Justin Taylor on a ‘tragic mistake’
On Wednesday, our beloved columnist Andrée Seu wrote a column on her observations on Glenn Beck and his faith, which has drawn a lot of attention in the blogosphere. Our friend Justin Taylor wrote a thoughtful response at his Between Two Worlds blog, which we reprint below with Justin’s permission.
WORLD’s position: All of us need editing. Our website editing system failed in regard to Andrée’s post about Glenn Beck. The breadth of response points out confusion concerning Beck and where he stands. Rather than speculating further, we will push to interview him and ask hard questions. One of the hardest aspects of reporting is assessing hearts, so we try not to do it: We look at what individuals do and say rather than attempting to analyze their relationship with God. For a sense of WORLD’s current understanding of the Beck phenomenon, see “Beckoning Christians.”
Justin Taylor: “Andrée Seu’s Tragic Mistake on the Gospel of Glenn Beck”
Not to exaggerate, but reading Andrée Seu’s latest article felt a bit like a punch in the gut. She is one of my favorite writers at World Magazine. She writes with skill, grace, wisdom, and spiritual insight.
But now she is saying that she is convinced Glenn Beck is “a new creation in Christ,” even though he is a practicing and believing Mormon.
It’s tragic that she would believe this, write this, and that World would publish it.
A few short thoughts in response.
First, we should recognize that Andrée Seu’s conclusion is a temptation that is common to all (1 Cor. 10:13a). It is easy to hear passion and mistake it for true spiritual zeal. It is easy to be moved by talk of having faith in Jesus, without asking who the person understands Jesus to be.
Even the great J. Gresham Machen—who became a stalwart warrior against modernistic liberalism—was initially captivated by his systematic theology teacher at Marburg, Wilhelm Herrmann. Machen wrote to his parents in 1905:
The first time that I heard Herrmann may almost be described as an epoch in my life. Such an overpowering personality I think I almost never before encountered—overpowering in the sincerity of religious devotion. . .
My chief feeling with reference to him is already one of the deepest reverence. . . . I have been thrown all into confusion by what he says—so much deeper is his devotion to Christ than anything I have known in myself during the past few years. . . . Herrmann affirms very little of that which I have been accustomed to regard as essential to Christianity; yet there is no doubt in my mind but that he is a Christian, and a Christian of a peculiarly earnest type. He is a Christian not because he follows Christ as a moral teacher; but because his trust in Christ is (practically, if anything even more truly than theoretically) unbounded. . . .
This attraction to passionate commitment even with Bible-denying theology can be hard to combat, but we must resist it at all costs (as Machen learned to do).
Secondly, more than ever we need to be clear that Mormonism is fundamentally incompatible with biblical Christianity—starting with the most basic building block that Christians are Trinitarian monotheists (one God in three persons) and Mormons are polytheists (more than one god). It is a religion founded by a false prophet.
For brief reviews on the differences, see the FAQ I pulled together from the ESV Study Bible, as well as this similar summary comparison. I have been helped in the past by reading Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons, by Ron Rhodes (who wrote the ESVSB essay).
Third, we simply cannot assume the gospel. Several pastors and theologians have been beating this drum for a while now, but it needs to get louder. Is there any better demonstration of this than Ms. Seu’s line, “I can say without hesitation that I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.” Despite what mainline evangelicalism has taught for years, the gospel is not “I trusted in Jesus and he changed my life.” Two things (at minimum) on this topic: (1) Listen to D.A. Carson’s talk, “What Is the Gospel?“, then (2) Read Greg Gilbert’s What Is the Gospel?
Finally, we have to have a grid for thinking through degrees of error, damnable beliefs, essential beliefs, etc. I’ve been helped here by Michael Wittmer’s excellent book, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough. He classifies Christian beliefs into three categories:
- What you must believe,
- What you must not reject, and
- What you should believe.
I asked him to explain the three categories:
In the book of Acts, the bare minimum that a person must know and believe to be saved was that he was a sinner and that Jesus saved him from his sin. As Paul told the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:29-31; cf. 10:43). This is enough to counter the postmodern innovator argument that we can be saved without knowing and believing in Jesus.
But any thinking convert will inquire further about this Jesus. While he may not know much more at the point of conversion than Jesus is the Lord who has saved him, he will quickly learn about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, deity and humanity, and relation to the other two members of the Trinity. Anyone who rejects these core doctrines should fear for their soul.
According to the Athanasian Creed, whoever does not believe in the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus is damned. However, since it seems possible for a child to come to faith without knowing much about the Trinity or the hypostatic union (this is likely not the place where most parents begin), I take the Creed’s warning in a more benign way—that we do not need to know and believe in the Trinity and two natures of Christ to be saved, but that anyone who knowingly rejects them cannot be saved.
The final category is important doctrines which genuine Christians may unfortunately misconstrue. I think that every Christian should believe that Scripture is God’s Word, know its story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, and know something about the nature of God, what it means to be human, and what Jesus is doing through his church. However, many people have been genuine Christians without knowing or believing these things (though their ignorance or disbelief in these facts significantly diminished their Christian faith).
Thus, I believe that every doctrine in this diagram is crucially important for sound Christian faith. And some are so important that we cannot even be saved without them.
If Glenn Beck is a Mormon, he knowingly denies beliefs that one must believe in order to be saved. Let us pray that he leaves this religion in order to embrace the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, and his atoning cross-work so that he has fellowship by grace alone through faith alone with the Triune God.

















Click to Print
Include Comments












back to top320 Comments to “Justin Taylor on a ‘tragic mistake’”
What? You mean all that bunk about Lamanites and Nephites was just made up by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon as an excuse to have a harem of gals?
Say it aint so!
Report comment to moderator
Mickey, what am I missing? Please explain how your
“website editing system failed” in regard to Andree’s opinion on Glenn Beck. That’s so vague, I don’t understand what your trying to say.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Mickey McLean, for writing this and for printing the entire message from Justin Taylor.
I believe that it is true that one cannot be a Mormon, and still follow the Scriptures and our Christ. Hopefully, others will be correctly informed, and learn from this article and the blogs. Still Andree Sue’s many columns and comments are very encouraging and helpful. All of us need feedback from other Brethren in Christ because none of us is perfect. We need each other AND we need the feedback, so please do continue your excellent work, Andree, AND having responses like this is always helpful AND should also continue!
Thank you, too, for all the blogs. Even the one with which I vehemently disagree are can be useful!
Report comment to moderator
“I take the Creed’s warning in a more benign way—that we do not need to know and believe in the Trinity and two natures of Christ to be saved, but that anyone who knowingly rejects them cannot be saved.”
I fail to see how your saved under two different conditions?
As a child you can accept Christ, but a few years later, when someone attempts to explain the Trinity to you, and its rejected, your no longer saved? Eh? How can you be put back into the bondage of sin, that Christ freed you from for a concept that no one fully understands much less at all?
The thief on the cross wasnt even a child. Jesus didnt check his Trinity beliefs before acceptance or reject him afterwards.
Are we better off, not knowing then incase we might reject such a concept?
“If Glenn Beck is a Mormon, he knowingly denies beliefs that one must believe in order to be saved.”
Or he just joined Mormonism to get the girl…we dont know. If Ms. Seu is wrong for assuming he’s an Apollos, chalk your name next to hers for assuming he only believes Mormonism.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, as a child convert myself, I think I can answer that: a child can be saved with childlike faith but without full knowledge of doctrine. Once converted, the child isn’t going to reject biblical truth that is later shown to him. If he does reject the truth later presented, he doesn’t “lose his salvation,” but he does show he didn’t have saving faith in the first place.
Thank you, WORLD, for following up on this. From the comments yesterday, many of us were concerned about this one.
Report comment to moderator
Louise: The “website editing system” is basically me, and I take full responsibility for not taking a closer look at Andrée’s column before posting it to the site.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey, Andree is beloved and I’ve often profitted from her light. I’m just wondering what would have been edited.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to read an interview with Glenn Beck. But in the end, I don’t know that it’s important. A lot of fuss is made about his religion, but I have watched, and sometimes listened, to Beck for a long time. He has not pushed any Mormon philosophy that I have heard. Would it be the same if he were Catholic? When JFK was running for president, many were concerned that the Vatican would move to Rockville.
Do you know what Glenn denies? All I know is what he says, now what someone says about him.
Nobody questions the religion of Rush or Shaun Hennity, or any of the others.
I will ask, as I asked those who attack Rush, What did he say wrong?
Report comment to moderator
The column wouldn’t have been posted?
Report comment to moderator
Did Andree say something wrong?
Report comment to moderator
The tragic mistake is that people spend so much time obsessing over who is and isn’t a “real” Christian, and what defines a “real” Christian, and who’s on and who’s off God’s list of chosen.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
He may not have had it, but what that only amplifies is that it is not some level of knowledge that saves you, but Christ alone who sets the sinner free.
Peter rejected Christ three times in a row.
Report comment to moderator
While I totally agree with Taylor that Mormonism is incompatible with biblical truth, I’m hesitant to make concrete pronouncements about the salvation (or lack thereof) of someone who, while theologically confused, does at least recognize Jesus in some capacity and whose life bears evidence of “fruit”.
Personally I don’t consider Beck’s life to be “full of fruit”, but the point stands without specifically considering Beck’s case.
It comes down to drawing a bright line between “really theologically confused” from “so theologically confused one can’t possibly have salvation”, and IMO that’s a hard thing to do in a way that isn’t at least somewhat arbitrary.
Consider some Catholics who are, in my opinion, seriously theologically misguided, but whom most folks would agree are nevertheless believers. When it comes to Mormonism I’m probably in Taylor’s camp when he suggests its so distorted as to preclude salvation, but I’m not be as certain as he is that the issue can be so easily decided.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like back-pedaling and an attempt at damage control to me.
I’ll reserve further judgment until we get an explanation from Seu or an answer to the question, “What did Seu say that was wrong?”
Report comment to moderator
CHAS
Mormons, Catholics, and most “Evangelicals” are not Christians. You must be born again by the Spirit of God, and with that comes a Spirit-wrought sanctification of the mind and heart through Bible study. Heretical doctrine is a symptom of an unregenerate man. American Evangelicalism/Mormonism/Catholicism is just moralism with Jesus as the CEO.
Report comment to moderator
So, Donahue, do you belong to some small exclusive sect that actually gets it right? Yes, there are unbelievers in all churches, but lumping evangelicals in with Catholics and Mormons makes your point pretty well useless.
Chas, I’d recommend that you read some of the comments on yesterday’s post by Mrs. Seu to see what people take issue with, and why many of us were very concerned that WORLD posted that essay. I’m a long-term subscriber, 10-15 years, and have never been tempted to drop my subscription–though once I let it lapse for a few months for financial reasons. But with yesterday’s column I thought WORLD may well have veered down the wrong path and may soon not be worth subscribing any more. It was the opposite of their choice to stand in controversy in the past, on things such as the stealth Bible. It felt like WORLD was saying, “Don’t rock the conservative boat just before an important election, even if theology has to be set aside for a while.”
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t her’s an editorial column? Why edit it, i want to hear what she thinks and why. Let her defend or retract her remarks on her own. If she thinks those who believe Mormon doctrine are Christians tell me why. If she think Beck as an individual is born again let her explain herself further. If her beliefs are off the reservation then get another writer, but don’t edit her content.
Please don’t be like the ‘mainline media’ who squelch dissenting views. Just put the disclaimer at the end of her column, and let freedom ring. World should have an atheist or Muslim editorial contributor, so we Christians don’t isolate ourselves and instead learn something from them, even if it is only how to better challenge or correct them. No comments section for that column :>)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Yes, I do belong to a small exclusive sect called the Elect. I am not “getting it right” because of anything attibutable to me, but because of God’s saving grace working in me and giving me a knowledge of His truth. Do a little digging into the beliefs of most professing Christians and they will end up confessing that they believe their good works are what justifies them before God—not to mention there will be absolutely no holiness to speak of in their lives.
Report comment to moderator
Donahue, I too am part of the elect, saved by God’s grace alone and standing in Christ’s righteousness alone. (By denomination I’m PCA, a denomination that takes sovereignty and grace very seriously.)
But there is a huge difference between evangelical doctrine and that of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and an even bigger theological jump to Mormonism. Putting them all in one group simply isn’t helpful. One might as well say, “Don’t go to church at all, they’re all bad” and not offer any help to a person in choosing a church–a decidedly unbiblical position.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with John S #17.
Report comment to moderator
Did Beck ever knowingly travel around the country on a bike with another young man wearing an “Elder” badge?
Report comment to moderator
“The views expressed by Ms Seu do not necessarily reflect the views of WMB, its editorial board or advertisers”
That should settle it, no??
Report comment to moderator
Sieu seems to be saying that belief is more verb than noun. This makes sense. Since all the categories of belief on the above diagram involve symbolic beliefs anyway, passion trumps content. Sieu seems to be saying that, given the right theological training, Beck would express the content of his belief properly, and she hopes he gets such instruction.
What’s “tragic” about that?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Works-righteousness is the same no matter what label you attach to it. Don’t confuse what is on most churches Statement of Faith with what is actually taught and believed. Just because the pews are filled with NIVs instead of a Catholic Bible or the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean that their doctrine is any different.
The majority of evangelical churches have nothing to do with the Christ of the Bible—this is not a stretch by any means.
Report comment to moderator
Donahue,
The church is the bride of Christ, His chosen bride. No church gets it perfect; the church is still the means He uses to bring us together as brothers and sisters and His children and worshipers. And yes, Mormon doctrine is VERY different from evangelical doctrine.
I grew up fundamentalist. I understand the tendency to say “Only my church gets it right” or even “All churches, even my church, get it all wrong, and only I myself get it right.” I repented of that form of pride in my twenties, but I have been there. Not saying that is where you are today, but throwing out God’s chosen means of sanctification with a simple “they’re all as bad as Mormons anyway” is unbiblical, minimally. It IS in fact a stretch to say “the majority” of evangelical churches have “nothing” to do with the Christ of the Bible. And it is a stretch on a thread about Mormonism to lump us all together. I’ll say no more.
Report comment to moderator
Donahue, do you realize that Joseph Smith began with the claim that all protestant churches of his day were apostate? It is very dangerous to think that only you and a small group are right about the Church that Jesus is building.
Report comment to moderator
Donahue,
I must confess it sounds like you have been hurt by the church or people within the church. For that I am sorry. You see the error in works-righteousness and prosperity gospel, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
With the same zeal you have against heresy, teach orthodoxy. Don’t make it about what churches or pastors are wrong, make it about what is right. It is like working with money, you know the value of the real thing, because you are exposed only to it, so when fakes roll around you notice the discrepancy.
By no means are we to accept or comply with blatant misinterpretations or mischaracterizations of Scripture, but we are to correct it.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” 1 Timothy 2:16-17 ESV.
Continue to fight the good fight.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, I agree with #22. But without such a disclaimer, and with a history of speaking as “WORLD magazine,” it does look more official than one woman’s private opinion.
Report comment to moderator
On 9/2/10, OneNewsNow posted a editorial by Dr. Jim Garlow, titled “Evangelicals and Glenn Beck.” There was a note with the column, saying that it was origianlly posted before Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in D.C. (OneNewsNow has a simple disclaimer after their editorials.)
The article is about alliances between evangelicals and others for various reasons, if we evangelicals ought to do this, when, and why. A good bit of the article discusses Beck’s religion and the contact and context Dr. Garlow has had with Glenn Beck and his associates. Dr. Garlow seems to believe that Glenn Beck is a Christian, and puts forth sober reasons for his statement. I copied the article into my computer because of Dr. Garlow’s conditions for deciding when and why to ally with those of a different belief. Dr. Garlow seems humble in making his decision, and not the false humility of liberal religionists.
A solid Bible believing, gospel preaching friend of mine who listens often to Glenn Beck cautiously puts forth that he appears to be a Christian, despite his Mormon ties, based on her listening to him over a good length of time.
Interestingly, I have not seen (but haven’t looked for) any of Beck’s defense of his faith, whatever it is. I would like to hear from Glenn himself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t because I think he sees his mission at this time as political, and I don’t say that to in any way disparage him. God has each of us in the place we’re at for His reasons. Glenn Beck is calling people to God and getting a hearing unlike anyone I can remember in recent history.
Personally, I enjoy seeing and reading from non-Christians excellent work that glorifies God and illumines Bible truths and passages–even if they themselves are unaware of it. There are a number of secular songs over the years that point to Jesus, and movies (or isolated scenes) that really teach me about my Christian faith. Simply set them next to the Bible and see where they coincide and where they differ. Use discernment, don’t swallow whole. God says men are without excuse because His truth is in creation, and I believe He’s preserved it in every culture, to be found and embraced by those who are truly seeking Him. Even in the culture of secular talk radio.
Report comment to moderator
On editing: one of the things an editor does is read a piece with “fresh eyes,” and often will ask a writer to clarify exactly what they mean. Sometimes that means a rethink, often it means a rewrite, and occasionally it means, “go back and ask again.”
That’s not censureship, it’s good editing.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, what is with all of the anti-Catholic bigotry here? Not to mention it is based in ignornace. I bet neither of you vociferous detractors have ever set foot in a Catholic church, much less discussed their theology with a priest, bishop, or cathechist. To be clear, the Catholic church does not teach that works save you. They teach that you are saved by God alone (CCC p#169) and that doing good works as Christ instructed (clothe the naked, comfort the widow, feed the hungry, etc.) is a sign that grace is at work in us (CCC p#2005). If you are going to be critical of another faith viewpoint, at least have the social decency to investigate it thoroughly.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey – Thank you. I called WORLD yesterday. Something more needed to be done than a link to an article by Marvin Olasky that was buried in the comments. I remember when Andree Seu first began writing for WORLD. Her writing is not necessarily my style – which is probably a compliment.
I am glad to hear that WORLD is not going down the road of say, a Brian McLaren, but this article with regards to Glenn Beck shot up many red flags about the author. Where do you go from here? We always need to be a discerning reader, but that was one of the reasons that I subscribed to WORLD for 10+ years – to increase my insight. e.g. The “stealth Bible – which is being sold. Take care.
Report comment to moderator
Glenn Beck is a mormon, he states it on his show. For those of you who continue to make claim to how he talks about Jesus – I encourage you to take a look at the beliefs of the mormon church (they use the name Jesus a lot) and compare them to orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity does not add another revelation (i.e. the book of mormon).
Report comment to moderator
#31: If you’re including me among the detractors, I guess I have to defend myself. I attended evening mass occasionally when I was in college, mainly because I liked the peaceful, meditative nature of it. I’ve discussed aspects of Catholic theology at length with practicing Catholics before, though not with a priest. I agree that the Catholic church doesn’t advocate salvation by works. That said, there are a number of other beliefs that I’d consider to fall outside biblical Christianity. To name a few:
1. Veneration of Mary.
2. Praying to Mary or the saints.
3. Papal authority.
4. Purgatory.
5. Necessity of priestly celibacy.
6. Necessity of confession to a priest; significance of works-based penance.
7. “Normative necessity” of Catholicism for salvation.
#7 is interesting, since it basically amounts to the Catholic church having the same view of Protestants; namely that some are saved, but only in spite of their not being Catholic.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Relevant quote: “However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.”
Report comment to moderator
Well ya know, a lot of people were posting comments in response to Andree’s column—comments which said pretty much the same thing as Justin Taylor in his piece, and pretty much just as coherently. It’s too bad those comments weren’t enough and it took someone of Taylor’s stature, along with a “stir in the blogosphere,” to get World to make things right, but I’m glad it did anyway.
And it’s still unbelievable to me that some here believe objections to Seu’s article are based on making an assessment about the veracity of Beck’s conversion—whether he’s a “real” Christian or not. No. The concern is that making and *assumption* that he is, even as he professes to be a Mormon, then lauding him for his Christian piety and virtue, sends a dangerous message to those (including Beck) who may not be aware of the great gulf between Mormon and Christian doctrine. Still, if Beck’s not aware of those differences, he’s really not that bright.
Report comment to moderator
Why the silence from Seu? And Mickey, why take a blanket “responsibility for not taking a closer look at Andrée’s column before posting it to the site” without further comment or explanation?
I’m getting the feeling that World would rather wait for Seu’s post to sink below the fold hoping that the readers will move on and forget about it than to ask and answer the tough questions inspired by Seu’s post.
I am left dissatisfied with World’s way of “making it right” when so much is left dangling in the wind. Seems that some commenters have succeeded in censoring by default. Tsk, tsk. This would have been an excellent opportunity to interact with World editors.
Report comment to moderator
The only tough questions I have are:
Why are we (Christians) so prone to harsh criticism of each other?
If Glen Beck is a believer, how many people are praying for the enormous courage it would take to leave the Mormon church and quite possibly lose his family and friends?
If Glen Beck is not a believer, how can we most effectively share the Gospel with him, and the other LDS people we know?
I had some LDS Missionaries tell me one time that as they frequently rode their bicycles past a certain preacher he would throw rocks at them. No wonder they do not understand Grace. Some christians use rocks, some use words. While Jesus sometimes used blunt words, He earned the right with manifold words and deeds of grace.
Report comment to moderator
Neil,
Have you read the New Testament lately? Do you have a problem with the way Paul treated Peter, or the way even John spoke about people in his letters? If so, you’re not thinking biblically. The way I see this controversy, nobody’s “criticizing” Glen Beck personally. (I’ve had many occasions to wish that we evangelicals were as personally holy as most Mormons are. But that doesn’t make their beliefs true or biblical.) This is simply a doctrinal issue, and doctrinal issues have been debated throughout history since NT times.
Second, you’re begging the question when you claim that this is a criticism of another Christian. Says who?
Your point is well taken that many theologically orthodox evangelicals find their righteousness is condemnation of others rather than in Holy Spirit-inspired love. So because some Christians are sinful, we should stop arguing for the truth of Scripture? If you think so, you have an argument with the Holy Spirit, not us.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been participating on WorldMagBlog for years, and frankly I’m surprised this kind of thing hasn’t erupted sooner. I saw it coming ages ago. The blog has frequently been soft on the essentials in the name of being “welcoming” to non-Christians; and Ms. Seu’s writings have always seemed to me a mixed bag between insightfulness and theological spinelessness. But as someone who believes men and women have essential differences, and that women are prone to subordinate truth to relationships and empathy, I can hardly say this is surprising.
Report comment to moderator
Many Christians wanted Mitt Romney for President.
Not only is he a MORMON, he is a RINO.
Did ANYONE ask themselves how a “Republican” could be GOVERNOR of Massachusetts?
AND ROMNEY put thru healthcare for his state in 2006. (No one EVER mentioned Romneycare when he was running for PRES.)
If he had won, it would have been a win-win for Kennedy.
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L 39
“… and that women are prone to subordinate truth to relationships and empathy, I can hardly say this is surprising.”
WHOA!
I’m not a feminist. I believe that the husband is the head of the household and should be leaders of the church. And I believe that men and women are different.
BUT – Please don’t lump us together as far as this type of discernment goes.
Report comment to moderator
Mrs.N2M, based on his business and CEO experience, among other accomplishments on his lengthy resume, I would have preferred a Pres. Romney over the regime we have now. He admitted the MA health care plan didn’t work the way he wanted. That’s what states are for – such experiments.
