Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.

When did this happen?

Ahtman wrote:
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.

I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.

dogma wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.

When did this happen?

Ahtman wrote:
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.

I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.

Look for the sparkley bible pics and work back from there...

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.

I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.

I was exaggerating, but yes. I think Romney would have a better shot at it, but the longer the primaries go on and the more they destroy and attack each other I wonder how strong any will be afterward. I know some have argued that it just makes the candidate stronger, but it can also sap them as well, and I think in this instance the scarring won't heal by election day. It is just a bit to mean spirited and a little to aimed at edges of the base to not hurt them. It is more complex then that (like I have to tell you), but with just 2 minutes before heading outside (it burns it burns!) can't really go into detail. I also had some thoughts on the fact that religious politicians in a secular government are in a tough spot often times and that we shouldn't always be so hard on all of them. Some that use their religion as a weapon are certainly worthy of our scorn.

CptJake wrote:
Romney actually gives his money to charities that help the poor in a much greater percent of his income than the current POTUS, so he seems willing to back up his beliefs.

To be fair, the vast majority of Romney's charitable contributions are to the Mormon Church, and BYU. You can argue that they help the poor, but having been around churches for most of my life, I can tell you that most donations to any given church that are not explicitly taken in to help the poor go to church operations (ie. paying the staff, heating and electrical bills, expanding an endowment, general upkeep, etc.), and the same can be said of colleges vis a vis scholarships.

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Romney actually gives his money to charities that help the poor in a much greater percent of his income than the current POTUS, so he seems willing to back up his beliefs.

To be fair, the vast majority of Romney's charitable contributions are to the Mormon Church, and BYU. You can argue that they help the poor, but having been around churches for most of my life, I can tell you that most donations to any given church that are not explicitly taken in to help the poor go to church operations (ie. paying the staff, heating and electrical bills, expanding an endowment, general upkeep, etc.), and the same can be said of colleges vis a vis scholarships.

Having been in the Mormon church for most of my life and having worked as a volunteer in charity operations from time to time, I can tell you quite a bit goes to help the poor. The various wards in the church are run from the top down by unpaid members that volunteer their time, along with their monetary contributions.

dogma wrote:

I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.

Santorum is the only GOP candidate that would be reprehensible enough to the socially left to motivate them to vote, en masse.

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote:

I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.

Santorum is the only GOP candidate that would be reprehensible enough to the socially left to motivate them to vote, en masse.

Newton may have a similar effect.

But then again, it's not like Romeny is able to motivate the conservative base. He's gonna really ahve to reach out to centrists to win against Obama...

Melissia wrote:But then again, it's not like Romeny is able to motivate the conservative base. He's gonna really ahve to reach out to centrists to win against Obama...

Which is something he could pull off, unlike Newton & Santorum, IMHO.

Then again, Obama can also reach to the centrists too, so...

I've seen the site before, it's very funny and does a terrific job of pointing out how little the policy platforms and beliefs of the Republican have to do with the teachings and values of Jesus, despite how much they go on about Christ.

I thought about posting the site here, but figured that the people who don't get it weren't going to suddenly figure it all out because of some funny speach bubbles.

CptJake wrote:So using your example, I guess by going to the site I find a lot of out of context quotes?

I'll skip it.

Out of context? You're complaining that website that takes quotes from prominent Christians and puts them in the mouth of Jesus is out of context. Out of context is the whole point of the exercise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:But then again, it's not like Romeny is able to motivate the conservative base. He's gonna really ahve to reach out to centrists to win against Obama...

The relevance of centrists is a total myth. There are hardly any of them, and only a fraction of them vote.

Elections are about the base, and how many of them you can convince to get out and vote. Obama won in 2008 because he built massive enthusiasm among his core demographics, while McCain did not. In 2010 there was all kinds of noise made about the Tea Party, but anyone who bothered to look at the numbers knows the election came down to two simple things - the core Republican demographics turned out to vote in numbers consistant with most of their elections, while the Democrats suffered a considerable decline in participation.

dogma wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.

When did this happen?

There's a new troll in OT that makes over-the-top and offensive comments then claims to be a Christian, thereby giving ammo to others here to broadly slander Christians in general. CT is encouraging him.

OT: Isn't the big complaint about the "religious right" that they're mixing religion and politics? Doesn't the linked site make the same mistake?

biccat wrote:
OT: Isn't the big complaint about the "religious right" that they're mixing religion and politics? Doesn't the linked site make the same mistake?

