s true.
You were just fine. This was just a little clarification after rereading Rants and Raves.
It’s always nice to hear from you!
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner – 85
If Romney believes this stuff, which he does . . . . . do you think Romney could believe a whole lot of other funny stuff?
Does the a Presidential candidate of the United States believe that:
“God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115
If Romney doesn’t believe it, lets hear from him, we are all WAITING.
Have you checked out what the Mormons believe? You have a real SURPRISE waiting if you haven’t.
Report comment to moderator
My main point was that I’m more concerned with Mitt’s view on taxes, border security, fighting the WOT, reducing govt. spending, etc,. than I am concerned about the particulars of his beliefs..as long as they’re not repressive or violent.
I’m not too concerned on the particulars of the Mormon faith. I know enough to know that I’m not one, but I still respect their moral ethic (as a whole)
I have to say, though… that there are certain elements of denominational Christianity that I find to be as nutty, and scripturally unfounded as the ridiculous notion that God had a “divine wife”.
I’m just looking at it like this; Which do you want as a conservative POTUS candidate..McCain, a “maverick”(re liberal) who has changed his religious denomination in the past year (if that means anything…or Mitt Romney, a guy who has been as conservative as a person governing Massachusetts can possibly be, who has a religion that you think is nutty?
It’s no contest, for me
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner,
I grew up in Utah and got to know Mormon beliefs quite well, although I don’t have their texts nearby to quote from.
If you think about, the basics of any belief system are: 1) who God is; 2) who we are; and 3) what is the relationship between us.
In that framework, the LDS church (Mormonism) and orthodox Christianity are vastly different.
The LDS believe that “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Basically, God was once a man who lived on another planet, lived a good life following his God, and became a god himself after he died. He is married to our “Heavenly Mother” or many of them. He and his wife/wives have physically reproduced all the people who have ever lived on the world as spirit children in heaven.
All of us in the world are literally “children of God” through being his spirit children. Jesus was the first-born spirit child and Lucifer was born shortly thereafter. On earth, Jesus was conceived by a physical union between God and Mary.
All males have the chance, if they live good lives as Mormons and in the afterlife as well, to become gods of their own universes as well. All Mormon women can be called up by their husbands to join them in the godhood – if the husband chooses to call them up. (A side note: As a woman, I find it sad/humorous that the women’s job in heaven is to be eternally pregnant.)
I think if you shared this with any Mormon missionary, they could not disagree with it, although they may like to word it differently.
Yes, Mormons do tend to live a “good life”. The benefit of growing up in Utah is that the society in general held the same moral standards that Christians do. They have very strong social and religious pressures to perform and live moral lives.
But the doctrines are so far apart from orthodox Christianity as to be heretical. There is no reconciling of the two beliefs because they are diametrically opposed. Either God is who He says in the Bible or is the one the LDS believe – the two are radically different beings.
If you want me to give Biblical quotations for the differences between God of the Bible and the god of the LDS church, I could.
Report comment to moderator
Like I said earlier, Romney can worship a bottle-cap, for all I care, as long as he protects my right to worship God as I see fit.
If we are debating theology, You wouldn’t get many arguments from me, defending Mormonism.
Other than they seem to produce decent citizens.
All though I still say that if they believe John 3:16, they qualify, whatever their belief concerning creation, or their beliefs about the future destiny of their souls, happens to be.
No one has the market cornerd on the truth, when it comes to knowing what happened during creation, and before. Nor do we know what eternity consists of.
Report comment to moderator
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
The Bible clearly tells us who will be saved. Based on this verse,I would have to say that Mormons are not saved. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ was a created being, the brother of Lucifer, or Satan. Mormons, therefore, do not fulfill the requirements for salvation- believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead.
http://www.lifeafter.org/Christian_Mormons.asp
Report comment to moderator
Earlier, Janie said
“Mr. Meaner, the Mormons I know do indeed believe that God’s Son Jesus Christ died for their sins, and that believing that is necessary for salvation”
Do you dispute this?
” therefore, do not fulfill the requirements for salvation- believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead.”
neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I, of couse, disagree with the Archbishop. But apparently some self-professed Christians do agree.
I’m not the judge. I know what I think about it.
But, once again…the point is, what is it about Romney being a Mormon, that makes him a bad POTUS candidate?