I think he might be our best hope in 2012. His Mormon religion and particular beliefs shouldn’t affect his executive decisions. If they do, he’s greatly outnumbered and would probably go out of his way to backtrack. The next presidential campaign may start in earnest a year from now, but the 2012 election might as well be a thousand years away.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, World, and Mickey McLean for your veracity in reporting the facts about what we as Christians can embrace about Glenn Back. Andree’s assertion: “It was obvious to me that he was a new creation in Chist. I know he’s a Mormon and all that” would have been an unconscionable error if left as is. It’s important that we do not let our sentimentalities overtake our sensibilities (and theology). Having great affection for Beck because he speaks to us about the things we find so monstrously out of whack in America today, we long to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his salvation. We dare not do that. Jesus himself proclaimed “no man comes to the Father but by him,” and our presumption not only would malign those words, but also get in the way of Glenn Beck’s knowing the Jesus that Mormonism denies. (By the way, I love your columns, Andree, keep up he good writing!)
Report comment to moderator
Davil L # 38
I was not referring to criticism of Glen Beck, but the way Christians are addressing each other. specifically harsh criticism of Andree Seu. Nothing wrong with doctrinal discussion, just the judgmental way we do it.
Report comment to moderator
The MORMON SCHPIEL has changed over the years. First they didn’t like Christians, NOW THEY ARE ONE. Maybe Beck has yet to be shown the difference between Christians and Mormons, or he is turning a blind eye to it. Sometimes, just like the wife of a cheating husband, you don’t want to know the BAD stuff.
Report comment to moderator
Just today some of these issues were addressed by Beck on his radio show. A caller to the show was expressing concern about Beck’s recent spate of involking God. The caller said he has listened to Beck for many years and enjoyed the show–the comedy and the political analysis and the historical teaching. But the caller was very concerned when Beck started to mention God, because the caller listens to his own pastor and Christian radio programing for theological issues.
Beck explained that he was not qualified to teach theology and was not trying to. He said he was challenging the pastors of churches to address the principles of individual rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence–those endowed by Nature and Nature’s God. He was not asking that pastors tell people who to vote for, but that pastor’s consider teaching as the ‘black robe brigade’ had at the beginning of our country.
He also recommends reading George Whitfield’s sermons. I haven’t read them all, but they don’t seem very Mormon-like to me. You can find some of them online here:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/Whitefield.html
Report comment to moderator
Like I said on another thread – rat poison has about 97% good food, it’s the 3% that kills. The mormon message uses a lot of the same language as orthodox Christianity.
There are far too many spiritual streakers living in a marshmallow world.
Report comment to moderator
MrsNews2Me and Louise make me wonder if the real issue of this “tragic mistake” is not Beck, but what to do about Romney.
Report comment to moderator
#47″ Moral of the story: when feeding, aim a little higher than rat food. And know the scriptures, and Who and what you believe in. We do live in perilous times.
#48 I doubt Romney will be a problem in 2012. There are many other good candidates for the White House–and ALL of them beat the current resident all to pieces.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey, thanks for addressing my question and opening up this discussion with WORLD as the real issue. I’d be satisfied with a disclaimer after opinion columns that differ from Christians’ beliefs.
Andree’s assessment of Beck was a real shocker to me, but she was very clear and doesn’t need to explain any further if she doesn’t care to. It already told me a lot about her and affected how I read her columns from now on. None of us have perfect judgment.
Report comment to moderator
Some who seek to be Christians seem unaware that Jesus said entrance into His kingdom was by way of a new birth of water and spirit. The best scriptural explanation of the new birth of water and spirit is given by the apostle Peter when as the church was being opened to members for the very first time, Peter was asked, “What shall we do (about our sin)?” His explanation made clear that what sinners MUST do to make themselves right with God is to repent and be baptized into Christ. It’s not only Mormons who misunderstand the plan. Many assume they became a member of the Lord’s church by reciting a prayer for forgiveness, or by having an unusual feeling as they considered Jesus and His death and being raised into new life. And some think they had to be approved by church leaders before they could obey Jesus and be saved. None of these alternate ways actually bring sinners into new life with Christ. I recommend a web page: where the Way is made clear based on apostolic teaching. — .
Report comment to moderator
I note that the link did not make it into my note just now sent to this blog. I suggested a web study at missionoutreach.org which is identified as Raised1 on the home page of that site.
Report comment to moderator
Ray – I have counselled those whose minds were confused by those who preach baptismal regeneration. They didn’t know Who or what they were trusting in for their salvation.
Report comment to moderator
The only meaningful question that one can indulge with any certainty regards this pathetic controversy over some words that Andree Seu wrote the other day regarding Glenn Beck is this:
Would you entrust the wardship of a pregnant girl contemplating an abortion to a bunch of Mormons – or to a bunch of ‘Christians’ such as Obama and company – and some like-minded posters here – people that some of you consider Christians, based on lip service to the same creed?
You want to talk about where practical Christian-’ity’ hits the road – than it is where you stand with regards to the State-sanctioned killing of a struggling child by pestling the brains inside her skull using a sharp object inserted through the neck.
I have no idea whether Beck is a Christian or not – likely not, if he fully understands and embraces Mormon ‘theology’, such as it is (essentially the Book of Mormon is the product of someone sitting down with a King James Bible and a bottle of whiskey and an overactive imagination).
But I sure as blue blazes know that I would trust Beck against a large swath of self-proclaimed Christians (here and elsewhere) with regards to the brutal and deliberate wholesale murder of children.
Presumably, that counts for something.
Presumably that counts a bit more than one woman’s opinion of the essentially unknowable; i.e. another persons spiritual status.
Presumably the child who is about to be butchered in an abortion ‘clinic’ would count it important.
I am amazed at how much energy here is poured out against Andree Seu here for her rather shaky personal opinion – and against Beck – the various theologians in the woodwork start crawling pretty quick with this off-editorial by a single commentator.
But then I note how mute and disinterested the boards are when the very real and fully known horror of abortion is discussed – man, I wish we could get the same energy and interest level on that topic. Instead those of us who stand foursquare against it – and against posters who celebrate it either explicitly or implicitly through those they support politically – are more than often indicted for our ‘intemperate language’ and our distressingly clinical descriptions.
I sometimes wonder if Hell is not going to be literally packed with people whose doctrine is, or was, quite right – but which was about all they actually cared about while they were alive.
In the 48 hours that you assorted theologians were arguing about this single opinion by a single woman commentator, approximately 7000 children died in abortion clinics in America alone.
I just learned that more people read WMB than I ever realized – on this inane and unknowable topic.
But it is absolutely amazing what works Christians up, these days.
And it is equally absolutely amazing what doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
I still stand by what I said above. However, for the first time tonight, I think Beck went too far in talking about men of peace. He talked about Moses, Ghandi, Dr. MLK, and Jesus as promoting peace. Jesus does not belong in that group. His mission was different. The panel consisted of MLK’s daughter(granddaughter??), a rabbi, a theologian and Ghandi’s granedson.
As you might expect, MLK’s daughter was the most accurate/reliable of the bunch.
Beck really should stick to politics.
Report comment to moderator
Good post Drill. It applies to what I said back in #8. None of this amounts to anything. I can’t see Beck converting anyone.
Would we rather listen to good Baptist (spoken by a Baptist) like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter?
Most of the founding fathers were not what most of us would consider Christian. However, they gave us a nation that is a Christian nation, regardless of what the progressives say.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. Hadn’t pegged Drill as one likely to have missed the point of this whole brouhaha. Whoosh.
Report comment to moderator
Drill & Chaz – Are you not able to discern that the issue at hand is spiritual and not political? How do you view Jesus Christ and His Word? You may have a low view of God and His Word, but do not expect me to have the same view as yourself! Are you not concerned about satan’s deception that others could blindly believe that a mormon is the same as a christian. Seu was wrapped up in the emotion of her experience, and her reporting suffered – it lacked objectivity. If her reporting remained in the political realm and if she objectively reported what Beck claims himself to be, there would not have been an uproar.
Report comment to moderator
While I do not agree with Andree’s conclusions, she is not a reporter, she is essentially a columnist, perhaps an essayist, giving an opinion. I personally think she missed the mark here, but I would give her credit for spurring conversation and debate. She is not infallible, nor are we.
Report comment to moderator
Cherievon – Andree is not a reporter – in the assignment that she was given her strengths greatly elevated her weaknesses.
Report comment to moderator
Mostly agreeing with Drill, WORLD’s role in opening the can of the inane unknowable is in fact the point of this thread.
It is a false choice between Mormons and a bunch of Christians like Obama & company. There are believers and unbelievers of all stripes who will protect a baby from being butchered to death before it’s born. And then we must raise the little ones in the Way they must go.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I’ve seen these boards lit up over the abortion topic time and again. And well they should be. However, that is not the topic now and it seems somewhat odd to throw that into this mix. While you dismiss a topic that is concerning to others as “inane” and question “what works Christians up these days”, you seem rather worked up yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey,
I tend to think that World is making too big of a deal about this. Seu simply said expressly what World’s editorial board has said implicitly for a long time: That being a “true Christian” is not so much about the death and resurrection of Christ as it is about one’s zeal for the social conservative cause. In my view, the Gospel according to Olasky et al. is little more than a rehashed version of the putrid civic Christianity that lulled many Americans to sleep as they take confidence in their practical moral superiority and unwittingly speed down the highway with the pedal pushed to the floor.
Report comment to moderator
Off topic – but by the way, the bumper sticker on my vehicle makes know that “As a former fetus, I oppose abortion!” From which very profitable discussions have ensued.
Report comment to moderator
The above comment should say:
“…speed down the highway to perdition with the pedal pushed to the floor.”
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans,
Thank you for all of your excellent comments on this thread!
Thank you also DWM and Drill for your comments.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL
I agree with you about people who call themselves Christians (including some who frequent WMB) and who vote for Dems. and believe in “choice” like Mrs. Bush and Mrs. McCain. Like my mother, who can now say she has a daughter who had an abortion, they wrongly feel that the doctors at Planned Parenthood are there to keep their daughters alive–no coathangers were used in the gutting of your daughters.
Report comment to moderator
What is sad is that people think more highly of MORMONS THAN CHRISTIANS.
BECK being able to speak so freely of Jesus on his show makes me think that FOX doesn’t think he is a Christian either.
I have listened to BECK and OBAMA talk about their faith. GUESS which one is CLOSER to being a CHRISTIAN? (I’d have to ask Beck a few Mormon questions before I know what he really feels about the Mormon doctrine.)
Some feel that Catholics aren’t Christians either because they hold Mary higher than Christ. The Catholic Church tells you how to set up an altar at home to kneel before when you pray. Not all Catholics do it, but just saying.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I for one am quite happy to see people passionately engaged in a discussion about theology. Whichever “side” one takes on this topic, the issue is well worth discussing. And yes, I’ve engaged in many abortion discussions too, as well as offering limited amounts (within my ability) of practical help to my local pro-life clinic. (I’m not qualified to counsel their clients; it’s a clinic that needs a special expertise. So I pray, make cards, edit, and donate to them. I stand behind them fully, to the extent of my ability.)
Report comment to moderator
Mickey – I look forward to WORLD’s interview with Glenn Beck and the hard questions that will be asked – please do not assign Andree Seu to this! I would like to have confirmed a comment I read at WMB that Beck stated on his show that he teaches Sunday School at his “church”. If such is true, the word intentional comes to mind.
Report comment to moderator
Right.
Amazing how when we have picketed abortion clinics and desperately needed volunteers in pro-life activities involving snatching children from the saws and knives and the butchers in blood-stained smocks who wield them, it is the Catholics and the Mormons who mostly seem to be running the gauntlet for the sake of the children.
And, conversely, the most exacting and ever-disputacious Sunday School theologians in the evangelical pro-life churches in the community are no where to be found – perhaps off ever-refining their endlessly cyclic and ancient and unresolvable arguments regarding predestination and free-will – or exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Or, more likely, I have found when I go and button-hole them – they are just unwilling to get involved -really involved – and I mean beyond bumper sticker involved.
And, no, I am no Catholic and I am no Mormon and I have nothing against being well-versed in theology.
I personally don’t agree with Andree Seu regards Beck’s ‘Christianity’. But I am not entirely 100% sure. And neither are you. Only God knows that.
Regards Andree Seu and Glen Beck.
I am reminded of a circle of Pharisees close-gathered around a kneeling numb-eyed woman, stones hefted and weighed, eyes glittering in eagerness in the last red rays of a setting sun; still panting a bit from when they came a’running when the cry went out, robes and scripture-boxes and phylacteries flapping and clattering and wildly swinging.
But too many of those same Pharisees were no where to be seen when King Herod sent his cold-eyed butchers out over the land to slaughter the children.
But maybe when one lone Samaritan, as wrong as his theology was, stood against the soldiers, and shielded the children with his arms from their swords and spears, and made a complete muddle of his reasoning and his theology as he cried out, those same Pharisees popped out from their various holes and caves and crevices and hiding places, all hot and bothered and righteously indignant – at his theological (and probably fatal) errors.
Call me a heretic or call me confused, but I am not always sure which exactly pleases God less.
Are you?
I am finished with this.
Bleah.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I call you welcome.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I personally know many Christians who have been actively involved (including myself) in the pro-life cause. They have donated clothing, knit, volunteered, established Crisis Preganzncy Centers at home, abroad…I’m sorry that you do not know any believers who have done such. Be careful with the generalizations and please stay on topic.
Report comment to moderator
Finally, Cheryl D. and others – I value and honor and appreciate all efforts to save children, and yours especially based on my knowledge of what you are and what you do.
I feel that many of the responses to commentator Andree Seu’s opinion regarding the spiritual status of the man known as Glen Beck (as utterly inconsequential in fact as any of our opinions regarding the spiritual status of any such a figure actually are) were way out of line here, in terms of both tone and intent to cast WM as a secret supporter or Mormonism.
I note that the usual Left-wing posters who claim Christ and yet who gleefully enable and support the politician/butchers who support child murder are, predictably, the ones suddenly egging on the various Doctors of the Law here. Makes you wonder a bit, perhaps?
In any event, a sort of verbal stoning of a sister has taken place, in my opinion.
And I am not even in agreement with the statement she made.
Report comment to moderator
Yooper, we all know those Christians and non-Christians who are dependable – and so does Drill. You sound a little defensive in missing Drill’s point. The topic is, do we judge another’s salvation by what they say, or by what they do? And should we judge at all? Tell me.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, that is exactly what I wanted Mickey to explain, as others asked – Would he not have published her column if he’d taken a closer look at it?
Report comment to moderator
amen
Report comment to moderator
amen
Report comment to moderator
Yooper: You need to work on your reading comprehension.
I did not say that Christians were not involved in pro-life activities. I said: Too few.
Stay on topic? You seem to dislike the spiritual searchlight (which you so eagerly turn on others -here Andree Seu) being turned on you.
Not that I blame you. Spiritual searchlights are a real pain, sometimes. Sort of fun when we get to use ‘em on other people, not so much when other people use ‘em on us.
I know when I get spiritually spot-lighted, myself, my first reaction is to run like a roach in the beam of a flashlight for the shadows under the refrigerator.
If you are not careful on THIS post, Yooper, you might meet me there.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, Up until a few days ago, it had been quite a while since I visited the World Mag Blog. So I am not up on the usuals and their antics. Come to think of it, it was probably 3 years – around the time that I discontinued my subscription, I was disappointed by articles at this blog from apparent WORLD staff. It would have been nice if WORLD would have taken action on mine or other comments (about a half hour after Andree Seu’s post of the article at hand) and took appropriate action. Anyway, we are at where we are. I have been concerned about how evangelicals have been embracing the jesus of Glen Beck.
Report comment to moderator
Yooper, please tell me what “appropriate action” you wish WORLD would have taken?
Report comment to moderator
LOUISE – The interview with Glenn Beck has not taken place. I am not privy of a personal interview that took place between Seu and Beck about his conversion experience, are you? I listen to him from 9 – 12 and have heard him claim on more than one occasion that he is a mormon. Apparently you have missed my comments when I have stated that mormon language sounds quite similar to that of orthodox Christianity – but it is not the same God or Jesus that they are referencing. Pretty dangerous. But it’s a marshmallow world.
Report comment to moderator
LOUISE #81 – Olasky’s article should have been more prominent – it got buried in the comments, and Mickey should have responded sooner.
Report comment to moderator
The average person, Christian or not, has not done any research into the beliefs of the Mormons. I think a lot of people will just accept what Glenn Beck says on the face of it. If he says he believes in Jesus, it has a mean for them — not necessarily the same meaning it has for a Mormon. They just don’t know that. It’s like a Muslim saying he believes in God when he really means Allah. Not one and the same.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, I’m not so sure people are embracing the Jesus of Glenn Beck. They just think he means the same thing as they do when they say the believe in Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Hence – Satan appears as an angel of light.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, the concern wasn’t about an anonymous sister making a trivial misspeak. She published under the World Mag banner for all to see. Her attempt was to assure us a professing Mormon was a true believer. Others chimed in their agreement. Might Mormons visit this site? Or other seekers? It would be wrong to give a *single person* the impression they’re on the right path when they’re really headed elsewhere. Piety, even concern for the unborn, doesn’t make up for worshiping false Christs—and that’s not an attempt to assess Beck’s salvation (people need to stop bringing that up as if it’s the crux); it’s a simple matter of not being a stumbling block to *anyone* reading.
Yooper took it better than I, but save your indignation toward him or her. You came from *out of the blue* with the abortion stuff. Clearly looked like a “verbal stoning” of anyone who’d chimed in critical of Seu’s post.
Report comment to moderator
Mac – I sure hope that Mickey’s word is good and that they will ask the hard questions. I shouldn’t be surprised by the comments here – this really is a marshmallow (postmodern) world!
Report comment to moderator
This story is despicable. First, the writer makes a weasly comment about everybody needing an editor despite the fact that we have no evidence that the original author has recanted her statements. Secondly, the writer asks who are we to judge his heart and then the article proceeds to judge his heart. This is not Christian love, but fundamentalist judgmentalism. The person who wrote the article clearly has not even watched Beck. Beck has repeatedly proclaimed Christ with all the essentials of the faith. The Mormon church seems to be the church in which Beck met Christ. Lets rejoice that Beck is getting our country back to a theistic faith that puts hope not in men but in the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
The wheels on the bus go round and round…
Report comment to moderator
Round and round…
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: Nah.
You seem to fail to understand what a ‘commentator’ is. Everything that a commentator says does not have to bear the approval of the magazine or entity in which the commentator makes his or her commentary. You ever read the opinion columns on the editorial page?
Had Seu said that Mormonism was an acceptable version of Christianity as a general statement, it would be a real problem, in my opinion. Instead, she remarked that she believed that Beck, an individual Mormon, who has made many contradictory statements confounding Mormonism and Christianity, is a Christian. In my opinion, almost certainly not true, but not entirely certainly not true, and not worth the contempt and insults hurled both at her and World Magazine, especially given the generally steady and thoughtful and well-done essays she writes.
And hardly worth calling for her head.
Or perhaps you never make a theological error? Never made one in the past? Are impervious to ever making one in the future? Never had a change of heart on an issue, based on study and reflection?
You got more verses written on your sleeves, stuffed in your phylacteries, penciled on your forehead than Andre Seu? Count ‘em and recount them, Macrutabaga – the bigger the number, the bigger the rock you get to heave, I guess? That game is still going strong after thousands of years, apparently.
And most emphatically, abortion is not irrelevant, i.e. ‘out of the blue’ in relation to how we should view Glen Beck – or his work. Or perhaps it is to you – but it is not to me – and to a very large number of Christians engaged in pro-life work and who are appreciative for such vocal allies in the very real business of saving children.
Iit is notable, in an unfortunate sense, how quick you are to condemn Andre Seu for her (in my opinion probably erroneous) remark regarding the spiritual state of an individual named Glen Beck, as a sin of major proportion, and yet how irrelevant (’out of the blue’) to you are the 1,000,000 children butchered a year in abortion clinics.
As I noted in my original post on this thread, Beck’s opposition to this genocide counts a great deal.
And I suspect it counts even more to a child in line to be aborted.
But, to you, ‘out of the blue’.
Report comment to moderator
Hillsdalegrad: Mormonism is antithetical to Christianity. It is a pernacious and false doctrine. Someone who puts their faith in Mormonism is alienated from God and a rebel to Him. That is a fact.
However, that is not the issue with the dust-up here.
The issue is really regards how Christians should treat Andre Seu for voicing an opinion in a commentary about the spiritual state of Glen Beck, a Mormon of somewhat (apparently) uncertain orthodoxy.
There seems to be an undercurrent here that WM has suddenly (or progressively) grown wobbly, because it actually addresses political issues from a Christian perspective.
Imagine that- it is the charter of the magazine to do just that.
A Christian that refuses to completely inform his or her politics based on his or her Christian faith, is utterly unscriptural – and, from a practical Christianity standpoint, worse than a Glen Beck.
I don’t know much about Glen Beck, other than that he supports the Tea Party (a good thing) and is fervently pro-life (even better). Since people tell me that he calls himself a Mormon, I would assume he probably is not a Christian, and hence he is in need of evangelizing.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: What are you going on about? Ms. Seu is a notable Christian woman writing and representing a Christian publication (not to mention Christ, Himself). It’s right there atop the page: “Today’s News. Christian Views.” Big difference between a paper with no stated philosophy of the world and one whose mission is to pass everything through the grid of Scripture. You think we’re gonna see Dawkins posting Commentary articles here anytime soon? I don’t either.
Andree did more than say she “believed” Beck is a Christian. Re-read the article. This hardly bears arguing. People have expressed grave concern about a prominent woman on a prominent Christian website giving the impression that differences between Mormon theology and orthodoxy are of secondary concern. That’s doesn’t equal contempt and insult. And as much criticism has been directed at World editors as Andree. Nobody’s calling for Andree’s head, Drill. Get a grip.
Or perhaps you never make a theological error? Never made one in the past? Are impervious to ever making one in the future? Never had a change of heart on an issue, based on study and reflection?
I suppose that settles it. Confiscate all Bibles. Shut down all pulpits and close the church doors. Yep, we all make theological mistakes, and they’re all the same, so no reason to point out when someone is wrong about this or that or whether God is triune or Christ is a created being. So long as we remember about abortion.
You got more verses written on your sleeves, stuffed in your phylacteries, penciled on your forehead than Andre Seu? Count ‘em and recount them, Macrutabaga – the bigger the number, the bigger the rock you get to heave, I guess?
I take back my last paragraph! Apparently it is good and right to rant about some errors…just not when they concern those things Paul spoke so pointedly about.
And most emphatically, abortion is not irrelevant, i.e. ‘out of the blue’ in relation to how we should view Glen Beck – or his work. Or perhaps it is to you – but it is not to me – and to a very large number of Christians engaged in pro-life work and who are appreciative for such vocal allies in the very real business of saving children.
Remember that time you admonished someone here to brush up on their reading skills? Abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether we should give the impression Mormonism is not a dangerous religion. I mean, get a grip. I don’t have to show you my anti-choice bona fides to be able to make coherent commentary on this Seu article issue. Good grief. You really took that ‘out of the blue’ thing and ran the wrong way with it. No, your abortion commentary was ‘out of the blue’ not because (you wrongly think) I believe abortion is a trivial issue, but because it (your abortion commentary) was *entirely irrelevant to the objections I and others raised to the Seu article!*
Report comment to moderator
I said it the day (two days, maybe) after that event in DC. There was no theology in Beck’s speech, merely an attempt to make all the gathered angry folks and haters believe that some kind of generic god was on their side.
Yet most here defended The Great Beck.
You’ve been had, folks. It’s really so easy to do.