Depends on who you talk to. Many religious people will tell you that its not that religion is motivating their decision making that is problematic, but that the type of religion that is motivating their decision making is reprehensible, based on bad theology, or otherwise unworthy.

There's also a difference between reacting to a religious group injecting religion into politics, and simply injecting religion into politics.

I still think the 'Jesus is a Jerk' pictures are better (in a 'if it turns out the Abrahamic religions are right, I'm totally going to burn in Hell for this' sort of way)-

Relapse wrote:
Having been in the Mormon church for most of my life and having worked as a volunteer in charity operations from time to time, I can tell you quite a bit goes to help the poor. The various wards in the church are run from the top down by unpaid members that volunteer their time, along with their monetary contributions.

Were the Mormon Church not the owner of several for-profit entities, I might agree given its structure. That said, the Church claims its only uses tithes ecclesiastically, but I'm not willing to take that at face value.

Also, for any church, staff costs are minimal; usually only the minister/priest is paid. But large facilities are expensive to own and operate, or rent.

biccat wrote:OT: Isn't the big complaint about the "religious right" that they're mixing religion and politics? Doesn't the linked site make the same mistake?

No, not at all. The site is simply pointing out that for a party that talks about God and Jesus a lot seems to ignore his most important teachings.

There is, of course, a very big different between 'if you're going to be the party of Jesus maybe you should sound like him a little more often' and 'you must all sound like Jesus'.

My thoughts on the matter:
The purpose of the site, obviously, is satire. I don't think the meaning goes much deeper than that.
As for the Christian candidates? By what criteria do we define Christians? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Mormon?
All of these (thousands of) groups have significantly different ideas of what constitutes Christian identity, doctrine, and dogma.
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
Textually speaking, plenty of basis exists for the statements of the candidates e.g. for homosexuality, reference LEV 20:13 (all historio-critical and etymological debates aside, the Hebrew translation for this passage is very clear). One could also reference Paul's letters for this debate, but the context is less clear due to Paul's propensity for coining new Greek words.
As for misogyny? 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11 as well as the entire last chapter of Judges and many of the mitzvah.
Murder? Reference Leviticus, the Revelation of John, or well, any and most, of the Hebrew Bible. Plenty of situations occur in which murder is sanctioned.
All this to the point that: Christianity is not a religion based solely upon the words of the Jesus Christ (what little we have). Further, interpretation plays a pivotal role in how doctrine develops. For example, Augustine's interpretations of scripture (like the doctrine of original sin) were widely viewed as heresy by the church at large, but accepted later by Imperial decree and so became doctrine (reference Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief).
In the postmodern world, one cannot say interpretations are 'right' or 'wrong,' only whether one agrees or disagrees. Because the candidates are both Americans and Protestant, they have free reign to interpret the scriptures in whatever way they wish. Whether these interpretations are correct or incorrect, again depends on what analytical lens one uses to evaluate their statements. Christianity is not a single monolithic organization with a definition of identity set in stone; the communion is, and has been since its inception, a sectarian milieu. Generally speaking, the only criteria for claiming Christian identity have been a profession of faith in Christ as savior and possibly belief in the trinity-- but again, even this rule has its exceptions. Ergo, no single clean definition for Christian identity exists, only a myriad of possible and equally correct definitions.
My point being that one cannot say whether someone is a real Christian (since no absolute definition exists) or not; only whether one agrees or disagrees with them.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that many of the "religious right" interpret the scriptures isogetically and without regard to literary or historical context and they are therefore wrong. But that is my opinion, and it cannot be empirically proven any more than theirs. For the record, I don't agree with them, and it is my interpretation of events that, yes, they are bigoted (or at least pretend to be... I'm really not sure what Romney actually believes) idiotic, and counterproductive to the American good.
So yeah, there you have it. I hope that all made sense, it's rather late and I'm not entirely certain this is all coming out lucidly.

Classic type thread here, good job everyone, I am not going to add anything except I am going back to reading the MLP thread, or something else less full of conflict.

deathholydeath wrote:So yeah, there you have it. I hope that all made sense, it's rather late and I'm not entirely certain this is all coming out lucidly.

That was a marvellous post. Thankyou.

deathholydeath wrote:
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.

To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.

dogma wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.

To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.