Report comment to moderator
“(A side note: As a woman, I find it sad/humorous that the women’s job in heaven is to be eternally pregnant.)”
On a main note, I find it ludicrous that with this same belief the Mormons have reduced God himself to a person who is merely procreating and gathering knowledge.
Mr Meaner,
I think an understanding that one is a sinner in need of salvation is integral to being a christian. What the Mormons believe about this is a totally different thing. Their belief is works based merit, and the Christian belief is that they cannot ever merit salvation. It takes the work of Christ – his substitutionary death (and his imputed righteousness) to actually save us from the wrath of God. The Mormon belief is that we can actually earn our “salvation”. (Salvation from what exactly?)
That being said, I’d pick Romney over several other candidates…
Report comment to moderator
And Night Train…
Do get a grip. The idea that the blood and body is produced by eating bread and wine is totally missing the point of communion. A better understanding would be a suseranity treaty between a King and his Lords. They pledge fealty to him, and he promises his protection.
In the case of God though, he swears that if we do not hold up our end of the bargain, then he’ll take our punishment. His blood symbolized by the wine signifies Jesus substitutionary death. The body of Jesue symbolized by the bread signifies his perfect life, and his imputed righteousness to our account. By participating in this sacrament we as Christians, once again, recognize all of this and we commit to our King.
To focus on transubstantiation is to totally miss the purpose and meaning of this covenenant. You’ve been around long enough not to be sidetracked by misinterpretation.
Report comment to moderator
A better understanding would be a suseranity treaty between a King and his Lords. They pledge fealty to him, and he promises his protection.
Well, yes, that would be a better understanding. So would calling it a way of predicting the lottery numbers. Just about anything’s better than “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. Unfortunately, the passages say nothing about a “suseranity treaty”, and to say that’s what they’re about is about as sensible as saying it’s all about predicting lottery numbers. It’s about “eat my flesh and drink my blood” if words have any meaning.
Report comment to moderator
Right. God has wings and feathers. And law is poetry. And history should be understood to be an allegory… [/sarcasm off]
Words have meaning alright. In this case it’s a deeper meaning using figurative words. I find it hard not to believe that you’re just wilfully misunderstanding the passage. Understanding it to mean real flesh and blood goes against everything Jesus stood for, and makes total hash out of the meaning…
But then again, you like to believe that Sitchen nonsense too… next thing ya know, you’ll be telling us a UFO abducted you and you’ve been mind wiped.
Report comment to moderator
Oh wait… maybe that’s already happened.
Report comment to moderator
NIGHT TRAIN,
Jesus was at the Last Supper alive and well when he said “This is my body” referring to the bread that he just broke and “This is my blood” referring to the wine in the cup he was holding. He didn’t say “This will be”. He was obviously not talking in a literal sense. I understand the Catholic Church believes in a literal interpretation but not all Christians believe that. I find it interesting that you argue at times against literal interpretations and then you use literal interpretations to argue against the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I for one thank God for the fountain filled with the blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins. Because I sure can’t get rid of my own sin in order to enter heaven.
Report comment to moderator
I’m well aware it’s not literal. But it’s still just about the most disgusting “symbolism” or “metaphor” one can imagine.
Report comment to moderator
The ‘works’ which Paul refers to have nothing to do with good deeds or righteous behaviour – merit-based works. The doctrinal teaching of salvation by ‘faith’ alone completely overturns the testimony of the entire Bible.
It arose through two misunderstandings –
(1) an inability to distinguish the Pauline difference between the ‘Spirit’ of the Law and the ‘Works’ of the Law. According to Paul, salvation cannot be earned through keeping the ritual ‘works’ of the Law of Moses – the sacrifical system, keeping Shabbat, the dietary laws, circumcision – all the outward signs separating Jew from non-Jew.
(2) the failure to recognise that neither the Greek word ‘pistis’ nor the English word ‘faith’ convey the same meaning to us as their Hebrew counterpart did to Hebrews. The Hebrew concept of ‘faith’ is not just a mental belief in a proposition but implies persistence, loyalty, unwavering conviction and ‘faithfulness’ to ’someone.’
This inward ‘faithfulness’ is demonstrated by outward ‘works,’ just as Paul himself worked tirelessly for the Kingdom.
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!