Report comment to moderator
In the political realm I am thankful for Glenn Beck’s passion to expose the truth – e.g. Van Jones. However, the post by Seu and comments that I have read on these threads at the World Mag Blog confirm my concerns. There are “groupies” who elevated Barack Hussein Obama to the “rockstar” level or worse yet, “messiah”. The mormon faith of Glenn Beck is works based – right down to the underwear that they buy and wear (google it!). I am seeing political conservatives who are trusting in their political cause (works) and equating it with salvation. They were saved on August 28th at the Glenn Beck rally. Glenn Beck talks a lot about jesus – but the Word of God is not enough for the mormon faith – they also have additional “inspired” revelations that trump the Bible i.e. “the book of mormon” and “the pearl of great price”, the mormon jesus is not the God and Savior of the Bible. It appears that the mission is being accomplished: I am seeing those who don’t think that it really matters Who (Jesus Christ) we trust in, or the Source of our beliefs (The Word of God). Satan is a deceiver. Yes, Glenn Beck needs our prayers – but just as he exposes error, he needs to see the lie that he has swallowed – hook, line and sinker.
Report comment to moderator
Gosh, things took an even nastier turn after I went to bed last night! My amen above was to Drill’s comments — Andree is a columnist and she gave an opinion! She is a creative writer with, in my opinion, an emotional bent. I think on the one hand people give her too much credit…she is not the editor of the magazine and probably not that influential in the larger scheme of things. On the other hand, her posts flow in a myriad of directions: poetic reminders, correctives, prods, missteps, meanderings, hopes, wishes, diatribes, experiments…i.e., the things that columnists (not editors or journalists) write about.
Report comment to moderator
First of all, they weren’t angry and hate-filled. They are normal, everyday good people who see the country failing fast in a complete moral breakdown.
Secondly, his gathering was a general gathering of people of goodwill with many faiths represented. Beck and other spoke about the decent things we have in common.
Report comment to moderator
wow!
Report comment to moderator
Multiple choice question:
What fires up the ‘Christian’ base on these threads more?
A. Andree Seu, sometime commentator, stating the opinion that a confused pro-life Mormon named Glen Beck is, in her view, a Christian, due to a number of Christianological-sounding statements he has made.
OR
B. ‘Christians’ in America en masse (including some regular suspects who have slyly posted on these threads, lamenting the ‘politicization’ of Christianity in terms of taking firm stands) who endorse, support, and enable the murder of children – ‘Christians’ up to and including the ‘President’ of the United States.
Oh. Wait. I already know the answer.
Macrutabaga: Your anti-choice credentials? What, exactly, is anti-choice? Perhaps you meant pro-life credentials? Or does your curious choice of language reflect where your heart really lies? Inquiring minds want to know – clarity makes it easier to ‘get a grip’, you know.
Since I disagreed with Seu to begin with, I originally kept quiet on this; criticism is well-founded until the invective toward her (personally and professionally) and toward World Magazine grew to asinine and unacceptable and endlessly recycled levels.
Candidly, I never was any good at lynchings, hanging parties, ducking the witch, stonings, that sort of thing.
Piling on always irritates me – particularly when the victim is inarguably one of your own team.
Report comment to moderator
An excellent point, NJL – also Cherievon. I am associated with the Tea Party movement and it is essentially a political movement – with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as its focus. However one cannot intelligently understand or defend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights without reference to divinely bestowed political rights, i.e. rights fundamentally above the whim, or discretion, or largess, of the State. This basic fact is understandable by a relatively large number of people, Christian and non-Christian, (as in Romans) and does not diminish the unshakeable exclusivity of Christ.
I sometimes wonder if the enmity which many culturally comfortable American Christians seem to harbor toward those who are attempting to restore Constitutional government to this Republic is really not actually due to guilt – guilt because they are not living up to their scriptural mandate to be ‘right’ rulers (they are, after all free citizens of a Republic -and hence bear the responsibility of authority.)
Report comment to moderator
I am seeing a lot of people reading a lot of things into what when on at Glenn Beck’s rally. I am also seeing a lot of people assuming things about a lot of people on here and who support Beck’s message. That message was to wake up and support people who will do what the people want to be done in their government–not what some politicians insist must be done for ‘the people’s good”. He also said that to do moral good, we must first change ourselves and for that we need the help of God.
He did not define that God, except to use the terms “Divine Providence” etc. as used by the Founders of this country.
Beck mixes a whole lot of things up. He does not understand a lot of things in the bible. He looks at things in the generic, Alcoholics Anonymous way of looking at God. All he knows is that he was changed, when he humbled himself and realized he was helpless to change himself and he prayed for help.
I will pray for him and for all those who think they know exactly how God works in every instance. I will continue to pray for those I know caught up in Mormonism and every other false religion and in atheism. I will pray for those caught up in their own self-righteousness, so that they cannot see their need to humble themselves before the One True God.
I will certainly pray for this country and its Christian churches, which need revival. The country needs a Great Awakening. Those awakenings are when the Spirit falls on many people and there is geniune repentence. That repentence leads to people doing what is right in God’s eyes and that is not ever going to hurt a nation according to my bible. What God plans for the United States is something to which I am not privy.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, KI. Good post.
Report comment to moderator
“..we have picketed abortion clinics and desperately needed volunteers in pro-life activities involving snatching children..”
drill
———————-
So if you picket, do it.
But don’t claim it as a NT FACT, axiomatic as to how it MUST be done.
Other believers take different approaches as to instructing believers and serve their generation.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the real issue: ” without reference to divinely bestowed political rights”
Some of us believe that God endowed those inalienable rights. The rest of us believe that the government dispenses them.
Gosh, I wish they would read American History!
Report comment to moderator
Drill: As to your multiple choice question: I choose C: Irrelevant.
Look at you getting’ all huffy over a couple little words. Yeah, anti choice. The euphemism “pro choice” is a laugher. Remember the atheist campaign to get everybody to call them “freethinkers”? Same stupid thing. I don’t concede to pro-aborts that there’s anything resembling a reasonable “choice” being made in opting for abortion. But sure, “pro life” works for me, too. But man, you do go flyin’ off the handle on such little provocation. All your arguing for peace here you’d think you could have just asked for clarification.
As for the “piling on” and “invective” directed toward Andree: where? Do you understand the nature of these threads? Andree made a post; people voiced disagreement; others defended her; others responded to them; still others directed their concerns at WMB editors. I’d guess far more than half the comments expressing disagreement in Andree’s original thread were pointed toward other commenters in the thread. To call that stuff lynching and hanging and stoning is quite an overreaction. You could post some examples, if you want, to support your rant.
Report comment to moderator
KI, 102: All that stuff is fine, but if you’ll reexamine Andree’s article, she’s not “reading into” anything. She is stating, in no uncertain terms, that a professing Mormon *is a Christian.* Maybe, maybe, Glenn Beck is a Christian man who is so ignorant of the church he’s been a member of for years–like Barack Obama, kinda–that he doesn’t realize how heretical are some of the doctrines his church teaches; I hope that’s the case.
But we Christians should not give anyone the impression that he or she would be just fine, by and large, were they to remain under those teachings. That’s not me, that’s Bible.
Also, wouldn’t it make Beck look just a little clueless if he didn’t know about all those aberrant Mormon particulars?
Report comment to moderator
“…God endowed those inalienable rights…”
———–
Then why are public school/college science teachers allowed to teach otherwise?
Should they lose their citizenship?
Report comment to moderator
M2S,
No, but they should lose their funding.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. We’ve witnessed the return of Drill, the one-trick pony.
For a number of years, folks have been debating whether criminalization provides an effective policy lever for dealing with the ills of abortion. Frankly, I think that most of us have simply become intellectually bored by the topic and have decided to move on.
The Bible is not at all clear that abortion is necessarily murder. I tend to believe that the case for murder is a bit stronger than the case against. But because of the uncertainty, it is not appropriate for us to judge other Christians who may not agree with us when it involves issues where Scripture is muddy at best.
There’s a reason why most ardent pro-life folks eventually become Roman Catholics. Only the RCC’s extra-Biblical teachings can provide them with the certainty on abortion that they hoped to extract from Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
To think that unsaved people are reading this explains some of why they are not very attracted to “evangelical” Christianity. Shooting at Mormonism we shoot each other. And in our quick-draw we often shoot ourselves in the foot. Our Enemy is winning this battle. (In spite of the fact that we have clearly identified unBiblical doctrine.)
Report comment to moderator
Mac: Yes, it would make Beck clueless. Perhaps he is. Paul was pretty clueless, too, after being struck on the road to Damascas. God had to teach him. Just like he has had to lead us to be taught. We aren’t born again to know everything immediately. Seems the disciples were still being taught on the road to Emmaus and throughout Jesus’s being with them after the resurrection.
I have no idea if Beck is a believer. I will trust God to judge that.
I remember the big blow-up over the same issue with Norma McCorvey. God doesn’t usually save us all grown up and perfect, except in the heavenlies, as Paul says.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Neil – my sad sentiments, exactly.
Report comment to moderator
The issue is: That Andree Seu flippantly noted about Beck’s being “a mormon and all that”. and then claimed further that he is “a new creation in Christ”, “red hot” for God. There was no mention of a personal interview with Beck about a conversion to Christianity having taken place. How many souls have been lost to this cult? Beck will take on a Van Jones, why can’t he see through the lies/make believe world of the mormon cult – could it be that satan has blinded him? You can help Beck and others by keeping the issue on topic.
I encourage any former mormons who have been converted to Christianity to post. I am contacting some online. This is important.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! RSD, I know a lot of pro-life people and they range from athiests to Protestants and Catholics and other faiths. I don’t know any who have become Catholic over the issue and I have been involved in it for life. The bible is very clear about it.
Report comment to moderator
“…RCC’s extra-Biblical teachings can provide them with the certainty…”
—-
Certainty?
Is this something new that R. Dawkins hasn’t heard of yet?
:-O
Report comment to moderator
YOOPER, please stop. This is not the place for an anti-mormon campaign. If we want any God-hungry people to frequent these pages let it rest. Why not use your passion to describe your joy in personally knowing the gracious forgiveness of the One Holy (as in absolutely unique) God.
Report comment to moderator
Neil – Candy man, stay on topic. Are you really a Pastor? I may be concise and not gifted in writing, why don’t you help by expounding? Why don’t you explain about forgiveness and who Jesus Christ is? You have not helped! What do you feed your flock?
Report comment to moderator
KI:
How about Randall Terry? He’s probably the most well-known pro-life activist on the face of the planet. And I believe that he joined the RCC.
Report comment to moderator
Neil – Brother, your previous posts caused me to think that I most likely have a bit of Nehemiah in me. Do you have a beard? You did a very big dis-service by reading between the lines – as if Andree Seu knew something that was not reported.
Report comment to moderator
After watching the following what do you think? He is aware of the Koolaid in the basement…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpeolBTKIo
That’s it for me.
Report comment to moderator
OK, RSD, I don’t know a lot about his personal life. I certainly don’t know the reason he joined the Catholic Church. Most of us have more than one reason. I’m sure there are more, too, if you look really hard. That hardly supports you assertion, however.
Report comment to moderator
At any rate, that is off-topic and I must be off.
Report comment to moderator
KI: For when you come back…
You wrote,
I have no idea if Beck is a believer. I will trust God to judge that.
Why do you feel it’s necessary to mention that? I’m at a loss as to why so many here keep bringing that up. Is it your opinion that those critical of Seu’s piece do not trust God to judge?
Report comment to moderator
The YouTube video of GB describing his experience with mormonism is typical and very attractive to people searching for hope and meaning in life. I wonder how many of the churches his family tried and didn’t return to had their theology right-on? We must work to excel at both truth and love. One without the other is absolutely deceptive.
Report comment to moderator
Mac, No, it’s because so many seem to think they always know who is a christian and who isn’t. We can know what they say. We can see their fruit and their actions, but sometimes we are not going to know. Many thought Paul was just a plant and was just fooling them, so he could round them up for jail or death. Why wouldn’t they have? Were they wrong to be suspicious? I don’t think they were. But they were wrong if they thought Paul did not meet the living God. In time, Paul’s actions showed the truth about the change within him.
I would assume that those who stood with Glenn Beck will continue asking questions and do what they think is right. Just because someone listens to his program or attended a rally with him, doesn’t make them believe every word he ever said or will say. It also doesn’t make them people who don’t hold a high regard for scripture or God. Yet, those things have been said here.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, a supposed ‘Christian’ here on WMB, is ‘disinterested’ in the 1 million children butchered in America every year in abortion clinics and unsure of the ethics or morality of it, in any event.
On the other hand Glen Beck, the Mormon, abhors it and works to end it.
Now, remind me. Which of the two gets the Pharisees, Saducees, and Teachers of the Law all worked up here on WMB?
Report comment to moderator
KI: In that case, you may want to mention your concerns to Andree. It’s apparent she’s certain Beck is a believer. I don’t mind her holding that opinion, but it’s imprudent to broadcast that opinion with such certainty when Mormon adherents are being misled by the tens of thousands. They should not be made to feel at ease in their plight before God.
Those objecting to her article were mostly agnostic on the question of Beck’s state of salvation, i.e., they weren’t making that the point of contention. How is that not clear after all these posts?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and Mac, I suppose I am mixing up all these threads on Glenn Beck together. Andree, however, did give her opinion of someone she knows and has seen a great change in. I find that interesting. She gives her opinion for it. She does not hold up the Mormon faith as something to believe in. Yet, some think she did something terrible. Hers is one opinion I will consider. I haven’t always agreed with her before this column and I am sure that will be true in the future, if she has one with the magazine.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with you, Drill, that RSD’s or anyone’s indifference toward abortion is despicable. Your perception is different than mine, though, if you think many of those here you ridiculously call Pharisees, Saducees and Teachers of the Law don’t also get worked up on the subject of abortion. (So what do you make of the scriptural admonition to cling to sound doctrine, and to correct those who err? You just toss it out as Phariseeism?)
You really insist on verbally stoning and hanging and noosing those who disagree with you on this thing, don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
None of us should feel at ease, Mac. We need to be sure of our own salvation according to Paul. It is easy for thousands in Christian churches to think they are ‘in Christ”, when, in fact, they are just following the law and leading nice moral lives
I thought she was quite clear about what she thought about Mormon beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
KI: Yeah, I know she gave her opinion on all that. And the argument here, which Mickey McClean and, presumably, other WMB editors agree with, is that it was inadvisable.
Report comment to moderator
KI, right. So follow your logic in 131 through to its conclusion. It’s wrong to make those in error feel at ease; the Mormon church is in error, not “in Christ.” Glenn Beck is a professing Mormon. Therefore___. You can do it. Therefore___. What? Therefore is right to defend an article that may make Mormons feel at ease? Huh?
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I wish you’d provide some quotes about all this vile treatment you allege Andree received; and you should provide a number of them, since you indicate they were so ubiquitous.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, Mac. We obviously do not agree and I cannot express what I am trying to say, so I will move on. I have a wedding to attend and this discussion is really not going anywhere anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Since Mickey has not expanded his comment re an editing failure of Andree’s column, I’ll rely on his “Tragic Mistake” headline and presume he’s decided he shouldn’t have allowed it on the website. If actually so, I disagree with that and repeat my wish for a simple disclaimer accompanying her column.
Let’s work on the side of giving God the glory in this.
Report comment to moderator
“…On the other hand Glen Beck, the Mormon, abhors it and works to end it…”
—-
Perhaps he’ll convince the Supreme Court Justices to throw out the chemical-onlyism, argument folly, taught in the science departments in a zillion schools.
:-O
Report comment to moderator
Justin Taylor jumps to a conclusion not supported by the facts.
Does Justin Taylor believe that church membership (pick a denomination) guarantees salvation? I doubt it.
Well, if salvation is not dependent on church membership, then how can it be undone by church membership?
Just because someone is in the Mormon Church it doesn’t mean that they believe the stories that many of us would consider “fairy tales.”
The Mormon Church uses the King James Bible (along with the Book of Mormon). If we are going to practice “guilt by association” then maybe we should question the Christianity of every church that uses that government authorized Bible!
Report comment to moderator
CharlesMartel, the Church of the Latter Day Saints is a religion separate and apart from Christianity. It is not a Christian denomination. The bible is very clear that no other holy scriptures are to be added to it.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: divinely bestowed political rights, i.e. rights fundamentally above the whim, or discretion, or largess, of the State.
Leaving aside the abortion issue, which I by no means concede, what other divinely bestowed rights do you identify and what scriptural support for them do you cite.
When I peruse your bible I find absolutely no “democratic” rights anywhere. Instead your god seems to believe in killing dissenters, annihilating all states (including their unborn) with whom one disagrees, and wanton slaughter of one’s own citizens for no good reason.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, why would you expect to find “democratic” rights bestowed by God? Sounds oxymoronic to me. But then, you are not an equal opportunity reader of the bible. You have tunnel vision and dream that your opinions will be taken seriously.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL 54
“(essentially the BOOK OF MORMON is the product of someone sitting down with a King James Bible and a bottle of whiskey and an overactive imagination).”
That pretty much sums up the Book of Mormon. It’s pretty much a mix of plagiarism, gibberish and blarney.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with DRILL.
This kind of got out of hand.
And putting it on the home page?
Went right over the edge.
Report comment to moderator
After watching GLENN’s Youtube video and re-reading Seu’s OPINION, I think Glenn knows it’s not what it should be, but is turning a blind eye to what is really is because of the good feeling it gives him and his family.
Personally I think that their CHILD who came out of MORMON SUNDAY SCHOOL with a “warm feeling” and showed Glenn where it is, was fed that by the Mormon Sunday School TEACHER. Sort of like when the Christian Sunday School teacher says to all her little 4 year olds, “Raise your hand if you want to go to heaven. Then repeat this prayer after me.”
Mormons believe in that warm feeling or “BURNING in their bosom.”
http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-001-9.asp
Report comment to moderator
An interesting 2009 essay by religion-writer Joanna Brooks, who grew up in a conservative Mormon home in CA.
“It is likely that Beck owes his brand of Founding Father-worship to Mormonism, where reverence for the founders and the United States Constitution as divinely inspired are often-declared elements of orthodox belief.
“Glenn Beck marks an unprecedented national mainstreaming of a peculiar strand of religious political conservatism rooted in, and once isolated to, the Mormon culture regions of the American West.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/1885/
Report comment to moderator
As a first time reader on this site, I’m interested in the debate about a man who seems to be spearheading – on the face of it – a Christian political revival in the United States (I’m from Australia). Does it give anyone pause to consider that if God is really behind a resurgence in christian political activism in the US, the only one who seems to be galvanising debate is someone mainstream Christians challenge because of his faith? Perhaps main stream Christians should repent that they’re so divided and fluffy in their thinking there’s no-one from their number willing to put their heads over the trenches to get shot at. Where are the Elijah’s? We debate over points of theology and Christian political correctness, much like the old monks of old who debated how many angels could fit on the head of a pin or if Jesus carried a purse. Perhaps instead of criticising a man blowing a trumpet for righteousness, we should be praying for him.
Report comment to moderator
Keep reading Richards.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga:
I am still puzzled by your initial self-labeling of yourself as ‘anti-choice’, an odd usage of language from a pro-life individual, but I agree with everything you said about the malicious usage of ‘choice’ in terms of labeling a supporter of the brutal murder of children, en mass. And I am glad you are pro-life – I did wonder with that, to be honest.
Regards the history of posts on this and previous and related threads: most posts, as I note somewhere above, were pretty much either supporting Seu or disagreeing with her, which is fine. However, threaded into the replies and responses were a number of posts from individuals including RSD, who have previously claimed both Christianity and simultaneously declared solidarity with the butchering of children via abortion, either through explicit statements or via the support of politicians who enable and glory in the genocide.
That angers me more than I care to relate – especially when these individuals pretend they have any standing on any Christian issue, including Glen Beck and his utterly unknowable spiritual state. Those who claim Christ and yet who coldly and deliberately engage in the enabling of the genocide of children are far more worthy of being ‘called out’ then poor Andree Seu – or Glenn Beck. They are, in fact, demonic. Andree (and Beck) are probably, at the most, confused.
Simultaneously there were a number of posts which baldly stated among other things that Seu’s Christianity was not ‘real’ – but ‘marshmallow’ and essentially worldly, that she should (at least) be censored and straightened out by the editors of WM AND even that World Magazine was itself a part of a sort of ongoing conspiracy to dilute Christianity.
And, of course, the anti-Beck, pro-aborts just ate that manure up because what they hate the most, beside true Christianity, are the people who speak and believe in Constitutional government – i.e. people like Beck (assuming he is not merely an opportunist).
And it just went on and on like that.
I went back just then into this thread and related threads and verified that I was not dreaming, Macrutabaga.
Whatever her error may (or may not be) here, Seu is a solid and sound commentator with an extremely good track record.
And hence my comments regards Pharisees, etc.
Interestingly, your comments were not even on my radar screen as being objectionable until you jumped personally on me.
But you are utterly wrong to deny that abortion is not a major issue in how we are to view Beck, both spiritually and politically. Because, as Frank in Spokane or Phoenix, or where ever he is these days, said somewhere in these threads, God uses the non-Christian to accomplish great things, sometimes. He just may be using Glen Beck, Christian or not.
The reason the Left hates Beck so much, on these threads and elsewhere, is not because he is a Mormon, or a Christian – it is primarily because he is calling for a return to Constitutional government in this Republic and the defeat of the totalitarian State they so desperately desire and seek to establish.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, you write,
I am still puzzled by your initial self-labeling of yourself as ‘anti-choice’, an odd usage of language from a pro-life individual…
Good. I don’t care. But nothing I’d said here or elsewhere need have given you reason to suspect I’m pro-abortion, or apathetic to the fight. That said, my stance on abortion is NOT relevant to the objection raised against Andree’s post, which, for the elevntieth time is: whether an author—or any Christian, for that matter—should give the appearance that holding to Mormon doctrine is not that bad. I’m at a loss as to how you contend the abortion issue is relevant TO THAT.
Apparently in 148, you attempt to answer my request that you post some examples of shoddy treatment toward Andree, and that you demonstrate they were as numerous and overwhelming as you allege. Forgive me if I’m underwhelmed by your effort. There may have been a handful of posts that were too strong in their language—you didn’t provide any examples—but I do know your acrimonious critique in this thread was/is far out of proportion to the alleged offenses.
When you claim the offending posts “just went on and on like that,” prove it. I kept up on the thread in question. It’s right over there, a couple mouse clicks away. Prove you’re not dreaming. Pull some quotes. (For the record, you didn’t even get the “marshmallow” thing right).
Interestingly, your comments were not even on my radar screen as being objectionable until you jumped personally on me.
“Personally” how so? Is this supposed to be a criticism of me?
Lastly, I’m sorry, but you’re at your most clueless when you tell me,
Where does this come from? Where did I indicate otherwise? And where have I claimed God cannot or does not use god-haters for his own purposes, even to bring about good? Read more carefully, Drill.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Louise, what political rights do you find to be divinely conferred or mandated? Christians are always crowing about how your god has blessed America how it is a “Christian” nation. What in the bible to you find to confer any kind of political rights. That was Drill’s term and I am, frankly, baffled by it.
Almost all of the common human rights which make this country great are anathema to any literal bible believing fundamentalist, so what “political rights” of humans do you find in that book?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, can you clarify this:
Almost all of the common human rights which make this country great are anathema to any literal bible believing fundamentalist.