On the other hand, the full name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as our doctrine proves we believe in Jesus.
I remember when I was in boot camp, a group of 5 DI's called a born again Christian and myself into the duty hut and began hazing us about our religious beliefs for several minutes.
The senior DI then asked me what I thought about the treatment, and I answered thatt it didn't mean a thing to me since I'd often been harrased about my religion before.
At that point, the color left his face, the room went quiet, and for the first of two times time in boot camp, I saw a DI go speechless.
After he took a minute to compose himself, he began, in a stumbling way, to say that what he was doing wasn't harrasement, but a discussion of beliefs. After that, we were dismissed, and for the rest of boot camp, that DI never bothered me about anything.

dogma wrote:To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.

Well, there's at least 10 million Mormons who think so.

Then there's the problem with people who are willing to exclude just about anyone who isn't them, think of the number of Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christian. Really, all you can do is say everyone who believes in Jesus is Christian, or that it isn't anyone's place to decide who else is or isn't Christian.

I swear we have had this conversation before. More than once.

Religion being used to further politics?

That's a new one.

The first article of faith for the LDS church is,
"We believe in God the eternal father, and in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

We also have the bible, both old and new Testaments as one of the standard works, meaning books we go by, and we believe in the atonment of Christ.

I definitely believe myself a Christian.

One with a lot of self improvement work needed.

Relapse wrote:
On the other hand, the full name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as our doctrine proves we believe in Jesus.

So do Muslims and Jews, they just don't believe he was the messiah.

sebster wrote:
Well, there's at least 10 million Mormons who think so.

Then there's the problem with people who are willing to exclude just about anyone who isn't them, think of the number of Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christian. Really, all you can do is say everyone who believes in Jesus is Christian, or that it isn't anyone's place to decide who else is or isn't Christian.

Assuming by "believe" you mean "believe to be real" the set "Christians" gets really, really large; to an absurd degree. Hell, that would make me a Christian, and no one who has know me for more than 5 minutes would claim that.

Any reasonable definition of Christianity has to turn on either greater specificity, or a certain degree of commonality (I prefer the latter, but lots of people seem to like the Nicene Creed.). One useful metric is whether or not someone believes in the Trinity, and its a metric which excludes Mormons. However, there are also Christian groups that are nontrinitarian, so that's not enough.

Without going into explicit detail, there are enough doctrinal differences between LDS and Christians to consider them fundamentally separate. Another way to put it is that once Mormons added a new holy book, Momonism became a new Abrahamic faith.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
On the other hand, the full name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as our doctrine proves we believe in Jesus.

So do Muslims and Jews, they just don't believe he was the messiah.

As I said in a previous post we believe in the atonment. In other words, we believe in the teachings of Jesus, that he was the son of God, the example of his life, and that he was crucified to save us.
I can't speak for Muslims and Jews, but that's about as direct an answer I can give you on what LDS members believe.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Articles of faith for the LDS church

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

Relapse wrote:
As I said in a previous post we believe in the atonment. In other words, we believe in the teachings of Jesus, that he was the son of God, the example of his life, and that he was crucified to save us.
I can't speak for Muslims and Jews, but that's about as direct an answer I can give you on what LDS members believe.

I have a fairly good grasp on what LDS members believe, or at least what they're supposed to believe.

You're nontrinitarian, which for many people (most Catholics and Protestants) is enough to consider you something other than Christian but, as I said above, you also have at least one additional holy book (Is Doctrine and Covenants considered equivalent to the Book of Mormon? I can't remember.). That, is sufficient for me to consider Mormons distinct from Christians, at least without delving in major doctrinal differences.

We believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities. The Doctrine and Covenents are in fact one of the standard works along with the Bible and Book of Mormon.
As far as what you believe, you are free to think I'm not Christian with no hard feelings on my part. I do, however,I follow in my best way his teachings according to LDS doctrine with the hope I'll get better at it over time

dogma wrote:So do Muslims and Jews, they just don't believe he was the messiah.

Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah, and that his crucifixion was for our sins. They believe he rose from the dead and travelled to the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm intrigued as to where you heard otherwise.

Assuming by "believe" you mean "believe to be real" the set "Christians" gets really, really large; to an absurd degree.

Why would you assume that? Why would you assume anything other than the common meaning given to those words every time it is spoken by Christians - to believe in Jesus is to believe he is the son of God, put on Earth to show the way, and that is only through his forgiveness that a person might join God in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Without going into explicit detail, there are enough doctrinal differences between LDS and Christians to consider them fundamentally separate.

Of course, it is perfectly sensible to consider them fundamentally seperate, without considering them 'not Christian'. It's exactly how the Western faiths saw Eastern Orthodox for centuries.