Report comment to moderator
What? Andree can’t have an opinion? I don’t always agree with other writers in WORLD,but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t express their views. PLease,give your readers some credit. Let us filter the piece through our own belief system, keep the wheat, and ditch the chaff. Even many pastors say, “Don’t take my word for it. Search the scriptures and research your sources.” Does WORLD endorse all the ads it runs? Come on!
Report comment to moderator
Or how about this question, Lorene: Can readers post their opinions?
Report comment to moderator
Mac, Arcadia cannot clarify that. The country was created because of a Christian understanding of freedom. Arcadia can onlly come up with a twisted interpretation of the Bible. We’ve seen that time and time again.
Report comment to moderator
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that’s in the Bible. My God gave me life, My God through Christ gave me my liberty, and My God, through the Holy Spirit, helps me pursue my happiness.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: I don’t have the time or the inclination to cut and paste – what I said is EXACTLY true regarding the sense of the threads.
Examples: Original thread, Posts 4 (your original post, actually- what does Andree Seu’s opinion on an unknowable subject have to do with Olasky, etc.), 56, 58, 61, 78, 83, 84, 85 of the original thread (Tea Party III, or whatever), plus others I don’t have the time to go dig out for you. JFM, RSD in particular are among those who frequent these threads and claim to be simultaneously both fervent Christians and supporters of abortion. Arcadia and Scroop Moth – well, at least they don’t claim to be Christians.
On this thread, 32,39,47,58,63,80, others.
Some posts calling for censorship of Seu, some insulting her ability to write and/or the depth of her Christian walk, some suggesting that World Magazine is part of a sort of conspiracy to emasculate the Christian faith, the most deceptive coming from those who profess to be Christians yet who support abortion.
You have entirely missed the point. The point is that Christians need to police themselves (those who call themselves Christians (in orthodoxical terms) and who walk among us) before we go off half-cocked against someone like Andree Seu for simply (in a single instance) endorsing the Christianity, however nebulous, of an individual like Beck.
Abortion is, in fact, probably the most glaring searchlight with which to do that.
You cannot practice the rites of Molech, willingly and coldly, and claim to be a Christian – and to pronounce on the Christianity, or lack thereof, of others.
If you cannot understand that rahter elementary fact regards Beck, Seu, abortion and our ever-present, ever-malignant posters from the Left, that is your problem and none of mine.
Report comment to moderator
Finally, Macrutabaga:
You want to disagree with Seu, fine.
You want to point out the very real dangers of the cult known as Mormonism, fine.
You want to make a point (I don’t necessarily agree) that for Seu to say that one Mormon is a Christian, means that the whole shooting match might be Christian, or might consider itself Christian, or be viewed by the rabble as acceptably Christian, or whatever – fine.
But when it comes to the solid fact that some of those standing beside you throwing stones are willing and witting and deliberate supporters of child murder, or homosexuality, or whatever – well, that is NOT fine, in my view.
And when you are quiet about that – well that is NOT fine, in my view.
And calls for censorship and vague punishments and disparagement of Seu’s depth of faith or quality as a writer, are NOT fine, in my view.
And if you have a problem with any of that, that is FINE with me, actually.
Because, as I note above, that is your problem and not mine.
In my view.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have to agree with Andree Seu that Beck is a Christian or not. That’s between him and his God, ultimately, though I don’t think Mormonism is Christianity. I think it’s a false Christianity. But I don’t see how anyone can question her writing ability — we’ve all been touched by it too often to make that argument.
If Beck and indeed any Muslim wants to join in a political vote with me, I’ll take the vote. We’re all citizens.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I read a good portion of the comments, and a lot of good points were made. I didn’t make it all the way to the end, and so what I want to say may have already been said, but I want to bring it up anyways. I think the thing everyone seems to be missing here, is God. We’re all throwing in our ideas about Glenn Beck’s salvation, and mormonism, but we’re missing the point. Glenn Beck’s salvation is not our business. Really. When Samuel was looking at Jesse’s sons trying to pick the next King of Israel God said to him ‘man looks at the outside God looks at the heart’. Who can know the heart of man besides God? Isn’t that what counts? I mean, yes, we preach the good news, we argue theology, we do all of these things, but in reality theology and how well you know the Bible isn’t what truly counts. It’s the heart of the matter. So yea, preach the Truth, but the salvation of any one person isn’t on your shoulders. (Ezekiel 33).
Blessings.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Drill for making the connect between Molech worship and modern abortion.
Report comment to moderator
It’s nice to have the note about a ‘tragic mistake’ from Mickey McClean and the posting of Justin Taylor’s response. However, what is really needed is a response from Andrée Seu herself. World Mag is ‘covering’ it’s mia culpa. Andrée needs to do so personally in another column. Without that, we’ll always have to question, with a more skeptical eye, whether emotion and the desire for cultural transformation is overwhelming truth.
Report comment to moderator
You can’t take each essay on its face?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia:
As if this has not been explained to you ten million times before.
If your fundamental political rights are not divinely sanctioned, then they can be and are bestowed and taken away by the State, arbitrarily. The State is God.
Ethical and moral frameworks are essentially meaningless and are entirely based on the extension and utilization of power by one group of humans (or human) over other groups of humans.
Issues or decisions regarding right and wrong, good and evil, become merely reflections of whatever the local generating impulses of the group or groups in power deem them to be.
Conversely, Christianity has always been a thorn in the side of the Slave Statists (you are one – as a Leftist – other companion ideologies would be Islamists and Nazis – all allied and joined at the hip by their desire to subordinate the individual to the State). Christianity is a thorn, both politically and culturally, because it divorces the concepts of liberty and freedom from the whim of the State and lands it back where it belongs – to the individual, divorced from the now false idea of the absolute power of the State. It utterly demolishes the idea of State as God and hence rings the death knell of the totalitarian ideologies of the past, present and future.
In fact, it is probable that a Republic, as a nation of free men and women, cannot even exist without a Christian framework and world-view. Generally, a true Republic is a historic anomaly. The Greek city-states typically thought of as ‘democracies’ were not Republics or Democracies in even the most loose sense of the word – 3 out of 4 or more inhabitants of the typical city-state such as Athens were slaves and war-captives. Those were more like autocratic governments-by-committee.
Where does all this come from in the Christian scriptures? The entire sense of Christian scriptures gives it in terms of defining the individual, rather than the State or a group, as the meaningful entity. (It also gives much, much more – ultimately, the critical question is not political at all, but how each individual individually responds to the reality of God and the Cross.)
So there is ten million times plus one.
I have every confidence that this time will do the trick.
Report comment to moderator
For example, the Roman attempt at a Republic deteriorated into an empire. Without a base or a foundation that prevents the State from becoming god, democracies and republics fail.
Report comment to moderator
Warrenhill (#161),
Personally, I see absolutely no reason for Andree Seu to respond to any of us!
She has stated her “case” in her usual excellent fashion.
By the way, has anyone here noticed how prophetic Andree is? As for me, I’m more than willing to wait days or even months to see if her discernment as to Beck is correct or not.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: Nah. Nice try, but not buyin’ it. Your bewildering effort to somehow, and yet again, cast me as being on the wrong side of the abortion issue is, for lack of better words, stupid and silly (and seemingly contrary to your stated aversion to throwing stones). I reject the attempt. It’s bush league. Nobody is beholden to Drill for meeting his quota of anti-abortion posts. Whether anyone meets this quota is not necessarily indicative of their position on the issue. Pure garbage.
IRT the posts you protested about: I asked you to provide examples to support your charges. Here’s a summary of the goulash you served up:
You said some Christians here had gone “on and on” making statements that were “way out of line here, in terms of both tone and intent;” their posts composed “a sort of verbal stoning” consisting of “contempt…insults…[and] invective.” The comments “grew to asinine and unacceptable and endlessly recycled levels.” They were not unlike “lynchings, hanging parties, ducking the witch [and] stonings.” You claim some had “call[ed] for [Andree’s] head.” You argued these Christian commenters were like Pharisees and Sadducees trying to trap a poor soul in her sin and that they were “piling on.”
I perused those posts you provided that were supposed to be characterized by these elements. Unconvincing. I think you just scanned the threads and pulled any that you thought were in disagreement with Andree. Really, most of the posts you cite are merely expressions of disagreement—I don’t see much, if any, of the contempt and invective and lynching and all that. If anyone is still looking in, go check those posts Drill cited. Unless Drill can do more than just point, his argument has simply not been made.
You did point to a post of mine and asked, “what does Andree Seu’s opinion on an unknowable subject have to do with Olasky, etc?” I should think the answer is obvious. Hint: it has to do with the reason this very thread we’re commenting on was posted in the first place.
Back, once more, to the abortion thing. It’s a huge issue (duh). It happens to be a huge issue that does not have a bearing on an analysis of syncretism from a Biblical perspective. It may be your point, Drill, that Christians should examine themselves, using their stance on abortion as a barometer, before engaging in theological discussions, but that’s not the point of this thread or the one that prompted it.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: Nope. You reading okay today? Every post I pulled has some implicit or explicit call “for censorship of Seu, some insulting her ability to write and/or the depth of her Christian walk, some suggesting that World Magazine is part of a sort of conspiracy to emasculate the Christian faith, the most deceptive coming from those who profess to be Christians yet who support abortion” or duly insulting the Christian walk or faith of those who dared to disagree with their arguments against Seu. (I am repeating via cutting and pasting, in the vain hope you might get something by repetition, the last refuge of a failing pedagogue-pupil relationship – and in the effort to save time in an increasingly dismally unproductive exchange).
Contrary to your assertion above regarding my motives, there were some very good and appropriate criticisms of Andree Seu’s opinion. Actually, many – as I have noted time and time again. I did not list them, Macrutabaga.
And for the LAST time, the opinion of a sometime commentator on WMB regarding a completely unknowable topic like the personal salvation of Glen Beck does not presumably represent the august deliberations of Marvin Olasky and company; you seem to be determined to make that connection – for what purpose? I bet you are great fun in a Who Shot Kennedy? discussion. After all, Macrutabaga, where WAS old Marvin on that day?
Read 157 again, Macrutabaga. It pretty much sums things up with reference to our exchange here. At least for me.
Reference abortion – I really don’t know where you stand on it, at this point.
You seem to be unable or unwilling to understand that when you are making common cause with pro-aborts who are claiming Christian orthodoxy – specifically common cause in criticizing a Christian sister with a well-established track record who has simply stated the opinion that a known pro-life figure may be a Christian, you best pause and consider your allies and their motivations and the damage being done with a bit more care.
I find it odd that you get so exercised about someone who points that out. I have completely and adequately explained why I ‘introduced’ abortion into the thread. You cannot separate the comments made by some usual pro-death suspects from any of their ‘theological’ assessments of a pro-lifer like Beck. You agree with that, or you don’t – it is a free country. But it is pretty obvious to plenty of people here.
And yeah, I use a lot of hyperbole, probably not always wisely, but always liberally.
You don’t like it, don’t read my posts.
Fine by me.
Report comment to moderator
If y’all would apply the religious test to Beck that has been used to identify Obama as Muslim, more of you might agree with Sieu.
Again, aren’t we really discussing Romney?
Report comment to moderator
Obama is not a Muslim. He is an inflexible far left-wing ideologue. Sort of like a minor Party flunky in Stalinist Soviet Union, except with significantly less brains and a much bigger ego. But teleprompter technology has improved so we have him as President of the dear old United States of America here in these latter days.
But left-wing ideologues are almost never Muslim, conventionally speaking.
They share similar affinities in regards to many things they don’t like.
However in the final analysis a Mormon would cheerfully cut the head off of a left-wing ideologue, in order to have a shot at a better quality set of 72 virgins in paradise.
Plus left-wing ideologues tend to do poorly under Sharia Law, even minus losing their heads, poor dears.
They do not seem to have figured that out yet, though.
Report comment to moderator
That would be Muslim, not Mormon. Suspicious, though, how both words have the same number of letters and both begin with a capital M. And have the same number of vowels. I wonder if Olasky set that up like that?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, I agree – Beck and Romney are not Muslims either.
Report comment to moderator
No, Drill. Most, or all, of the posts you referenced were expressions of disagreement with Andree. So some were worded more strongly than others, but certainly they didn’t go “on and on” doing all that stuff you rant about. They just don’t. You want to prove otherwise, provide some quotes—and give us a bunch, for you said there were many. A condescending “because I say so” doesn’t suffice.
This was a good one; you wrote:
And for the LAST time, the opinion of a sometime commentator on WMB regarding a completely unknowable topic like the personal salvation of Glen Beck does not presumably represent the august deliberations of Marvin Olasky and company; you seem to be determined to make that connection – for what purpose?
Didn’t say anything about “august deliberations,” did I? But Olasky is World’s Editor in chief. Did you know that? There’s no reason to assume the Editor in chief of a Christian magazine is less involved in or responsible for what ultimately goes to press than his secular counterpart would be; in fact, I’d think he’s likely to be more involved, what with concerns for Christ’s reputation tied to every article. And apparently the protocol at World more closely resembles my assumption about its Commentary articles than yours, since Mickey McLean concedes here that a mistake was made in going forward with Andree’s article. So the buck stopped with McLean rather than Olasky. That’s cool. So for the LAST TIME, my questioning Olasky was justified.
But this from you probably demonstrates better than anything why the conversation with you goes nowhere:
Reference abortion – I really don’t know where you stand on it, at this point.
Apparently my clear and direct statements about the subject aren’t enough for you. Maybe 25 different people offered 80 different posts critical of the Seu piece (I’m guessing on the numbers, but it hardly matters). Two guys who I don’t know from Adam posted about 5 comments on the issue. And simply because I didn’t yell and scream at them about something I wasn’t aware of/hadn’t noticed/was not germane to the topic being discussed, you think I might be pro choice, and that I’m doing some kind of “damage.” You got issues, man.
I find it odd that you get so exercised about someone who points that out. I have completely and adequately explained why I ‘introduced’ abortion into the thread. You cannot separate the comments made by some usual pro-death suspects from any of their ‘theological’ assessments of a pro-lifer like Beck. You agree with that, or you don’t – it is a free country. But it is pretty obvious to plenty of people here.
Drill, those guys are responsible for about 2%, max, of the contributions made to this thing. It’s back to the Drill quota—I don’t have to scrutinize the thread for every comment made by anyone who may be pro-choice, then ascertain whether he’s a professing Christian, then provide some irate response in order to voice an opinion about an unrelated topic. Give up this meme, bud.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: Well, I just cruised back up and cut out a comment from your buddy Yooper – directed personally at me and Chas:
“You may have a low view of God and His Word, but do not expect me to have the same view as yourself”
As I am sort of busy, your assignment is to find out the post number that was in. You seem to like collecting data on that sort of thing – everyone has their own hobbies and interests, I suppose.
Now contrast that with one of my statements:
I am reminded of a circle of Pharisees close-gathered around a kneeling numb-eyed woman, stones hefted and weighed, eyes glittering in eagerness in the last red rays of a setting sun; still panting a bit from when they came a’running when the cry went out, robes and scripture-boxes and phylacteries flapping and clattering and wildly swinging.
Two things – firstly my description is generic and was not aimed at people making legitimate constructive criticisms of Seu’s opinion, did not call out anyone by name, and even regards the intended targets did not really question their ‘view’ of God and His Word, just their application of it.
Secondly, mine was a lot more fun to write and sort of ridiculous to read, I think. I like hyperbole like I like jam on bread. And like my jam on my bread, sometimes my hyperbole is laid on so thick that you can’t even see the bread. If you are an avid literary nutritionist, you may want to avoid my fare when I am in the hyperbole mode, which is to say a great deal of the time. However, there is a kernel of truth in hyperbole, by intent.
There is and was no hyperbole in Yooper’s post – just a bald statement, unadorned and plain and quite moronic and unduly insulting to Chas. Not me. Yooper surely has ME pegged.
The other posts listed (and I just scanned again – like I said I am really busy) were calling for the censorship and/or punishment of Seu (? – ranging from a ‘talking to’ by the editorial board to a full-scale court martial followed by a good old-fashioned hanging, complete with peanut sales and organ grinders), the on-going conspiracy of World to dilute Christianity with post-modernism (Yooper, especially, is fond of this theory), of the marshmallow quality of anyone who disagreed with such theories, etc.
Yes, I was disappointed with McLean’s response – would have been better to simply issued a statement that Seu’s opinion was not the policy or the opinion of WM in general, etc. Then interviewed Beck, which is a good idea, etc. Olasky has a good article on Beck in last issue of WM.
Regards abortion. You might be Mother Theresa for all I know. Well, not Mother Theresa, unless you are a spectral version of her. You used the term ‘anti-choice’ to describe yourself which is (truthfully) odd. You then made a very good response to my query, as I noted, and which satisfied me entirely. But you are perpertually aggrieved that I noticed it in the first place. You may drop it, if you care to – I am not questioning your pro-life credentials.
And no, Macrutabaga. You have it wrong – abortion and Christianity (or all the post-modern relativisms that yank on Christianity – abortion is the most obvious and hence the one with the most clarity, in my opinion) are relevant to the current topic – due to Beck’s strong stance on it, due to some of the posters who stood by you and others (and behind you) tossing stones at Seu, and finally and foremost due to the fact that the connection is made in my brain, if not yours.
By all means, you and RSD can complain to the World management that I am too much of a ‘one-trick pony’.
If they enough time (they are quite busy integrating Christianity with Buddhism, you know), they might address the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Oh for–. Quickly, before heading to work:
You go on and on about how poorly Andree was treated; I asked for demonstration of such; you blindly type some numbers and hit post; I ask for actual detail; then you provide a relatively tame comment (by Drill-hyperbole standards) from someone which wasn’t even directed and Andree Seu!
I don’t have it wrong. It’s weird to see someone continue to actually posts argument for the ad hominem fallacy. The “current topic” is syncretism–you could read Andree’s original post and McLean’s follow up if you wanted to see that. I don’t mind if you’re a one trick pony, but that doesn’t mean all threads are your pony. Your contortions in trying to defend the relevance of abortion are just goofy.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and it’s on you keep going on about calls for Andree to be “censored.” Post some examples. And then demonstrate that’s such a bad thing. Are you aware of the role of editors at print publications? Don’t you even know the very point of McLean’s original post?
Report comment to moderator
That first “on” should be “odd”.
And also, I’m thinking your pony’s trick isn’t abortion, but lazy insult. I haven’t been “perpetually aggrieved” about you questioning my use of a couple terms. I’m making responses to something you’ve perpetually insinuated–that I’m wishy-washy on abortion. It’s like no post of yours is complete until you’ve painted someone as an advocate or facilitator of child killing.
Report comment to moderator
Only God knows Glenn Beck’s heart and no matter how many questions you ask him you can only deduce his relationship w/ God by his actions and what he says. There is a couple in our solid Bible teaching church that were saved while in the Morman church shortly after they were married. They were both generational Mormans who started simply reading the Bible (not the Morman version) out of curiosity. God revealed his truth to them and they are both now born again. They shared their testemony a number of years ago before the congretation and wanted people to know that the Morman stronghold on families is so tenacious that there are those within the Morman fold that actually have “seen the light” so to speak, but who are so locked into the system with family pressure etc. that they feel, or are, trapped. My undertanding is that Beck became “Morman” through marriage- who can know what is in his heart?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve read that before he and his wife were married they went “church-shopping” and, through their Mormon friends, decided to join the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
The article I linked in post 145 is quite interesting, especially regarding the Mormon connection with his focus on our Founding Fathers.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose if Mr. Beck chose, he could very clearly state his position i.e. when he came to Christ, why he then chose the Mormon Church, what he clearly believes the Mormon church teaches and why he chooses to stay there. It really isn’t so difficult. Perhaps he wants it to remain sort of blurry?
Report comment to moderator
I think the only one who’s stated definitively what is in Glenn Beck’s heart is Mrs. Seu.
HOPESPRINGS, 179: You may be interested in the video Yooper linked in 121. I’m not sure what’s in his heart, but his testimony isn’t exactly a “Rally for Orthodoxy.”
Report comment to moderator
“..The Mormon Church uses the King James Bible (along with the Book of Mormon)..”
—-
They use the King James Bible?
Just think. AFTER they become risen and seated in Christ, at new birth, they’ll begin to understand the KJB, thus triggering the awareness of the non-substance within the pages of the
“book of m(agic)orm(asonry)on”
“This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1Jo 5:6-8)
Report comment to moderator
It appears that a variety want to rally behind Beck, and thus, purchase pom-poms of similar colors.
It’s one of those, “you’ve gotta work with whatcha got” for the conservative cause.
Beck, I would assume, has no interest in fistacuffs regarding Biblical revelation.
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t there a little humor a few years back concerning a papal conversation with God..
Pope: “I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news.”
Pope: “The good news is we’ve got the church together.”
Pope: “The bad news is, I’m calling you from Salt Lake City.”
Report comment to moderator
Yooper, post 32: Mickey – Thank you. I called WORLD yesterday. Something more needed to be done than a link to an article by Marvin Olasky that was buried in the comments. I remember when Andree Seu first began writing for WORLD. . . this article with regards to Glenn Beck shot up many red flags about the author. Where do you go from here?
Post 39: Ms. Seu’s writings have always seemed to me a mixed bag between insightfulness and theological spinelessness. But as someone who believes men and women have essential differences, and that women are prone to subordinate truth to relationships and empathy, I can hardly say this is surprising.
Post 47: There are far too many spiritual streakers living in a marshmallow world (speaking of people who disagree).
Post 58: You may have a low view of God and His Word, but do not expect me to have the same view as yourself!
Post 63: From RSD, noted pro-abort, now self-styled theologian: I tend to think that World is making too big of a deal about this. Seu simply said expressly what World’s editorial board has said implicitly for a long time: That being a “true Christian” is not so much about the death and resurrection of Christ as it is about one’s zeal for the social conservative cause. In my view, the Gospel according to Olasky et al. is little more than a rehashed version of the putrid civic Christianity that lulled many Americans to sleep as they take confidence in their practical moral superiority and unwittingly speed down the highway with the pedal pushed to the floor.
Post 88: I shouldn’t be surprised by the comments here – this really is a marshmallow (postmodern) world! (Here directed at comments disagreeing with him)
Orig thread -
Post 4:Unbelievable. So you’re gonna go with this, World Magazine? Olasky? Belz?
Post 56: Arcadia, noted pro-abort and anti-Christian: Beck has no theology. There was no theological content in his speech, merely repeated reference to a belief in a god. It was really the only way he could disguise his rally from being perceived as the hate-fest that he promised and the attendees expected to see. It really was a pretty neat trick. The attendees were led to believe that whatever it was they wanted or wished, Beck’s generic god agreed with them and would deliver.
Yet WMB and Marvin can’t wait to hop on any bandwagon he chooses to head up.
Wow!
Post 58 (censorship) I hope the editorial leadership at WORLD will sit down and have a talk with her (Seu).
Post 61: am so glad that Ms. Seu, with a wave of her hand, dismisses 2000 years of orthodox Biblical truth as irrelevant due to Mr. Beck’s life-change. Finally, we can be relieved of that cumbersome doctrine of the Trinity –narrow, bigoted folk like Athanasius have no place in the modern evangelical pantheon. Not to mention the aseity of God, his immutability, or the full divinity of Christ. Nobody cares about doctrine anymore –what we care about is story, and Glenn Beck has a great story, ergo he must be a Christian, maybe even a prophet, sent to lead America back to her glory days when everyone worshipped God –whatever god they happened to choose. A sad day for World…
Post 78: (JFM – fervent supporter of pro-abort politicians and culture) I listened to Glen Beck’s entire radio program (at work) five days a week for years. Around two years ago I noticed he started talking about Jesus a lot and I felt he was starting to have an agenda for the Mormon faith. Something just didn’t sit right in my spirit. I can only speak for myself. I don’t listen to him at all now.
Post 83: JFM/abort-theologian again
Post 84: And finally, WORLD Magazine has done a great disservice to Christians by publishing this. They better not flatter themselves as having more discernment than periodicals like Christianity Today. I don’t think CT has allowed an endorsement of a cult members salvation
Post 85 (JFM again, abortion-meister) chiming in support of 84
Report comment to moderator
Drill:
Yeah, and…? That’s it? And why are you referring to Arcadia’s posts? He/she isn’t a Christian, at whom you’ve aimed your guns. How are those who objected to Andree’s post somehow guilty of something because of what Arcadia wrote?
How about this one:
Post 58 (censorship) I hope the editorial leadership at WORLD will sit down and have a talk with her (Seu).
Drill, that’s what editors do. Essentially, that’s what World editors did. Scroll up and read McLean again.
What’s wrong with Yooper’s 32? It’s an expression of disagreement. Are you alleging the “censorship” charge? I’m not seeing the lynching/stoning stuff. Same with 39, 47. Not a witch hunt there. Already addressed 58—it’s not pointed at Andree; it’s not even that bad!
I largely agree with RSD in 63. It’s fine if you think World is infallible, or is somehow immune to the malady of many conservative Christians—that of making “common cause” with waffling RINOs out of party loyalty over Christian principle. You may not even think that’s a thing. But get a spine, Drill. You dish out stuff like that all the time.
For the LAST time, I already addressed my query to Olasky.
I don’t know what you expect me to say about posts from “abort-theologians”. I haven’t defended anything they’ve said on the unrelated subject of abortion. Does what they say somehow negate all criticism of Andree’s posts, the vast majority of which criticism has come from pro-lifers? Here, would this help: I disagree with the stance taken by, like, two professing Christians here that the right to abortion should be granted to any citizen. There. Are my objections to syncretism now made valid? If you want, I could throw in more invective. Maybe that’s the only language you know. Wait, that wouldn’t make sense—you spew it all the time, but object to stuff that’s far milder. Among those who you insist examine themselves, shouldn’t you include yourself?
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I thought post 4 from the original thread was great–concise, expressing bewilderment, appealing to the people who should have read it before it got posted. Most of the quoted posts seem along that line–expressing disagreement, surprise, and sadness, but not attacking anyone. I didn’t like post 39 (summarized “Well, what can you expect from a woman?”), and don’t agree with all of them, but I do think we showed honest disagreement, and many of us showed genuine theological concern. (None of my own posts are quoted among Drill’s quotes, though I disagreed with the column being published, and said so.)
Mormonism is simply a bigger error than many Christians realize, and WORLD shouldn’t risk making it sound like merely a different denomination. The column was very seriously disappointing. And as an editor myself (albeit one with no “power” to choose not to publish something if the author insists on saying something with which I disagree and the publisher is OK with it), I did think the gatekeepers were careless on this one, since columnists do “represent” WORLD in a way that isn’t necessarily true of other magazines.
Report comment to moderator
It simply doesn’t matter if Andree Seu is right or wrong. She has as much choice in her opinions as we do in either agreeing or disagreeing. I don’t expect to have to agree with everything in World Magazine.
For 15 years I edited a select Periodical Review for legislators and included all points of view so they could make up their own minds with facts to support their conclusions. World’s magazine or its blog is the same way. Do we want only pap and pandering to flatter our own superior positions. We’re supposed to be adults who can handle an opposing view instead of wanting it spiked. Andree Seu is not a reporter, she’s a columnist.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody said anything about Andree’s right to hold opinions or post them, Louise. And they allow readers to comment on these threads for essentially the same reasons you enumerate in your 2nd paragraph.
Report comment to moderator
No, Macrutabaga, Andree Seu did not favorably discuss integrating Mormonism with Christianity – in fact she spent a fair amount of her original opinion-commentary saying that she knew the dangers of doing just that.
She, however, spoke concisely and particularly about one individual Mormon whom she feels she knows enough to make a personal assessment of his spiritual state (always a dangerous business). Her business, though – and in an opinion commentary worth not really that much, except as food for thought.
Where, exactly, is the large conspiracy to synchronize Mormonism with Christianity?
Perhaps you know how WMB operates better than I – perhaps it is a top-down, rigid, lock-step, utterly Olasky-controlled structure driven by some denominational orthodoxy and where every word of every commentator is scrutinized by a board of grim-faced, heavy-jowled old men in beaver fur hats, looking for deviations from that orthodoxy.
I believe it is a far looser band of writers/commentators/journalists/etc. with a fairly wide range of latitude (for the commentators, not the journalists), within reason. I would like to think it is that – I take it you are very uncomfortable with it.
You and I get two very different views out of most of those comments I list. You accused me of picking comments at random – I did not. As I noted, there were a large number of good comments critical of Seu’s column, none listed. I spent some valuable time that I don’t have doing that for you. Labor unrequited with appropriate appreciation breeds bitterness, Macrutabaga.
I had said that my picture of the stoning was hyperbole, which it originally was, to get the attention of some in the hope that they would sort of realize that maybe they were going too far – and especially considering the company they were keeping and who they were encouraging. It was primarily aimed, however, at those posting criticisms of both Seu and Beck whom I knew are ardent supporters of abortion.
With you now, I am not so sure that it is all hyperbole. Do you care more about loudly and repeatedly asserting a false (or at least unproved) claim of syncretism against a sister like Seu and the staff at WMB – and calling for ‘action’ – or do you care more to scripturally state your disagreement with her opinion and then move on?
Can you cite for me one other instance of (perceived) theological error which Seu has been guilty of, in the past many years?
Your comment about agreeing with RSD is utterly incomprehensible, if you are whom you claim and who I have, until now, believed you are.
RSD is not referring to the willingness of conservative Christians to go along with RINO’s, for crying out loud. RSD is a committed leftist, a pro-death proponent whose contempt and hatred of true Christianity has repeatedly been expressed on these threads. He is contemptuous of any Christianity which is pro-life or pro-freedom. That is what he is referring to.
Ignoring your insults regarding my inflexibility regarding the amorality/immorality of abortion and its importance here – as well as elsewhere (when discussing ’sycretism’, particularly) – I am, as I have stated a number of times and which you do not seem to get, happy you are pro-life.
And then you accuse me of spewing invective. That really hurts.
I think you are angry with me because I sort of interrupted you right in the middle of an exercise of publicly and repeatedly beating someone over the head over an unprovable and nebulous charge of syncretism.
I hate that you are angry with me, Macrutabaga. It makes me tear up and clogs up my sinuses.
Report comment to moderator
Read more carefully, Drill. Where did I say Andree favorably discussed integrating Mormonism with Christianity? I can hardly recall an accurate attribution from you of anything I’ve said.
I have no way of knowing, but I’m probably no more, or less, angry with you than you are with me. Cute you attempt to come off all grown up!
Report comment to moderator
Um, you sort of said that, for instance, in your post 188 when you get all worked up over criticisms to your ‘objections about syncretism’, referencing, lo and behold, the original Seu opinion piece.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not ’syncretism’ sort of like integration, except spelled different? – I presume the related word is synchronize.
I am not angry with you at all, Macrutabaga.
I sort of like you.
You display tenacity, which if properly directed, can be a real asset.
If not properly directed, of course, tenacity tends to be just plain thick-headedness.
I am always optimistic on such things, though. Which accounts for my general good nature.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me, that would be your post 185, last paragraph.
Report comment to moderator
Um, here’s my 188, quoted in full:
How do you so misread stuff?
Provide an actual quote. I haven’t said Andree was favorable to integrating Mormon doctrine into Christian. I’ve said all along that it’s wrong to give the appearance that the two can be harmonized. You and I know they can’t. Should we give the impression to Mormons that they can? It may not have been Andree’s intent to do that–and I’ve never said it was–but McLean’s admission is that that is precisely what may have been done.
Report comment to moderator
Are you kidding? So it’s the last paragraph of 185? Explain, without unnecessarily reading your own assumptions into it, how what I said there should be construed as a claim that Andree wants to integrate Mormon and Christian doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.: I have absolutely no problem with your posts – or your concern about Mormonism in general or taking issue with Seu’s opinion.
Surprisingly, I had no problem with Macrutabaga’s posts either for the most part (with the exception of #4, original thread – which made little sense to me based on my conception of what Andree Seu is and does at WMB and who Olasky is and what he does and what WMB is, etc.)
It was mainly the pro-aborts theologizing that got my adrenaline up and then Yooper did get on my nerves, admittedly, although to be fair to him, I think he is pretty sincere that he thinks that World is actually going straight to Hell in a hand basket and he all antsy and feeling the need to straighten them and all of the rest of us out and pluck us all like burning brands from the fire of post-modernism, etc., etc., etc. He probably has a point, actually.
Macrutabaga probably just does not like my choice of adjectives, or the way I string them together, is all.
All that animosity I am getting from that direction is probably just some issue regarding my style, or lack thereof.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt that any Mormon is going to see Andree’s column as permission to harmonize their religion with Christianity. But NJL was right, when Beck talks about Jesus, every Christian relates to a much different Jesus than he does.
It’s often said that sometimes the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons. I’m in full agreement with Beck reemphasizing the importance of our founding prinicples, documents and the men who made this country possible. God is in charge of all of this, but I’m becoming quite leary of Beck’s truer motivation after reading articles such as the one I linked in #145.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: Well, let us see – there (in #185) you rhetorically query “Are my objections to syncretism now made valid?”
It would seem the focus of the current and past thread is, in fact, Andree Seu’s commentary-opinion piece and the concerns, variously valid, real, made-up, and/or fantastic, regarding syncretism, thereof? Yes?
Or maybe I have that wrong?
Maybe we have been really talking about some other writer, some other topic?
Hemingway? Sarte? P.J. O’Rourke?
Existentialism? Impressionism? Occultism?
No. No, I am pretty sure that we have all been talking about Andree Seu and her opinion on Glen Beck’s spiritual state and that most of the subsequent discussion has been with regards to that being either a syncretic sort of thing, or not, and with some concerned with all the terrible ramifications for WMB of this single off-the-wall opinion by a sometime (and generally reliable) commentator.
But I am ALWAYS open to correction.
Maybe you have been (all along) objecting to syncretism in general and that none of your comments actually had anything at all to do with Andree Seu or her opinion or the original commentary? Perhaps it was just sort of coincidental that all your comments regarding syncretism happened to appear in these particular threads?
Report comment to moderator
Okay, I see your point that you do not say that Seu favorably discussed syncretizing (?) Mormonism with true Christianity. Just that she leads people into it, which is utterly unclear to me, based on her actual comments.
But that does not change any thing else regards my post 189 or subsequent posts – whether or not you are saying that Seu deliberately is integrating Christianity and Mormonism or is inadvertently doing it. Either way. Whatever.
Report comment to moderator
No, no, Drill. I’ve never said Andree was pro-syncretism. I’ve said her article gave the appearance that Mormon and Christian doctrine could be syncretized. I think that’s how most who’ve objected have stated it. Just provide a quote of mine that says otherwise. If it has the appearance you claim it does, then I simply say point you to this clarification. Man. If there was a place called Reading-Into-Things Land, you’d be, like, the King of it.
Her business, though – and in an opinion commentary worth not really that much, except as food for thought.
That’s OK. Who said otherwise?
Perhaps you know how WMB operates better than I – perhaps it is a top-down, rigid, lock-step, utterly Olasky-controlled structure driven by some denominational orthodoxy and where every word of every commentator is scrutinized by a board of grim-faced, heavy-jowled old men in beaver fur hats, looking for deviations from that orthodoxy.
This isn’t High School comp. You can just say stuff, if you want. But in a dialogue of this sort, wouldn’t it be more productive to attempt an accurate representation of what’s being discussed? And, Nah, it looks like World operates on your regular, garden variety editor/writer relationship, which you seem to be ignorant of, but which would be obvious to you if you noticed why the McLean post we’re commenting on was written. I know your original critique was hyperbole, but it was far from clear that it primarily applied to pro-abort Christians. Those folks only made a handful of posts on the matter, and certainly weren’t the ones going “on and on” with the stoning and witch hunting.
When I saw what you’d cut and pasted in 184, and the time it must have taken, I actually did feel a bit guilty, considering what you provided so manifestly did not constitute all that stuff you’d alleged. I provided a reason why 58 shouldn’t really be subject to your indignation—I could do so with a number of other examples of yours, if you like—but you didn’t explain why my take was wrong.
So if RSD’s intent is to argue World should give up the pro-life battle, I reject it. I wasn’t familiar with RSD. But it doesn’t matter! His one or two posts do not negate the numerous others being made—by pro-lifers, no less—about syncretism. Sheesh.
Big guy, I’m taking the same approach as you here. You’re reading my posts, then providing analysis of them. It doesn’t bother me whether you think I’m angry or not; or whether you think I think you’re angry, etc. I just don’t read stuff into stuff the way you do.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, if it’s “utterly unclear” to you, then why don’t you ask Mickey McLean for clarification. Do you understand why he posted what he did here?
Report comment to moderator
Darn, I should have declared “200.” But sorry for my italics goof in 199.
Report comment to moderator
And, you know, even saying that you think that Seu is making the mistake of leading people into syncretism (not doing it deliberately) is understandable and supportable – I don’t necessarily agree, because of her wrap-around on the dangers of just that. Lots of people posted that thought, actually, although I think more did not feel that way.
That was never the reason for me jumping into this fray. Basically, it was the piling on by certain posters who are coming from a particular direction – a term ‘piling on’ you object to, but which I believe is fairly accurate, given the inclinations and history of those same individuals.
Like I said before, Macrutabaga – you don’t like my posts, please don’t read them. Or if you think that what I write does not apply to you, ignore it – it probably does not.
Or if you hate it very, very much, you can always report the comment as a breach of orthodoxy to the moderator and hope that I will be arrested by the editorial board at WMB, interrogated, and shot at dawn.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: You’re referring to the 4 or 5 posts from 2 guys, out of the numerous others made? Those 4 or 5 just went “on and on”?
I appreciate your permission to ignore your posts. You can ignore mine, too, if you want, or if you don’t like them. Why you bringing this up, though?
Report comment to moderator
…All through the town.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Macrutabaga, I would use Yooper’s own argument about the 3% part of rat poison being the bad stuff – the rest is good for you, but the 3% ruins it and kills you. As far as ‘going on and on’, that is sort of subjectively determined, apparently.
You have worn me out, Macrutabaga.
I don’t dislike you, I don’t want to ignore your posts. I don’t want you to dislike me. I don’t want you to ignore my posts, unless it helps your blood pressure (to ignore them.) I hope Andree Seu will not get in trouble over this, I hope WMB will not become a Mormon outlet, I hope Yooper will keep fighting post-modernism, I hope you will never become a Buddhist, I hope JJF and RSD and others will become pro-life and become real actual Christians instead of Molech-worshippers, I hope Cheryl D. will not be mad at me, I hope Mickey McLean will not have to take nerve medicine, I hope Glen Beck will become a Christian, if he is not already one secretly, I hope Barack Obama will discover his birth certificate and find out that he actually was born in Milwaukee and wants to resign the Presidency in order to work in a beer distillery there.
Report comment to moderator
Brewery, not distillery. Like I said, you have worn me out.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds good, Drill. That’ll be super.
Report comment to moderator
Drill & Mac,
I fear that both of you (Drill more so than Mac) come close to suggesting that one’s views on abortion are a litmus test of whether one is an orthodox Christian.
Frankly, I am aware of no orthodox Christian definition of justification that suggests that this is true. We are justified before God through faith in Christ. Period.
Moreover, Scripture is far from clear on the issue of whether abortion is murder. As such, my opposition to abortion is based on prudential concerns (i.e., that it may be murder), and not on a categorical belief that it is indeed murder. Thus, it is quite possible for a solid, orthodox Christian to lack your zeal for antiabortion activism and still be a faithful Christian. In fact, that person may hesitate to engage in more extreme forms of abortion activism because of reluctance to impugn the character of others on issues where Scripture’s prohibitions are somewhat nuanced (as is the case here).
You are certainly entitled to your view that abortion is murder. But it is a breach of the peace and purity of the church for you to suggest that others are not Christians merely because their convictions do not align perfectly with yours on this issue. I simply ask that you take that to heart.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, the peace and purity of WHAT church? Your post comes across as wishy-washy religiously pretentious gobbledy-gook. If it isn’t and you truly support protecting all God-given human life from conception, why such a rambling statement that sounds like you’re criticizing fellow Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
When Scripture does not speak clearly to an issue, we have little choice but to be “wishy-washy”.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
Scripture clearly tells us that God creates the baby in his mother’s womb, and Scripture clearly tells us God hates hands that shed innocent blood. It takes very little “connecting the dots” to say that deliberately destroying any human life that God has created, without just reason to do so (e.g., capital punishment, self-defense, or lawful war) is murder. The benefit of the doubt (if there is any doubt at all; in my mind there is not) simply must be on the side of not killing.
Scripture never says specifically “Don’t kill your grandmother with a two-by-four,” either, but anyone wishing to do so had better have proof that this isn’t included under murder, rather than assuming it is not until others can prove to the would-be murderer’s satisfaction that it is.
Report comment to moderator
#208 RSD
In Exodus 21:22-25, the penalty for harming the unborn is life for life, an eye for an eye, etc. Harming the unborn receives the same penalty as assault and murder. Please stop speaking your lies about Scripture not being clear that abortion is murder.
Report comment to moderator
And, RSD, even if you still claim that abortion is not murder, the Bible equates it with murder, as the penalty in the Law is the same.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, I don’t consider one’s stance on abortion to be a test of orthodoxy; nor do I regard biblical clarity on the issue to be on the same level as, say, the virgin birth. But between a number of contributors from Scripture–including some provided by Cheryl D. in 211–and what I believe to be a gracious revelation from God via medical/technological demonstration, it’s apparent to me that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, i.e., it’s murder.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, that was painful. I just read the entire Macrutabaga and Drill saga. I’ve only been a World member for a short time, and I’ve always thought blogging was a complete waste of my time. However, I became a member in order to have meaningful discourse with fellow believers, but this is ridiculous. I am starting to feel that I wasn’t too far off the mark, this is a complete waste of my time. When Olansky did the first piece about Glen Beck’s revival, I made a single post asking people to pray for a “Real Truth, No Whitewash” Baptist church plant that I am involved in. Did anyone respond and say hey brother, I’ll pray for you? No! Why? Well from the following posts I perused, you all were too busy arguing with one another about how Godly you are. Some of you are so heavenly minded, you’re of no earthly good! Thanks for nothing Christians, I can get this banter in the world (no pun intended). Maybe it’s just you all don’t want new people to play in your reindeer games. Fine by me this junk hurts my head! The only bloggers here that I feel have anything of worth to say is Neil Evans, Cheryl D. and Hopesprings. Although eloquent, some of you can’t see the forest through the trees. You need a saw mill for all that lumber protruding out your eye Christian. Can I get an Amen? I thought not.
Report comment to moderator
Retraction: post 215. Cal Thomas did the piece about Glen Beck’s Revival. 5th sentence should read “When Cal Thomas did the first piece about Glen Beck’s revival,” Not that it makes a difference, I’m just retentive that way. Hey if nothing else, my rant may provide fodder for another round of the Macrutabaga and Drill show. Can I get an Amen yet?
Report comment to moderator
People who are convinced their religion is the only true one very often become obsessed with making determinations of who is in and who is out — even from within their own ranks.
It’s nice to be free of that and be able to just take people as they are, warts and all.
Report comment to moderator
Hang in there RETIREDMILITARY, I do recall your post, but wasn’t quite sure where you were coming from at the time and then I went on to something else. Posting on blogs can be an embarrassing timewaster. But not always
Report comment to moderator
I was looking around in my bucket of English language words to use, but d. and m. used them all up.
Now what am I going to do?
“Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado a su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en Él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.” (Joh 3:16)
Report comment to moderator
Do we believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone? I do.
It is not by NOT being Mormon, although it would be a very rare thing for a Mormon to put his faith in the true Jesus, since their doctrines are so unsound.
It is not by being Presbyterian or being a part of some other Reformed denomination.
It is not by being totally correct and/or orthodox in one’s theology.
—–
What if somebody said about some of you that you are not really saved because you have not been baptized as a confessed beleiver but were sprinkled as a baby?
What if somebody said about some of you that you are not saved because you did not go on to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues?
What if somebody said about youthat you are not saved because you follow John Calvin instead of Jesus?
I believe none of those things and would not say them, but what if the shoe were on the other foot? What if something about your beliefs and pracitices caused people to say that you are not saved?
Gleen Beck has publicly confessed that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior. Until we hear something to contradict that confession by him, we should at least be open minded.
Saying that a Mormon cannot also have saving faith in Christ is adding to the Gospel and limiting the limitless God.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Retired Military, I did pray. I always stop and pray immediately when someone requests it on this blog. I do not always post back that I have done so. I have also posted prayer requests and I am sure some have prayed who have not specifically told me they have. I know some posters here, along with me, pray for others here, who have and have not requested it.
Of course, that is also off-subject, but while we are off-subject consider this: Is it all about you and your church or your organization etc.? That is how you are coming across to me. Yet, I am sure there is much more to you and will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should do the same, before pronouncing judgement on this blog and everyone on it. Just some food for thought.
Report comment to moderator
RetiredMilitary: My fault.
Of course, you ALWAYS have the option of not wasting your time READING exchanges you don’t feel are productive.
You are correct that I have a lot of lumber sticking out of my eye. Thanks for pointing it out.
I disagree utterly with the false notion that there is any Biblical ambiguity regarding abortion. It is absolutely evil and contravenes all Scripture and all God-given moral sense.
I have to bite my tongue on the ‘hierarchy’ of acceptably Christian beliefs, such as the Virgin Birth versus the ‘acceptable sacrament’ of butchering children for profit and convenience.
Candidly, if your God or your religion is anything about butchering children for profit and convenience, or accepting the practice at any level – political, cultural or religious – I want nothing to do with it – it is an evil god and is, in fact, a Demon, an offspring of Hell, and far worse than no god at all. You are a Demon worshiper.
However, I could see where someone could earnestly struggle with the scientific problematics and theological underpinnings of – and behind – the Virgin Birth and still be firmly a Christian. Been there myself.
Which is why I tread lightly in condemning someone like Seu, who thinks, rightly or wrongly, the ardently pro-life Beck is a Christian despite being Mormon.
But you cannot be a Christian and be a Molech-worshiper at the same time.
In fact, Molech worship was ‘better’ on the Scale of Evil – at least the Canaanites only sacrificed their children to the maw of their god in times of great national need – we kill our children through the euphemism of State-sanctioned walk-in ‘clinics’, assembly-line fashion, with all the ceremony and regret of removing warts and blemishes.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Please, please tell me this isn’t some dig at me:
I have to bite my tongue on the ‘hierarchy’ of acceptably Christian beliefs, such as the Virgin Birth versus the ‘acceptable sacrament’ of butchering children for profit and convenience.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know your reasoning here, or your heart, Macrutabaga. I stated the case from 1) my understanding of all Scripture (although, as RetiredMilitary points out, that is not very impressive in content or application) and 2) God, whom I know is Good.
I would like to think that I misunderstand you when you seem to say that killing children is ‘more acceptable’ for a Christian than (for instance) having issues with the literalism (say) of the Virgin Birth.
I believe that the Virgin Birth is literally true but I can easily understand how one can struggle with that (or the existence of Hell, or evolution versus Creation, and still be a Christian. (These things must be worked out – the Scripture does not lie and we must accept the Word of God as true, even when it contravenes our experience or our reasoning or our preferences, although we sometimes overplay our understanding of it.) But nevertheless these sorts of issues are doctrinal at their core – right doctrine but not essential for salvation.
I also know that Christians have abortions – I REALLY know that, from bitter experience and seeing it over and over and over again – but because they are confused, scared, misled, temporarily insane, whatever. But that is different from coldly and methodically and practically accepting abortion as a moral right – or a moral ambiguity – or in any way reconciling it with Christianity.
One can come to the Cross with many bad things attached – but I do not think that Christ will ever let anyone go from the Cross (who has received Him) who is purposely, deliberately, methodically, with intent and acceptance, still clutching the chains and dragging the corpses of little children behind them.
Only a thoroughly evil heart, one not inhabited at all by Christ, could attempt the syncretism between abortion and Christianity.
I believe you are a sister in Christ, Macrutabaga. But I will freely admit that I do not understand that post you wrote – the way I interpret it does not fit into any conception of God or understanding of scripture or Jesus Christ that I even remotely understand.
I am not going to respond any more on this thread, although I will of course read anything you might say, and attempt to understand what you are saying.
As RetiredMilitary indicates, I have said far too much here, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, here is the last post I will write:
Not digging at you, Macrutabaga, just not connecting with what you wrote and confused because I can see where it can lead, if I am even interpreting what you wrote correctly, which given my track record apparently, is not likely.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I’m a dude.
I think a case can be made that belief in the virgin birth is essential to salvation, or perhaps, to state it differently, rejection of the doctrine may threaten one’s salvation (I’m stating this poorly; I’m not here to write a Master’s thesis). But forget all that. What if I’d referred to the Resurrection, or the deity of Christ? I know there’s a danger in emphasizing doctrine at the expense of practice (it’s my belief that right doctrine should lead to right practice), but the plain fact is scripture itself warns us that we reject certain doctrinal planks at our peril.
I explained to RSD that, by my understanding, one stance or another on abortion is not a litmus test for orthodoxy. I said that the virgin birth—which is ardently attested in virtually every creed and confession in Christendom—is more plainly taught in scripture than is the status of a fetus. Saying that, it’s still *entirely possible to believe scripture plainly informs us about personhood.* So I imply a “hierarchy.” Whatever. It’s a ridiculous stretch to think this means I condone abortion at all; but based on it, you still compose 224 as if I’m neutral (at best) on the matter! It’s been mystifying to me how eager you’ve been to read my posts in the most uncharitable of ways. Every once in a while, as in part of 224 and in 225, it appears you’re extending an olive branch, but the balance of your posts show you’re really short-arming it. It’s fine to express the indignation and the ridicule and all that; but may I suggest in future exchanges that you ask for clarity first, not concluding anything that hasn’t been said, before launching into a heated spiel.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I am not supposed to reply but my mouth is bigger than my good intentions.
Sorry, I did not know your gender – I meant to write ‘brother or sister’.
No, I do not think you are pro-abortion or even neutral about it. I was referring in my 224 (and the harsher language in 222) to the RSD’s of the world – someone who deliberately and manipulatively ‘reconciles’ abortion with Christ.
Where you and I depart from each other utterly and completely, though, is in your apparent belief that it is possible for someone who does that (deliberately and manipulatively reconciling child murder with Christ) to still be in Christ, however ‘misguided’ you believe them to be.
I agree with much of your above post 226, with the exception that I do not believe that a serial murderer who has Christ enter their life, will go on cheerfully and knowingly being a serial murderer, and especially that he can work out a philosophical system that allows them to reconcile it with Christ. I’m sorry – I just can’t see that. And it is very, very important to me.
I did not write 224 as a rant at all, Macrutabaga. It is about as hyperbole-free and sincere as I know how to be. It states why I do not think you are right on that point, assuming I have not read you yet again in ‘the most uncharitable of ways’.
Report comment to moderator
Judging by World’s response (or lack of it) and subsequent columns by Seu, I would venture to say that she was taken to woodshed and told to keep to her fluffy posts and leave the doctrinal issues to “real” theologians.
Quite disappointed.
Report comment to moderator
And it’s difficult for me not to reply, Drill, when you keep putting beliefs I do not hold into my posts. You preface a supposed point of contention by saying you dispute my “apparent” belief about something, then go on to attribute to me that “apparent” belief in the vilest terms—“reconciling child murder with Christ”). What’s wrong with you? What’s wrong with asking for clarification before claiming something like that about someone? What of all that talk about Pharisees and witch hunts and verbal stoning? I just can’t fathom why you want to do that. I suppose maybe a person get to point B from my stated point A, but It’s just not necessary to assume the logic must follow that path.
Report comment to moderator
NO! I plainly said that your belief is apparently that someone ELSE (like RSD) CAN reconcile (within themselves) abortion and Christianity and still be a Christian. I DID NOT say that YOU believed that Christianity and abortion is reconciled. Just that such a person (RSD, whoever) could hold that ‘error’ and still be a Christian.
Since you are so plainly looking for offense in EVERYTHING I say, even to the point of distorting everything I am trying to (as gently as possible) get across, I am done with you on this. Whether that characteristic in you is my fault or not, I am not sure and at this point I really am tired of caring about it.
Tip-toeing around a subject like abortion in order to try to avoid ‘hurting feelings’ is pretty much wrong in itself. I fell right into that trap, uncharacteristically.
Shame on me.
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia 228, you might know better than I, but I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. The majority of her columns and style are fluffy to begin with. Almost anyone can write like that and many posters do. But I would definitely be disappointed and a bit put out if you are correct.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right. I did carelessly characterize what you’d attributed to me; I meant to highlight your “vile terms”–“reconciling child murder with Christ”—and how you’d somehow associated them with me, albeit indirectly. I never thought, and didn’t mean to state, that you thought I actively did that. My point, though, was that you wanted some of that stink on me, else you would have addressed your post to RSD and left me out of it. Or, you could have just asked if I thought such reconciliation could be done!
Don’t you see it? Why must you assume, as you did in 227, that I believe “a serial murderer who has Christ enter their life, will go on cheerfully and knowingly being a serial murderer”? It just isn’t necessary to conclude I believe that.
Lastly, don’t whine about having to tiptoe after all you’ve written in this thread about verbal stoning. Very little of what you decried compares to your stuff. Reconciling child murder to Christ, eh? Respond or not, whatever. I’m only trying to set the record straight.
Report comment to moderator
Besides which, Metanoia, Seu’s column on Glenn Beck was not doctrinal. It was her feeling and impression from having known him personally – before and after conversion to LDS. But I’m not sure if the time she spent with him while she was making sandwiches at that seminary was actually in person or listening to him on the radio. Did I miss something?
Report comment to moderator
Louise: See my comments on this thread #14 and #36 and my comments on the “Flavor of Tea Part 3″ post #’s 8, 26, 66, and 72 to see where I stand on this issue.
My disappointment is not with Andree Seu’s post but with Worlds’ response or lack of it and the public flaggelation Seu has been subjected to by a number commenters on this issue.
Whether I agree with Seu or not (I don’t) I respect her right to call it as she sees it in commentary but not necessarily in doctrine.
I’m really very curious as to what Mickey means when he agrees with Justin Taylor that publishing Seu’s post was a, “tragic mistake.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes Metanoia I understand that. I think “tragic” was a bit over the top, but headlines often are i order to get our attention. Now, though, I’ve stopped caring what Mickey meant. It doesn’t matter. Any clarification at this poing would just be anticlimactic.
Report comment to moderator
OK, so I told myself I wasn’t going to do this anymore, but I couldn’t help myself. I hope blogging isn’t like crack….you get addicted after two hits….well I didn’t inhale, so I should be fine.
First off, I would like to thank Louise #218 and KI #221 for their replies.
Thank you KI for praying for this new church, we need all the prayer we can get. And, no KI it isn’t all about me, if it were, I would have told you I was the “grand pubah” of all elders at the church, or maybe even the pastor. I’m just a lowly guy, who claims solidarity with Jesus Christ, and wants to be a part of something that will evidence in a mighty way that God is good and wants church plants to be successful. I want to be the servant, NOT the guy with the title. I had the title and big ol’ rack of medals for 23 years, it took me a while to figure out that’s not where my significance lies. Robert S. Mcgee’s book “The Search For Significance” helped me in my struggle after losing what I thought was my identity when I retired.
Further, as a 50 year old student working on my masters, I should know not to use the words “only, never, you all, you always” unless I can prove it unequivocally. In my post # 215, I used these words, and I apologize, there are many more posters here that I feel have something of worth to say. Neil Evans came to mind first, because he is one of those guys that doesn’t say much, but when he does, he is spot on. Cheryl D. and Hopesprings because their posts exude Godliness. However in all fairness there are many more posters who have it right.
To Drill and Macrutabaga. My apologies. I don’t know you guys, and I have just as much wood in my own eyes, I’m sure those that are “real” here would say the same about themselves. I was not trying to imply that I am a squeaky clean Christian with a “Holier than Thou” attitude. However, I used harsh language to make a point, and that is, “We Christians have nothing to argue about, we’re on the same team.” We all should be part of the solution, not the problem. This is why I joined World, to interact with like-minded (and not so like-minded) Christians, as well as debate non-believers that post here, not to anger them, but to hopefully bring them to Christ. 2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This applies to believers and non-believers, or as I like to say pre-Christians.
Lastly, Drill, I am pro life and voted YES on 8! I have two adult children of my own whom I love dearly and I teach Sunday school. ( I jokingly state this to preclude any rebuttal indicating my views). I do agree with you that abortion is an abomination and must be stopped. But seriously dude, you were getting way too intense with Macrutabaga. Conversely, Macrutabaga perpetuated the tumult. Fellas, I truly meant no disrespect, as I said we are all on the same team and maybe if we see error in another’s theology, lets 2nd Timothy them (respectfully).
I think Neil Evans said it best on post # 111, “To think that unsaved people are reading this explains some of why they are not very attracted to “evangelical” Christianity. Shooting at Mormonism we shoot each other. And in our quick-draw we often shoot ourselves in the foot. Our Enemy is winning this battle. (In spite of the fact that we have clearly identified unBiblical doctrine.)”
Report comment to moderator
RetiredMilitary, no apology to me is necessary. What you said about me is right, and I appreciate the food for thought. I can’t bring myself to agree that “[s]hooting at Mormonism we shoot each other,” (unless it is meant differently than I’m hearing it), but I appreciate the call for peace.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, I don’t think she knew him personally. The column started out sounding like that, but apparently she only means she heard him on the radio in his early years when he wasn’t very well known.
Report comment to moderator
Post # 237: Macrutabaga, that’s a genuine response, thank you.
I can’t really speak to what Neil Evans actually meant, but what I got from his post #111 is this: If we bad mouth others with ferocity and bad mouth fellow believers to justify why we’re bad mouthing these others, we blow our witness to outsiders looking in. We wind up looking like the wild eyed crazy on the street corner wearing a trench coat with “sandwich boards” (Human billboards) screaming “we’re all gonna die! Just my take, I’m sure Neil could clarify better.
Report comment to moderator
ok Cheryl, thank you. When I ask if I missed something I really meant it. Sometimes I read too much into something, and other times I’m too timid to trust my own judgment.
Report comment to moderator
To get back on track, hopefully I won’t be misconstrued. Is Mormonism Christianity or a reasonable facsimile?
I know what God’s word says and I believe whole heartedly that the Bible is God breathed. With that said, if I say I’m a Christian and that I believe in the trinity, Jesus’ sacrifice and payment for my sins, then I can’t say ANY other religion is OK to believe too, that’s relativism and doesn’t ring true with my studies of God’s word. If I acknowledge a false religion, I then begin the whitewashing of Christianity in my own mind. Satan loves a crack in the door and the Bible warns us about deception by the evil one and his minions of false teachers. This is not my ideas, they’re God’s!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, RetiredMilitary – your comments are correct and I welcome and affirm your pro-life activities. I am indeed intense on the issue of being pro-life as well as a number of other things. For being intense in pro-life attitude and comments here, and for clinically and accurately describing the evil nature and actual practice of abortion, I cannot and will not make an apology. If someone is offended by clinical descriptions of what is happening at a rate of 3000 times a day in America alone, I cannot help that.
Where I can and will apologize is to any readers who may have thought I was referring to them due to poorly styled or directed writing.
My original point stands – For all the huffing and puffing here, Andree Seu is far less guilty of inadvertent syncretism in terms of Mormonism – i.e. it is far less ‘dangerous’ to subscribe Christianity to a man like Glen Beck – than many supposedly in the Church who practice (or discount) a far more deadly syncretism with regards to the practice of butchering unwanted children; a practice known as abortion to us, more properly known as the wholesale murder of His children to a loving God.
Report comment to moderator
Post #242: Drill, roger that! and thank you.
I get your passion, as should we all when it pertains to abortion. It is my belief life starts at the point of conception. However God knows us even before our life begins. Again not my thoughts, but God’s.
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
Report comment to moderator
FYI, a real live Mormon has posted on the Seu thread if anyone wants to engage him in his idea that Mormonism is correct about Jesus and orthodox Christianity (his term) is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
It was not my intention to provide additional comment on this thread…
Cheryl – Great catch!! How did I miss it??
RETIREDMILITARY – I have a passion for sound doctrine, because I can vividly remember a time when I had none. The Word of God is not subject to change and is The Source of my beliefs. I have an understanding of the mormon cult and the unknown many souls who have been eternally lost because of it. The following is one of many good websites that can provide additional information about the mormon cult: http://christianinformation.org/article.asp?artID=57 I cannot understand why someone such as such as Neil Evans (who claims to be a pastor/ a shepherd) would refer to me as a legalist? The mormons are the legalists. His comments did not help! But that is the world of virtual reality. I take more offense at the article that was written by Andree Seu – a real person who writes for a real magazine that I used to subscribe to.
Life is the most precious gift from God. It saddens me that there was once a time (22 years ago) that my mind was unclear on this issue. Individuals such as Billy Graham did not help – who states that rape and incense must be judged on an individual basis (Approaching Hoofbeats). The most innocent party receives the death sentence. As a former fetus, I oppose abortion! One conversation was with a man whose daughter had been raped – they kept the baby – he couldn’t imagine life without his grandchild.
I still am unclear as to how the thread took the turn towards abortion. I am clear on that God is good, and the evil will not go unpunished. I can sleep at night.
Report comment to moderator
Post #245 YOOPER, I have done huge amounts of research on the Church of Mormon, see my posts (there are many) in regards to the Mormon that Cheryl D revealed in our midst on the Seu thread. This is what I believe on the subject.
John 14:6 “No one comes to the Father, but through me.”
If a person states I believe the Bible is the true word of God and my salvation comes from believing Jesus Christ is my savior, and that God is the one and only true God, then John 14:6 applies to that person. I further believe that if a person has a personal relationship with Jesus then there should be fruits of the spirit in that person’s life. The individual should feel compelled to seek out God in His word and in prayer, each and every day (as humanly possibly). And, that individual wouldn’t profess to be anything other than a follower of Christ, hence the word Christian. I also presume that person wouldn’t be attending a false church, but rather attending and supporting a God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, Bible based church and adhering to God’s word for guidance, doctrine and theology. So my question would be does the shoe fit?
Report comment to moderator
What do Mormons believe about salvation?
Mormons believe that God gives to (virtually) everyone a general salvation to immortal life in one of the heavenly kingdoms, which is how they understand salvation by grace. Belief in Christ is necessary only to obtain passage to the highest, celestial kingdom—for which not only faith but participation in Mormon temple rituals and obedience to its “laws of the gospel” are also prerequisites.
What does the Bible teach about salvation?
Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15–16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22–24; Eph. 2:8–9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God’s presence (Matt. 5:3–8; John 14:1–3; Rev. 21:3–7).
Report comment to moderator
What do Mormons believe about sin and atonement?
Mormons believe that Adam’s transgression was a noble act that made it possible for humans to become mortal, a necessary step on the path to exaltation to godhood. They think that Christ’s atonement secures immortality for virtually all people, whether they repent and believe or not.
What does the Bible teach about sin and atonement?
Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam’s sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16–19; Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).
Report comment to moderator
What do Mormons believe about our eternal destiny?
Mormons believe that most people will end up in one of three kingdoms of glory, depending on one’s level of faithfulness. Belief in Christ, or even in God, is not necessary to obtain immortality in one of these three kingdoms, and therefore only the most spiritually perverse will go to hell.
What does the Bible teach about our eternal destiny?
The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1–4; 22:1–5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13–15).
Report comment to moderator
What do Mormons believe about Jesus?
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary’s womb, as the literal “only begotten” Son of God the Father in the flesh (though many present-day Mormons remain somewhat vague as to how this occurred).
What does the Bible teach about Jesus?
Biblically, the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” refers to his being the Father’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary’s conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20).
Report comment to moderator
What do Mormons believe about the Trinity and polytheism?
Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these.
What does the Bible teach about the Triune God?
Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).
Report comment to moderator
Whew! Sorry, I’m done now.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Retired Military. I thought his points needed answered (both for him and for anyone else who might happen on this site), but where to begin? It seemed like sounding the call and asking someone else to address it was wiser than jumping in on my own (esp. since I’m a little behind on work after spending yesterday getting a new computer).
Report comment to moderator
RM, thank you; I appreciate benefiting from your research. Experience and wisdom never retire. I’d like to know more about your church. Tomorrow, perhaps, on the WV thread?
Report comment to moderator
YOOPER #245, I don’t know why you referred to me as a pastor because as far as I recall I have never mentioned my vocation on these blogs having considered it irrelevant. There are many people who are not pastors who are very capable of addressing issues Biblically.
Report comment to moderator
“…to the RSD’s of the world – someone who deliberately and manipulatively ‘reconciles’ abortion with Christ.” -Drill
Drill,
Frankly, this is nothing short of a lie. I specifically stated that I am opposed to abortion. I am simply not opposed to it for all of the reasons for which you are opposed to it. I am puzzled as to how that makes me someone who, in your words, “manipulatively ‘reconciles’ abortion with Christ.”
These kinds of verbal outbursts undercut your credibility. After all, Scripture is reasonably clear that one shows a disregard for human life when one expresses anger or directs insults to others. In other words, being “pro-life” is not just about being opposed to abortion; it is also about how we speak to others and about others. In some of your comments, I sense that you are suggesting that we should overlook your sinful verbal attacks against others because those attacks are borne out of your passionate opposition to abortion. If that’s what you’re intending to say, I have to warn you, brother, that Scripture lends you no support.
Report comment to moderator
#256 RSD
Please refer to my post #212. Oh, and Matthew 7:3-4.
Report comment to moderator
I am tempted to say “owned!,” but in this cultural setting, aka anywhere besides the streets of NYC. Also, honestly RSD I fear you would not comprehend the reason why I would say such a thing or why I would use it after posts #212 or #257. Also pride becomes before a fall and I wish to avoid that entirely.
Report comment to moderator
Post #253 Cheryl D. My pleasure, not sure if you checked it out, but I left HTHALLJR a plethora of questions to address on the Seu thread, I’m not expecting a reply, but who knows maybe it will get him to think.
Report comment to moderator
Post#254 Louise, You’re welcome.
Briefly, The church is called Ignite, it’s a Bible focused Baptist Church. I left my home church of 10 years to assist a young, very Godly pastor start this new church in Poway, CA. I have done a church plant before, maybe you have heard of Pastor Leo Giovinetti, of Mission Valley Christian Fellowship in San Diego, CA.? He’s on Real Life Radio 88.9 KRTM in San Diego. My wife and I went with pastor Leo when he left Chuck Smith at Horizon in Clairemont, CA. to start MVCF a many years ago. I was transferred overseas and never lived close enough after that to attend. Now it’s a mega church! It was hard to leave my other church, I led a weekly men’s group and a weekly bible study. My wife and I have many close friends there. But I felt led by God to do this church plant and so far it has been amazing to watch God fit everything into place. We started with nothing and every time we need something, God comes through! This is why I wanted to do this, to see our amazing God at work turning nothing into something! Please pray for this church, we plan to reach as many “Pre-Christians as we can! ” Thank you for the interest and God bless you and yours.
Report comment to moderator
NEIL 255 – The website link that you provide is to a Church where the Pastor’s name is the same as yours. I encourage you to prayerfully read through your posts at these two threads, and I believe that the role of the Pastor is 100% relevant to this discussion:
II Timothy 4:1-5 1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
Report comment to moderator
Retired Military: Many thanks for those posts on Mormonism. I appreciate your taking the time, there, and doing that research.
Yooper: If you are looking for the villain who hijacked the thread to include the topic of abortion, that would be me.
Reason: I saw individuals who I knew to be pro-abort and yet who claim to be in Christ throwing theological stones.
I have a short fuse on that sort of thing, I readily admit.
It is infinitely worse and infinitely more infuriating then, in my opinion, say a Michael Vick pontificating about the humane treatment of animals, or some such nonsense. And when I say ‘infinitely more’, I mean infinitely more.
But I would be the one if you are looking for a culprit, there.
Not remorseful, either.
Tsk, tsk on myself.
Report comment to moderator
Rom,
What is the log that is in my eye? I am simply trying to be honest and to guard myself against suggesting that Scripture is clear on something when it in fact isn’t. As I have said, I am opposed to abortion. On the other hand, I believe that the Biblical case against abortion is much less perspicacious than we often admit. Certainly, I am not without sin. But I just don’t see how this is a log in my eye.
Besides, the passage in Exodus 21 is far from clear. I agree that one can interpret that passage to suggest that abortion is murder. On the other hand, one could make an similarly persuasive case that the passage suggests that abortion is not murder.
On the other hand, I have difficulty accepting that someone is “pro-life” if that person tends to speak or write to others in ways that are not seasoned with grace. Our speech gives away the condition of our heart much more readily than our willingness to engage in social activism. After all, abortion existed in the days of the apostles, but it receives little attention, if any, within the pages of New Testament. That’s not to say that Peter and Paul tacitly approved of the practice. But it does cause me to wonder whether we don’t spend too much of our time wringing our hands over the heinous practices of non-Covenant peoples.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
The case against abortion is quite clear in Exodus 21. Harm to the unborn is treated the same as harm to those already born. There is nothing in the passage that suggests otherwise. There is no way of avoiding that.
And as followers of Christ, the murder of innocents is something that we should be spending our time on. Jesus cared for the helpless and the defenseless, and so should we.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, I think there are lots of places where we can say Scripture isn’t as clear as we would like, not clear enough that we can make an absolute airtight case from Scripture. For example, mode and even purpose of baptism, end times, how the Sabbath fits in the Christian life, whether tithing is for today. . . .
I don’t think abortion is one of those. Scripture does make an airtight case that human life is given by God; in fact, Onan was killed by God for a far less egregious fault than killing a baby that had been conceived; he was killed for refusing to conceive one in a context where he was supposed to. Not only is the baby in the womb formed by God, but we know from Scripture and from science that it is an individual human life from conception on, and we know that killing an innocent human is murder. Again, one might just as well say, “Scripture never specifically says I can’t murder a 90-year-old woman” as say there isn’t an airtight case against killing an unborn human.
To say there isn’t an airtight case is to say that one of these three points isn’t clearly made in Scripture:
(1) Life is formed by God in the womb.
(2) The life in the womb is an individual human life.
(3) Killing the innocent is murder.
The very fact that God created that human life and we are never granted immunity in killing a human being (except in cases of capital punishment, self-defense, and war) is enough. We can make the case that God also created the cow and yet we kill a cow . . . but God specifically grants us the right to kill the cow. He doesn’t give us the right to kill the human being.
I personally don’t think this one can be clearer. Well, it could be stated directly, “You cannot kill innocent human life, even within the womb,” but then, the 90-year-olod could be mentioned specifically too. But Scripture is very clear that killing a human is murdering one made in God’s image, and a grievous sin.
Report comment to moderator
Yooper, I liked your post at 245. I should add I always enjoy Cheryl D.’s posts. And I’d like to thank the Academy…
But seriously…
I commented on this subject—the syncretism implied by Andree’s post, whether intentional or not (and I’m pretty sure it’s “not”)—because, well, because it was the subject of the post. That, and the fact that we have scriptural example and directive to point out certain doctrinal error when we see it. I also abhor abortion. I’ve manned the Colorado Right to Life booth at county and state fairs. I’ve volunteered at two crisis pregnancy centers, which I also financially support. I’ve assisted in the campaign for the Personhood amendment in this state (some pro-lifers consider this effort futile, counterproductive, and otherwise foolish; that’s OK—we see things differently, but we’re on the same side). I can also walk and chew gum at the same time.
My mother, grandmother and aunt are Christian Scientists. Grandpa went to his grave (and probably another place) as a Christian Scientist (hereafter, CS). In its language and theology, Mormonism more closely resembles orthodoxy than does CS. Still, though, both are way, waaay off the mark. Both–CS and Mormonism are insidious hoaxes. Over the years, I’ve attempted dialogue with my relatives. At first, it was apparent to me—and shocking—that they were woefully unaware of even the most fundamental tenets of the true faith. Some of this ignorance, I think, is deliberate—I know they read the Bible, but I know they gloss over any mention of sin (if you know any Christian Scientists, you know what I’m talking about). But I’m also convinced their ignorance stems, in part, from not being sufficiently warned and confronted by orthodox believers. My relatives cheer with Glenn Beck not only in his politics (which I make no judgment of here), but in his religious language; they do the same with some folks they hear on conservative radio (which they tune into religiously). Have you ever listened to Michael Medved? He opposes abortion—that’s great. He also says God wants Christianity and Judaism to exist harmoniously—that’s moronic.
For my mom, grandma and aunt, the “bottom line” for them, ultimately, when they stand before God, will not be their opposition to, and work against, abortion. Those things could be fruits of true conversion, or, in their cases, they’d just be some of those filthy rags we’re often prone to call good works. And I’m not pooh poohing the efforts of anyone—believer or unbeliever—in the fight against abortion.
But unless God works otherwise, my close relatives will go to hell. Need I say I do not like this prospect? I don’t see it as huffing and puffing and counting angels on pinheads to express the grave danger in giving the slightest comfort to anyone worshiping a false Christ. We are easily deceived. It doesn’t take much. A similar blindness afflicts those who adhere to cultic teaching as that which affects people who can look at an ultrasound—or even just think about a child in the womb—and still be pro-“choice.”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Macrutabaga, for a heartfelt and very good post. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are both of crucial importance.
Father, please give this brother wisdom as he interacts with those he loves who are caught up in false systems, and please open their minds and their hearts to hear and to understand.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga, I can totally empathize with you. Both my mother and father as well as my older sister were Christian Scientists. I was very young when my father told my mother our family would no longer be going to church. This decision was based on the church asking my father because he was semi- wealthy to but their new carpet. I don’t know why, but my mother had me in a Christian private school from K through 12. Unfortunately I fell away, backslid if you will, from the time I was 16 till about 17 years ago, I guess I would have been 33 when I recommitted my life to God. My mother passed when I was 19 and my father passed in 2002. Fortunately my sister listened to what I had to say and is now a Bible thumpin’ Christian, Amen! Mac, I am of the same opinion as you are, my parents are sadly in Hell due to false doctrine and their own ignorance of what the Bible says. I know that sounds harsh, but there is no nice way to say it. I used to try to fit this Santa Claus God into the scenario, that would accept them no matter what, but that was just wishful thinking and my lack of understanding about God’s word. I really thought my mother was the most Godly person I knew, until I began to study my Bible. I was with my father, on emergency leave, near the end of his life. I tried to go over the “Roman Road” and the gospel of John with him, but I was called back to deploy to Iraq and he died the very next day. This is exactly why we cannot allow our faith to be watered down by non-believers as well as quote unquote “believers” who want to fit God and His word into their own ideology, instead of infusing God’s ideology into themselves .
“If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19
I think this is pretty straightforward Christians, do not add, nor subtract from God’s word, period.
Nor shalt thou diluteth or whitewasheth!
Report comment to moderator
Rom & Cheryl,
If you can’t accept the ambiguity of the passage in Exodus 22, then I don’t see any reason to continue the discussion. Besides, if it’s so clear that life starts at conception, why did the overwhelming majority of Protestants (including evangelicals) reject that view until the 1970s? After all, early-term abortion was legal at common law.
Also, abortion existed at the time of Christ. If opposition to abortion is so central to care for the helpless and defenseless, then why did Jesus ignore this issue in His public ministry? I hope that you’re not suggesting that Jesus didn’t show sufficient fruit of regeneration.
Report comment to moderator
Psalm 139
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
Report comment to moderator
This reminds me of the story of the jewish boy that went home one day and told his parents that he didn’t believe in God anymore … that he was going to be an athiest. They were sorry to hear that and would try to convince him that he was wrong about God. Time passes and the boy came home and had a new love for God and he became a new believer through Jesus Christ…. The parents threw him out and disowned him.
He who begins a new work in you will be faithful to complete it. I have seen Muslim and Orthodox converts in Africa that learned to have joy in Christ but can’t speak out in fear of reprisal. We are blessed in this country to be able to speak out as we do. We can not have Christian community with Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc… But, we can have understanding, agreement and conversation with those same people and bring them to the fountain. Shunning people who believe differently from you will alienate you from the world. we are to be in the world not of the world. The Gospel is for everyone. We can not make it to God except for and through Jesus Christ as our Savior. If some one does not believe that it is our responsibility as Christians to share that info with those that do not understand it. I am less concerned with Glenn Beck saying that he believes that Jesus is his savior and attends a Mormon church, but his politics are good than I have with no one saying “Oprah, what do you mean Jesus did not have to come to die to save us from our sin!”
I can not influence Glenn Beck or Oprah, but if you want to start holding people accountable for their beliefs, begin with yourself and work outward. As Social Justice is an oxymoron and must work from the inside out(restoring some one who was treated unfairly by treating someone else unfairly), Christianity is an inside out experience. Jesus’s biggest problem on earth were the religious people getting on board with His understandind of God. Doctrine of the religious people tangled their up the truth He came to expose. Know what you believe, share what you believe, write what you believe until the whole world knows. World Magazine has been a great comfort in as much as we have a forum as Christians see and hear what is going on around us with a prejudice, Christ came to save all that will listen. Keep speaking.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, I didn’t speak one way or another to Exodus 22. Since you don’t accept that as compelling, I made my case without it.
Many, many wrongs were being done in Jesus’ day. Did He address all of them? Do we even know which ones He did or didn’t address, considering that we only have a tiny percentage of the words He spoke? An argument from silence isn’t convincing.
Again, you haven’t addressed my argument at all. Tell me, if you are married and your husband/wife spends hours working on a special project and you smash it intentionally, will he/she accept your statement “You never said clearly enough that you didn’t want me to destroy it”? If God forms a life in His image, on what possible grounds can we condone killing it? If human life is created by God, and God calls the killing of the innocent “murder,” how does this not fit? The burden of proof is on your side on this one, because you are the one who believes that this one exception to not killing the innocent is acceptable. Why?
And frankly I don’t care if the church did or didn’t come down against abortion in any given year. By that argument we might legitimize slavery or the Holocaust. The only legitimate standard is the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
In your syllogism, the major premise and the conclusion are substantively the same. Sure, if you make an a priori assumption that a fetus is a human life in a spiritual sense, then abortion must necessarily be murder. But I don’t think that Scripture clearly teaches that a fetus necessarily has human life in a spiritual sense. You implicitly concede this by saying that you don’t bear the burden of proof on the issue. To the contrary, when we seek to bind the consciences of others on an issue, the burden is on you to demonstrate that Scripture’s teaching is sufficiently clear so as to permit the exercise of such authority. You’re certainly entitled to have convictions that abortion is sin. In fact, our personal convictions on abortion probably don’t differ too much. It’s another thing altogether, however, to impose your convictions on others and to insist that others are unregerate if their convictions differ from yours on a particular issue.
As I’ve said before, I believe that abortion is a sin. But I do not believe that Scripture’s teaching is sufficiently clear so as to permit me to seek to bind others’ consciences on the issue. Your comment suggests that I approve of abortion; I don’t. So, I see no reason to respond to your hypothetical.
Report comment to moderator
I am surprised that nobody commented on my comment #220. What’s up with that?
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: If God forms a life in His image, on what possible grounds can we condone killing it?
According to most conservative Christians, killing human life formed in God’s image is A-OK if the person is:
* a convicted murderer (never mind allowing time for later repentance);
* an enemy combatant;
* a civilian casualty of war (sad, we’ll express regret, but we won’t really care that much.)
* an intruder in your home (gotta have my guns! Jesus says so!)
And there are some cases where conservative Christians officially oppose killing but don’t really seem to care much when it happens, including:
* illegal immigrants, especially if they’re killed in the act of crossing the border;
* gang members and other criminals (they had it coming!)
And as we’ve been discussing in the “Leaving Out God” thread, there are a long list of offenses for which God himself required killing, suggesting that God himself is not as impressed with the value of life as you are.
There are not many truly “pro-life” people in the world. Just opposing abortion is not the same as defending all human life — you also have to oppose capital punishment and war. A few Catholics and Quakers might qualify, but almost no one else does.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, I didn’t insist others are unregenerate if they disagree on abortion; I do believe they are supporting evil if they think it is OK.
What does “human life in a spiritual sense” mean anyway? Sounds like gobbledygook to me. Clearly the human fetus is alive, clearly it is human, and biblically it is created by God in His image. I don’t see anything left that needs “proving” before we can call it murder to deliberately kill this child.
BTW, yesterday I stood and prayed with my pastor and a friend from my church outside my local abortion mill as more than a dozen young women entered. I cannot say that each and every one was there to have an abortion that day; I can say without a moment of hesitation that anyone who was, was engaged in an act that displeases God. Killing slaves or Jews has at times been considered acceptable too, and killing old people or the mentally retarded. Redefine human beings as not really human and you can indeed justify killing them. The current line of legal acceptability is up until birth. Is this biblically permissible in your worldview?
Conan, I’ve already said that not all killing is murder. I have failed to list “accidental killing” as being not murder, and several of your list fall under that, but surely you would agree not all killing is murder? If a child runs in front of my car on the highway and I can’t stop in time, I have killed that child, but I have not murdered him. Right? But deliberately killing the innocent is murder, even if the person is a slave or a Jew, a handicapped or a retarded person, an unborn baby or an old person with dementia.
Report comment to moderator
Just when I thought I’d misjudged Conantheliberrian as merely a flamethrower, BAM!, 275.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Brief responses, in no particular order.
It may be realistic for Quakers to be anti-war, but it isn’t realistic for a nation to be, and God nowhere expects it.
Likewise, it is not unrighteous to defend one’s life and property, using deadly force if necessary. I probably have had more access to gang zones than you have, and have known some gang members since they were little children, and I’ve held mothers as they’ve grieved the death of wayward sons, so I’d never be so calloused as to hint that one more gang member dead isn’t a loss. That said, if a gang member dies in a shootout with the police, yes, he earned what he got. That is the case for anyone caught in the act of committing a violent crime.
To say that it’s “pro-life” to oppose capital punishment is to misunderstand capital punishment. Deliberately snuffing out a life made in God’s image forfeits one’s own life. God is the one who came up with this one, so anyone who opposes capital punishment on principle is trying to be “more pro-life” than God Himself, and that’s a false position. It is not incompatible with the pro-life position to say that someone guilty of murder deserves the ultimate punishment, loss of his own life.
A civilian casualty of war is either a total accident or negligence, or somewhere in between, and as a civilian I can’t say anything more than that. A trial is in order if there’s ambiguity. I don’t think you’ll find many people who’ll shrug and say it doesn’t matter, though I do think in modern warfare it’s unavoidable, much like death by traffic accidents are tragic but a part of life today.
Again, one simply must make a distinction between murder and other forms of killing, including traffic accidents. It’s one reason we have trials, and even “degrees” of murder and manslaughter, as well as self-defense as a legitimate defense against a murder charge.
Report comment to moderator
Post #278: Great rebuttal to Conan’s arguement Cheryl D. To quote Robert De Niro “You’re good you.”
My question to you Conan would be: Do you know what war is like?
At least aside from what the media tells you it’s like.
Just curious, because it’s my belief that if a person has never stepped foot inside a war zone, then they lack the credibility to speak on it.
Post #275 Conan stated “There are not many truly “pro-life” people in the world. Just opposing abortion is not the same as defending all human life — you also have to oppose capital punishment and war.”
I would venture to say that most “real” Christians in their heart of hearts would say they oppose capital punishment and war. However that’s a perfect world scenario, and I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we don’t live in one. If our nation was truly pacifistic, we’d be speaking German, Russian, or Chinese right now, don’t fool yourself with the contrary. But maybe as a Librarian you’d be interested in learning a new language. Much of what I’ve seen in your posts deal with semantics. Example: If you’re pro-life, and you don’t protect the murderers on death row, then you’re not truly pro-life. That’s just a fuzzy logic, Ad Hominem rebuttal.
My prayer: God, I thank you for keeping me safe and taking care of my family when I was ordered to face danger. Please protect our warriors that are following the “laws of the land” and the President you allowed to be placed in office. Watch over them as they face the very real possibility of death for their country. And quiet the tongues of those that would disparage the men and women of our armed forces as they protect our rights and freedoms. Amen!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: It may be realistic for Quakers to be anti-war, but it isn’t realistic for a nation to be, and God nowhere expects it.
Sure. And I’m not antiwar either. But the point stands, that I don’t think one can credibly call oneself “pro-life” unless one opposes ALL taking of human life. And most pro-lifers, as the term is commonly understood, don’t.
The rest of your post is just the usual justifications for why this or that is an exception. I don’t disagree — I’m not a pacifist, I don’t object to self-defense and I’m iffy on capital punishment.
But neither do I call myself pro-life, or call a man who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek and not resist evil my Lord.
Sure, there’s always a rationalization for why he didn’t mean it in this case or that case, but he himself didn’t appear to offer much room for maneuvering.
Mac: Just calling ‘em as I see ‘em. If my perception is wrong, why don’t you show me how it is?
Report comment to moderator
Abortion is a premeditated act, not consequences to committing a premeditated act. How can someone interpret fulfilling the correct and lawful execution of criminals for murder or other horrific crimes as “killing” and “Thou Shalt not” and ceasing the innocent life of someone not yet born as a woman’s right. Are there instances where this procedure may be the best for the infant? Possibly. The couple in the OBGYN’s office before my wife and I’s 5 month visit were told the baby had no lower half of his body. If I were the father of that child I would be praying long and hard for an answer. Actions have consequences, before the baby is conceived and after the man murders.
How did this rabbit chase come from Glenn Beck’s Mormonism? I see the debate goes to man’s wisdom and not God’s wisdom. He gave us the owner’s manual to live life in abundance, but we still want to put life together with out using the directions.
Report comment to moderator
Retired Military: I would venture to say that most “real” Christians in their heart of hearts would say they oppose capital punishment and war. However that’s a perfect world scenario, and I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we don’t live in one. If our nation was truly pacifistic, we’d be speaking German, Russian, or Chinese right now, don’t fool yourself with the contrary.
I know. I don’t advocate pacifism. I’m not a pacifist.
I merely point out that I think the term “pro-life” has to apply to all life or it’s meaningless. If you oppose abortion and support capital punishment, call yourself anti-abortion. That’s a more accurate label.
Report comment to moderator
#282 – Fair enough.
Conan, after reading what you said:
I merely point out that I think the term “pro-life” has to apply to all life or it’s meaningless. If you oppose abortion and support capital punishment, call yourself anti-abortion. That’s a more accurate label.
I had an epiphany. Conan, don’t misconstrue what I’m saying here, I have no idea of your gender, nor sexual inclinations. I truly had an epiphany using your statement.
I wonder if the Gay and Lesbian community would do the same thing with the word marriage/married? If two individuals are part of the G&L lifestyle, and want to be married, but Prop 8 defined marriage as being between a man and a woman (That’s was what the “Majority of voters”, better known as “We the People” wanted), simply call your union something else like “Life Partnership” or something to that effect, and get the government benefits they say they’re looking for. That’s a more accurate label and it’s just semantics, a win-win for all.
Thanks Conan for the intellectual stimulus.
Report comment to moderator
Did I just go off on a rabit trail?
My apologies dear readers, I’ll try to contain off topic thoughts to my own gray matter ruminations.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, when you write: “I merely point out that I think the term “pro-life” has to apply to all life or it’s meaningless. If you oppose abortion and support capital punishment, call yourself anti-abortion. That’s a more accurate label.” I strongly disagree.
It is becuase I am pro-life that I am for capital punishment. It is the write punishment for the taking of innocent life. I know you disagree, but my statement is still cogent.
Report comment to moderator
The only problem, Conan, with your insistence one cannot be in favor of the death penalty, etc., and still call himself “pro-life” is that none of those exceptions is murder and the command is against murder, and none of those exceptions is inconsistent with being pro-life.
It goes without saying that if I am driving responsibly and someone ends up dead, I should not be charged with murder; that is not inconsistent with being pro-life.
If someone breaks into my brother’s home and is a real threat to the life and safety of his wife and children, and my brother pulls out a gun and has to use it, his actions do not make him inconsistently pro-life.
If a man murders five people viciously and the state executes him, the state is showing itself (in that instance) to be pro-life.
If another nation invades ours and threatens our citizens, then responding with an army is not being somehow short of “pro-life.” It is defending life. (I am not here debating what is and isn’t just war, but presenting a scenario that is.)
Report comment to moderator
…the right punishment…”
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you wrote:
But the point stands, that I don’t think one can credibly call oneself “pro-life” unless one opposes ALL taking of human life. And most pro-lifers, as the term is commonly understood, don’t.
Very simply, the term is “commonly understood” to reflect one’s views on abortion. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, many pro-lifers—those who support the death penalty—would argue their stance on capital punishment is reflective of their advocacy for (or “pro”) preservation of innocent life. We can make these distinctions, Conan. We’re all adults here.
Re. the “flamethrowing”: In 272, Cheryl D. posted her take on “killing” as presented in scripture. You took that as an opening to get snarky about conservative Christians. Meh.
Report comment to moderator
Post #274: KYLE A, Sorry brother, didn’t want to leave you hanging out there with no response, I know how that feels, especially when you voice your consternation about not getting a response. So here goes, I’m taking the easy way out and cutting & pasting.
John 14:6 “No one comes to the Father, but through me.”
If a person states I believe the Bible is the true word of God and my salvation comes from believing Jesus Christ is my savior, and that God is the one and only true God, then John 14:6 applies to that person. I further believe that if a person has a personal relationship with Jesus then there should be fruits of the spirit in that person’s life. The individual should feel compelled to seek out God in His word and in prayer, each and every day (as humanly possibly). And, that individual wouldn’t profess to be anything other than a follower of Christ, hence the word Christian. I also presume that person wouldn’t be attending a false church, but rather attending and supporting a God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, Bible based church and adhering to God’s word for guidance, doctrine and theology. So my question would be does the shoe fit?
Pay particular attention to sentence #5 above. “I also presume that a person wouldn’t be attending a false church, but rather attending and supporting a God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, Bible based church and adhering to God’s word for guidance, doctrine and theology.”
With that said, I would ask the question, Why would Mr. Beck (whom I actually agree with most of his political views) profess to be a Christian, yet attend a Mormon church that believes that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods, with potentially many thousands of gods besides these. As well as their belief that Adam’s transgression was a noble act that made it possible for humans to become mortal, a necessary step on the path to exaltation to godhood. Coupled with many (too numerous to quote here) other un-biblical statements of Mormon faith.
Some might say, “Well it’s because his wife attends the church of Mormon.” I would ask why? According to the Bible, the man is the leader of his household. If Mr. Beck understands that the Mormon church’s theology and doctrine is unbiblical, then he needs to have the intestinal fortitude to inform his wife that they will no longer attend the church of Mormon, but instead find a church that preaches from the Bible, not from a man’s Joseph Smith’s, or a woman’s Mary Baker Eddy’s musings of whom God is. Just for credibility, I was a Christian Scientist that went to Christian private schools. I chose Christianity eventually, because it made sense if you do your research “Seek and ye shall find”.
There is huge amounts of archeological, historical documentation and evidence of our Creators design that other religions or philosophies don’t have, and their ideology leaks like a sieve when compared to the Bible. I have no problem challenging the evolutionists either, because they can’t provide any actual/verifiable evidence that evolution is a sound theory. Similar to Mormonism, evolution is constantly being revised to adjust for errors. However, other than the too numerous translations out there, We don’t see this happening with the Bible. Moses wrote the Torah (first five books of the Bible) and taught it to the children of Israel 3,313 years ago, we should see the same thing happening if Christianity was a false doctrine, but we don’t.
Further I would question a person’s relationship with Jesus Christ and our God if they chose to attend and support a false doctrine church. There is no earthly reason a true believer would do this, unless 1) They have single handedly taken on the heroic task of a Christian infiltration into the Mormon church with the hopes of converting all from the inside, 2) Or they never had a real relationship with our Lord and Savior. Again I refer to John 14:6. My personal opinion is “Once saved always saved” but I do believe that if you are truly saved and believe, then there is no way possible that you can accept a false religion. I believe it’s called discernment.
Listen Christians, you can shout legalistic all you want, the bottom line is read your Bibles, it’s our instruction manual, God breathed and made plain, so that anyone can understand it. God isn’t trying to trick us with vague directives, you can read the Bible verbatim and take it to the bank that He means what He says and He says what He means.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: The only problem, Conan, with your insistence one cannot be in favor of the death penalty, etc., and still call himself “pro-life” is that none of those exceptions is murder and the command is against murder, and none of those exceptions is inconsistent with being pro-life.
Well, are you talking about the legal definition of murder, or are you talking about protection of human life?
They’re not the same thing. Protection of all human life means that the guilty murderer should be locked away where he can do no more harm, but his life spared — out of mercy, unmerited grace, hope for rehabilitation.
If you believe in retributive justice (and a lot of Christians do even though it seems to me to fly in the face of really everything that Jesus taught and stood for) then I suppose you can support the death penalty and still claim to be “pro-life.” But it doesn’t wash for me.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: Re. the “flamethrowing”: In 272, Cheryl D. posted her take on “killing” as presented in scripture. You took that as an opening to get snarky about conservative Christians. Meh.
Snarky maybe, but still honestly reflective of what I see and hear in debates, here and elsewhere.
Report comment to moderator
But unrelated to the content of Cheryl D.’s post.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, the death penalty is fully biblical. It predates the Ten Commandments and is assumed in the New Testament as well as the Old. Thus I have no problem at all in continuing to believe it is fully compatible with being pro-life–that in fact ultimately it is MORE pro-life to believe a murderer should forfeit his life. It doesn’t really matter whether you agree with it; it is biblical and it is pro-life. Believing that murder is so heinous an offense it deserves the worst possible punishment is pro-life, even if you don’t happen to agree with that particular punishment.
And honestly, the justice system is supposed to be about justice and not about mercy. It’s unjust to victims to see its purpose as showing mercy. A judge may see true repentance and soften a criminal’s penalty, and I don’t believe “lock him up and throw away the key” is justice at all, especially for non-violent crimes that are addressed better with repayment of lost property. But justice is the whole point of the justice system, and execution is fully just for a murderer, and completely in sync with being pro-life. (What is weird, actually, is those who’d kill innocent babies, or justify that killing, but refuse to execute murderers. That is what is truly bizarre.)
Report comment to moderator
Conan, the death penalty is fully biblical. It predates the Ten Commandments and is assumed in the New Testament as well as the Old.
Oh yeah, it’s one of those cases where the Old Testament doesn’t apply except when it does.
Except it doesn’t. The only people shown following the Old Testament death penalties in the New Testament are the Jews who were not following Jesus.
But, if you are going to take the position that that part of the OT still applies, then do you support all of the death penalties in the Old Testament? Not just for murder, but for blasphemy? Adultery? If not, why one and not the other?
It’s unjust to victims to see its purpose as showing mercy.
Who says? What if the victims don’t want the accused to die? What if the murder victim’s wife opposes the death penalty and asks the judge to spare the killer’s life?
It’s presumptuous to assume you know what the victims are going to want.
Report comment to moderator
When we were discussing the Old Testament death penalties recently, several people explained to me that the death/resurrection of Christ fulfilled those so that we’re no longer under the Law, but grace. I was told that, essentially, the OT Law lays out the things God considers to be sinful, but now Christ has paid the penalty and so we’re no longer subject to those penalties here on Earth. I suppose the idea is that God will punish those who make it to death never repenting, and those who do repent and accept Christ are saved from that …
… until it suddenly becomes convenient to argue that some people still are subject to the death penalty, if they commit certain of those death-penalty sins (but not others, and mumble mumble mumble to explain what makes the difference).
Do you really wonder why those of us on the outside are confused and reasonably convinced that you just argue whatever is convenient at the time to justify whatever position you want to take, without worrying over whether it contradicts what you said yesterday?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Thanks for responding.
First, by “life in a spiritual sense,” I am referring to whether that life has been endowed with the spiritual attributes of humanity (as opposed to merely the physical attributes). I think it’s safe to say that this occurs at some point after conception but before lung formation (given the Bible’s frequent association of breath with life). I don’t know when it is.
Second, be careful in your use of “innocent”. To the extent that a fetus has spiritual life, it bears the guilt of original sin, and therefore stands condemned apart from God’s grace. If an aborted fetus indeed has life in a spiritual sense, there is no reason to believe that the fetus is not condemned, especially where the parents are not counted among God’s covenant people.
Report comment to moderator
RSD: Second, be careful in your use of “innocent”. To the extent that a fetus has spiritual life, it bears the guilt of original sin, and therefore stands condemned apart from God’s grace. If an aborted fetus indeed has life in a spiritual sense, there is no reason to believe that the fetus is not condemned, especially where the parents are not counted among God’s covenant people.
What a monstrous doctrine. What a horrible God.
Report comment to moderator
Post #290: Conan,
I notice you throw around a lot of Christian ideology “….it seems to me to fly in the face of really everything that Jesus taught and stood for.”
Yet I don’t get the feeling you truly know what you’re talking about. I get that you are a non-believer from your posts, and you are entitled to believe any way you choose. I think you may have skimmed little bits and pieces of the Bible, but I’m absolutely positive you don’t know, nor understand what’s in it. If you did you wouldn’t make statements such as the one above.
My reasoning is simply this, if you study the word of God it explains why we fall short, but you never mention this aspect in your criticisms. Your faulty logic that Christians aren’t perfect, therefore our God isn’t real is based upon what? Your intimate knowledge of the Bible and who God is? You need better information to argue your point, at least read the Bible. And if you tell me you were once a pastor that fell away and is now an atheist, my response would be sadly, you must not have made the connection. I probably wouldn’t believe it anyway.
Jesus is God incarnate, we are God’s creation, made fallible after “The Fall”. Our sinful nature prevents us from attaining anything near perfection here on earth. Jesus’ teachings show us what it is to lead a righteous life. If we are “true” believers, we should strive to get as close as we can in our “dirty rags” life. The apostle Paul says this on the matter: Romans 7:15 “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do (NIV).
This is a guy that walked with God and couldn’t get it right, what makes you think we can? Fortunately we have a God that has infinite grace and mercy to pour out on us un-Godly Christians. The questions to ask Conan, is not why Christians can’t be perfect, the question you should ask, is where are you going when you die? Just because you don’t believe doesn’t change the degrees.
On a more serious note, Conan I will be praying for you: Heavenly father, I lift up Conan to you and I ask that you provide truth, and wisdom so that Conan can make an informed decision on eternal life. Draw Conan near to you Lord, reveal whatever it is that will make Conan believe. In your Son’s precious name, Jesus, Amen!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have time to answer these arguments in detail. RSD, that’s a leap of logic. For one thing, any life is sustained by oxygen; even the zygote is presumably sustained by its mother’s oxygen. If you want to say it has to have breathed air into its lungs, that allows it to be killed up till birth, and it also allows us (potentially) to kill anyone on life support. It is, in other words, a weak argument biologically and biblically.
I believe conception grants everything, not just physical. If it doesn’t, on what basis does a child inherit his father’s math genius or his mother’s quick wit?
“Innocent” has been argued on here before, but maybe you weren’t in on the discussion. Let’s say a man is taken to court for armed robbery that he didn’t commit. Can we say legally that he is an innocent man? That is what is meant when we say death of the innocent–death of someone who didn’t deserve to be executed. Only God has the power over life and death that is needed to slay the innocent, because yes, biblically none of us is innocent. In human law, most of us haven’t committed a crime worthy of the death penalty and are thus “innocent.”
Report comment to moderator
Three hundred!
Report comment to moderator
Retraction on post #298, 3rd para. 1st sentence. Should read “This guy was an apostle” I had a thought of Peter who walked with Jesus as I was writing this. Jesus had already ascended when He converted Paul by speaking to him on the road to Damascus. My apologies.
Report comment to moderator
As always, well said Cheryl D.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you seem to be making several errors here, one of which is saying that if one Christian argues a certain way, everyone else has to make the same point. I’m in no way inconsistent if I’m arguing differently than Joel Mark, Xion, or Juliana; we all have slightly different perspectives on things.
I have never said the Old Testament doesn’t apply today, so challenging me on that point is useless. I also pointed out that the death penalty for murder (murder being the point of our discussion) predates the Mosaic law, and is still in place in the New Testament, so any argument that some aspects of the Law are no longer in place today is simply irrelevant to this discussion. As early as the first murder, Cain had an understanding that a murderer deserved to die, though God (for reasons we do not know) chose to spare his life. Then God said specifically that the one who sheds another man’s blood should have his own blood shed, and in the New Testament we read about the government bearing “the sword.”
I haven’t discussed at all whether the death penalty is applicable to other sins, and that question isn’t relevant here.
It is obvious that the civil government still bears the responsibility for punishing wrongdoing (whether or not one accepts the death penalty), so any argument that Christ’s death negated the need for civil punishment would be absurd. Thieves and rapists aren’t given a pass on their sin, and why should murderers be?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Retired Military. By the way, I think you’re one of the ones who earlier questioned the off-topic nature of this discussion. Historically, a couple of days after a thread is posted and no one is still commenting on the original topic, such off-topic arguments often take over. Sometimes they’re extremely far afield, with no pretense of connection to the original topic. (We could be discussing eyeglasses by now, for instance.) It’s like a few people staying late after a business meeting and discussing sports.
Report comment to moderator
Retired Military:
I notice you throw around a lot of Christian ideology “….it seems to me to fly in the face of really everything that Jesus taught and stood for.”
Yet I don’t get the feeling you truly know what you’re talking about. I get that you are a non-believer from your posts, and you are entitled to believe any way you choose. I think you may have skimmed little bits and pieces of the Bible, but I’m absolutely positive you don’t know, nor understand what’s in it. If you did you wouldn’t make statements such as the one above.
My reasoning is simply this, if you study the word of God it explains why we fall short, but you never mention this aspect in your criticisms. Your faulty logic that Christians aren’t perfect, therefore our God isn’t real is based upon what? Your intimate knowledge of the Bible and who God is? You need better information to argue your point, at least read the Bible. And if you tell me you were once a pastor that fell away and is now an atheist, my response would be sadly, you must not have made the connection. I probably wouldn’t believe it anyway.
I never was a pastor, no, but I was a devout Christian for a long time.
No, I haven’t “skimmed little bits and pieces of the Bible.” I’ve read it in its entirety twice and some parts of it dozens or hundreds of times. I’ve been through in-depth studies of the whole Bible and also of individual books. I understand quite well the arguments being made here because I used to make them.
What I am attempting to do, and knowing full well the audience here isn’t receptive to it, is to show that the theology doesn’t really hold up under examination.
My argument is categorically not that “Christians aren’t perfect, therefore our God isn’t real.” I’ve never expected perfection from people, and I’m fully aware that even those who most closely live up to their ideals will not be perfect, and most will be quite thoroughly imperfect. That’s not an argument against Christianity and I’d never suggest that it is.
But because I used to be a traditional Trinitarian Christian, and because I still follow Jesus as teacher and exemplar, I am sensitive to incongruities between those who say they are believers and what he taught and stood for. There’s a difference between following with less than perfect success and defending as “Christian” behaviors and attitudes that seem to me to be contradictory.
If people think I’m wrong about that, I like to discuss and debate … that’s why I’m here.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not an atheist either, by the way.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D.
You’re welcome, I truly enjoy the clarity of your posts.
I recall the post you are referring to, but it wasn’t me that initially brought it up. I did post earlier apologizing for going off topic, as I truly went down a rabbit trail on #283 and apologized on #284. I’m not sure who it was that initially said something about off topic posts. Conan was that you? I have noticed that people get frustrated by off topic remarks, so I apologized. Thanks for the heads up though.
Report comment to moderator
Post #305: Conan, thanks for the post, it seemed real and I can respect that.
I’m sorry that you feel the way you do about Christianity, I know you don’t require my sympathy, you are probably as firm in what you believe as I am in my faith. It just seems as though you are always slamming others beliefs, which comes across as anti-Christian, or non-belief, at least in my reading of your posts.
I heard a saying not too long ago that had some truth ringing in it, I think it went like this “I love my church, it’s the people I can’t stand!” I have felt this way before, when Christians pull some un-Christianly stuff, but God revealed a simplistic mantra to me, and I have to repeat it every day “It’s not about you RM, It’s about me”.
I’ve also come to understand that we all are at different levels of understanding in our Christian walk which can be trying sometimes, because we all think we know the real deal. It’s those times when PRIDE raises its ugly head in my life, that I have to take a breath and repeat my mantra. As well as understand that the more I study and research the Bible the more diligent I need to become in seeking wisdom. God’s word is amazing in its complexity and has a life of its own. Like an onion, I can peel the Word and read the same verse over and over while gleaning something different again and again. OK, For those of you that like to split hairs, I don’t get much more out of John 11:35 “Jesus wept”, however some of the verses with more than two words in it …..well most of you can relate.
With all that said, I mean it when I say I will pray for you Conan, I believe God has answers for you and I pray they are revealed and clear things up in your mind.
Peace
Report comment to moderator
Conan, In all fairness I felt the need to go back and reread a few of your earlier posts. Here are three examples of your comments and this is why I feel you come off as a non-believer.
Your quote: “Do you really wonder why those of us on the outside are confused and reasonably convinced that you just argue whatever is convenient at the time to justify whatever position you want to take, without worrying over whether it contradicts what you said yesterday?
My example: …”those of us on the outside are confused”….
Although clearly open to interpretation, this statement sounds to me as if a non-believer wrote it.
Your quote: “But neither do I call myself pro-life, or call a man who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek and not resist evil my Lord.”
My example: …”or call a man who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek and not resist evil my Lord”…..
By this statement, I can only assume, please correct me if I’m wrong; you’re alluding to Jesus, and are saying you do not recognize Him as your Lord.
Your quote: “But because I used to be a traditional Trinitarian Christian, and because I still follow Jesus as teacher and exemplar.”
My example: …”I still follow Jesus as teacher and exemplar.”
I’m a little confused here, because the only Jesus I know that could be used in this context is Jesus of Nazareth. The same Jesus of the Bible, Son of God. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to disparage what you say here, but I don’t understand how you can follow Jesus, know what is in the Bible, then simply walk away from the doctrine, theology and ideology of God’s word and Christianity. Then choose certain things from the Bible to fit into your ideology.
I’m sorry Conan, as a believer in God and His Word, I can’t imagine myself doing this, my life before God and my logic preclude this. Therefore I can only say as I stated before, you must not have made the connection. I’m sorry, you came to the conclusion that Jesus is not your Lord and Savior. If I’m wrong please clarify, as I can only go by what you say.
Report comment to moderator
There are more options than “Christian” and “unbeliever.”
Yes, I am not a Christian in the traditional sense. I do not believe Jesus was God in human flesh; I do not believe the Bible is the “Word of God,” at least not in the way a theologically-conservative Christian would mean the phrase.
Trying to describe the path I’ve traveled to get to where I am, and to describe just what that is, would take hours and many many posts. But in summary: I pulled back the view and looked at Christianity from outside and in the context of the whole world’s religious panoply and what I found was: religions — systems of interconnected beliefs, shared rituals and practices — are particular to specific cultures and places. An accident of birth plays a great role in what religious tradition a person will grow up in, and that in turn plays a great role in what religion he will choose as an adult. Most people stay in what they grew up with, and some change.
So religions, plural, are largely cultural. However, religion — singular — is universal. While people in China and people in Rome may have very different religions, they share the same religious impulse. A sense of wonder, and reverence, and of something real larger than human knowledge is common to all of us.
Over a period of years, I concluded that all religious systems, including Christianity, are man-made. God did not write the Bible, people did. But at the same time, the religious impulse is very real, and so I figure there must be a divine power to which we’re all drawn — albeit down different paths.
You may be inclined to tell me that I am getting this from my own reason and not from a book; to which I will say, darn right. I think for myself and do not rely on an ancient book of poems, and myths and half-remembered history to tell me what to believe.
I am a Unitarian Universalist by affiliation, and a theist without any more specific name by belief.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, thank you for being upfront with me, again I can respect that. I’m sorry that whatever happened when you were “a devout Christian”, made you a non-believer of Christianity. I’m sure you do not need my opinion about your personal experience, but I am sorry for what it’s worth. I can’t imagine ever losing my faith. I was raised by Christian Scientist parents till I was 11 or 12. But I attended Christian private schools K – 12. I knew who God was and turned my back on Him for 17 years. However, I didn’t lose my knowledge of God, I just told Him to take a back seat and buckle up, cuz I’m drivin’. I made a real mess of things and I don’t personally know any people that have good lives without God. Even the ones that put up a good facade, if you know them long enough, you’ll see the facade come crashing down. At least that’s my experience in my 50 years of life. I know what it’s like to live without God and I know what it’s like to willingly give my life to Him. It’s my choice and I make it gladly and with a joyful heart. I don’t know what else to say to you, because my beliefs tell me a whole different story about what will go down when you draw your last breath. You seem to be sure that the Bible is false, and I am sure it isn’t. As a prior believer, is it worth the risk of eternal damnation? Lord, Liar or Lunatic those are our three choices, make the choice wisely my friend. I’ll be praying for you Conan, whether you want it or not.
Report comment to moderator
#297: Conan, I just wanted to say that this description of “God” appalls me, too. This is not what the original church and early church fathers believed or taught.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: Conan, you seem to be making several errors here, one of which is saying that if one Christian argues a certain way, everyone else has to make the same point. I’m in no way inconsistent if I’m arguing differently than Joel Mark, Xion, or Juliana; we all have slightly different perspectives on things.
I have never said the Old Testament doesn’t apply today, so challenging me on that point is useless.
Fair enough. One would think the inspired, inerrant word of God would be clear enough to head off such major differences of opinion among its believers, but ok.
I also pointed out that the death penalty for murder (murder being the point of our discussion) predates the Mosaic law, and is still in place in the New Testament, so any argument that some aspects of the Law are no longer in place today is simply irrelevant to this discussion. As early as the first murder, Cain had an understanding that a murderer deserved to die, though God (for reasons we do not know) chose to spare his life. Then God said specifically that the one who sheds another man’s blood should have his own blood shed, and in the New Testament we read about the government bearing “the sword.”
I haven’t discussed at all whether the death penalty is applicable to other sins, and that question isn’t relevant here.
Well no, it’s very relevant. Here I have to disagree. What you’re trying to do is argue that some parts of the Old Testament (death penalty for murder) still apply and some parts (death penalty for cursing parents) do not.
I think if you want to make that argument, you need a clear reason, a method that determines which parts apply and which don’t. I’m pretty sure “this is what feels right to CherylD” is not a widely accepted criterion among scholars.
It can’t be the difference between moral law and ceremonial law, because you’re arguing that some moral laws are now softened (i.e., still sin but not death-penalty sin) while others have not. But you’ve not explained how you determine which is which.
It is obvious that the civil government still bears the responsibility for punishing wrongdoing (whether or not one accepts the death penalty), so any argument that Christ’s death negated the need for civil punishment would be absurd. Thieves and rapists aren’t given a pass on their sin, and why should murderers be?
Who said they should?
Thieves and rapists are not executed in our society, but what’s interesting is, those were not even death-penalty sins in the Bible. On the other hand, our government does not prosecute some things that were death-penalty sins in the Bible, such as following another god or cursing one’s parents.
Anyway, no one here has argued that murderers should not be punished. I haven’t even argued that they shouldn’t sometimes be executed (I’m ambivalent on that.)
What I do argue is that Christians have a particular set of teachings that seem to me to argue against accepting the death penalty. Life in prison with no chance of parole would be punishment that doesn’t require taking human life.
Even a murderer is made in the image of God. How do you know that he won’t repent and be saved, if he lives long enough?
Report comment to moderator
Retired Military: Prayers are always welcome.
But you should know that nothing “happened” to me to lead me out of Christianity. My time in the church was good, I had good friends and mostly good experiences. The only thing that changed was that my mind expanded to the point where I could no longer accept the idea that the God of the universe would reveal the truth to only a small group of people and leave the rest of the world to damnation.
It stopped making sense. And so I had to go through a long period of reading and studying and thinking and ultimately concluded that God is real, but no human religion contains the whole of God.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, yes a murderer might repent if he lives long enough . . . or he might repent because he knows he himself will be dying soon. Frankly, justice isn’t about giving him a chance to repent. (I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t care about whether or not he has a chance to repent, but that that has nothing to do with justice. It isn’t factored into the judge’s decision of what is just. A chance to repent is mercy, a separate issue.)
Me: I haven’t discussed at all whether the death penalty is applicable to other sins, and that question isn’t relevant here.
You: Well no, it’s very relevant. Here I have to disagree. What you’re trying to do is argue that some parts of the Old Testament (death penalty for murder) still apply and some parts (death penalty for cursing parents) do not.
You could make that argument, perhaps, if I myself had made the argument that the death penalty for cursing parents no longer applied. Since I didn’t “take a stand” either way, and since our specific discussion is whether it is murder to kill a person who has murdered another, and since biblically the death penalty is outside the Mosaic law and can thus legitimately be discussed separately from it . . . on all those counts, other uses of the death penalty are irrelevant to our current discussion. And since I myself haven’t studied what is specific Israelite law and what applies to everyone, I am not about to get into that discussion with someone who doesn’t believe the Bible anyway. But as I’ve shown, I don’t need to deal with that part in order to deal with the part about the death penalty for murderers.
Report comment to moderator
WM editors: Please put this blog to bed now. It only continues to engage controversy and bad fruit. When words are many, sin is not lacking.
Report comment to moderator
Fritz: Don’t be a buzzkill. The conversation is a lot more interesting than it was earlier when it was about Glenn Beck.
Report comment to moderator
Fritz, only once that I know of have moderators ever closed discussion on a piece, and I don’t think this one qualifies as needing to be closed. We’re discussing Scripture graciously, not flinging epithets at one another.
Report comment to moderator
I too appreciate the courteous conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Regarding post 310, Man’s wisdom is again better than God’s? All religions with the exception of Christianity are basically self help manuals. If I do this check list I will get to Heaven because I earned it. The Bible is not only a book of rules(it has rules to follow), an owners manual(it has ways to keep you in the best working condition) and instruction on how to be in contact with the almighty God(the creator of the universe and everything in it), it is that and so much more. The Bible is a narrative of how we broke the world and God’s plan to save us from ourselves. Every story in the Bible points to Jesus. That thread of truth is what makes the Bible make sense.
The “Heroes of the Bible” were all weak, selfish, self absorbed, manipulative jerks. God uses these people to show us we can still be in relationship with Him, even if we don’t deserve it.
God is a God of complete and infinite justice and cannot have sin in His presence. If we “sin”, that sin is to be paid for by someone, if not us by someone else. If the wages of sin are death, someone has to die. Humans are broken creatures in a broken world. We can not save ourselves and God made a plan. He was going to have to die for us. That is the Divine Mystery. How can you explain the college entrance exam to a 2 year old. We are toddlers to an infinite God, creator of all things.
Human reasoning says that the universe is all there is… but it is expanding… into what is it expanding?
If there is no God then why should anyone obey any law? Who says we should do anything that is not totally selfish or self perpetuating. That sense of God says who.
We are designed to worship! That is what the importance of life is. We may chose to worship God, our 401k, our career, our spouse, our atheism, our intelligence, our church, but we will make something of utmost importance in our lives. Man made or otherwise. That is the reason for life. Worship.
That having been said, what world view explains the mystery of human existence? If evolution is, why haven’t we evolved beyond the Ten commandments after 5,000 years of written human history? We still murder, steal, covet, and commit adultery. We are finding new ways and technology to be more efficient at committing these sins, not evolving past them.
The case being made for a God of infinite justice’s plan to humble and send Himself to atone for all our sins and make us righteous enough to come into His presence and worship Him, does not make sense to everyone, that is called election. Trinity is part of that Mystery, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, will not resonate with everyone. The point is that Christianity doesn’t point to us, it points to God. And all things point to God.
The human race’s problem is that we think everything is about us, but everything is about God.
The Bible was written with human fingers, but was Divinely inspired and painstakingly transcribed and continually translated to get the most correct understanding of Him. You do yourself an injustice thinking that Man wrote the Bible, it is way too simple and too complex for any man to create.
But, if you think you have perfected your “religion” you may write the Book Of Conan and add it to the end of the Book Of Mormon. In your narrative, remember to add why God is important in man’s existence for clarification to those who don’t feel the necessity of God and why that matters to anyone.
We humans don’t think in absolute truths. We grade on a curve. My transgressions are not as bad as you transgressions so I’m not as bad as you are. An all powerful God sees trough all of that to the absolute truth. We are all Guilty. We all deserve death and separation from God, but God loves us and wants us to be with Him and we can not make it on our own. He had to sacrifice Himself to give us the chance to be with Him. Absolute truth is more reasonable and comforting than some sliding scale of justice that is subjective to the person wanting justice on his own terms.
Just a thought.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!