Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

flaja wrote:

blatham wrote:
flaja wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
legitimate Christian doctrine

Really? There is such a thing? Who establishes what it is? Would that be the present Pope or previous Popes? Or the head of the Church of England? Or Pat Robertson? Or Irenaeus? Or Tertullian? Or Augustine? Or the Archbishop of Uganda? Elders of the Amish community in Pennsylvania? Pentacostals and other folks who speak in tongues? The Southern Baptist Federation? Joel Osteen? St. Francis? Biblical literalists? The Dominionist movement?

Please clarify and forward your rationale.

The Holy Bible, Authorized King James translation 1611 as a matter of faith.

You've given just about the laziest and most superficial answer I've yet seen on this board.

How so?

A book does not constitute a doctrine. Doctrines arise, in the case of christianity, from often quite differing and conflicting intepretations of the book you point to. Further, that single book is not the sole source of doctrinal positions among varying christian sects. Catholic doctrine and Mennonite doctrine or the doctrines of southern evangelicals are often profoundly at odds. In Africa, many christian sects who use the book you mention, also include ancestor worship as a part of their basic doctrinal beliefs. Even singular faith groups, say Catholic or Anglican, are commonly wrought be divergent doctrinal positions (re homosexuality, for example). All of which is to ignore that your founders and writers of the constitution/bill of rights included agnostics and deists. Clearly, their beliefs and contributions to your polity must be held as illegitimate.

You haven't begun to answer the question of what faith stance might be 'legitimate' and who establishes such 'legitimacy'. You've avoided the entire subject. Lazy. Superficial.

0 Replies

After having read thru the previous few threads my question is what makes you believe that Christianity is any more valid than Mormonism or any other religion. . I would hope that our next president would govern for the good of all it's citizens and not based upon some man made beliefs. May we be spared the agony of another {cristofacist}being elected president.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

After having read thru the previous few threads my question is what makes you believe that Christianity is any more valid than Mormonism or any other religion. . I would hope that our next president would govern for the good of all it's citizens and not based upon some man made beliefs. May we be spared the agony of another {cristofacist}being elected president.

It isn't any more 'valid', au, other than where 'validitiy' might be considered a product of consensus. As the 19th century linguist put it, "The difference between a dialect and a language is that the speakers of one have a navy."

Every sect considers their ideology or doctrines the most valid, truthful, and closest to the 'original version' of the faith (note that this is the claim made by every group which splinters off..."the church has gone astray with false ideas, bloat and corruption and we are returning it to the pure form."

Religious notions can inform a person, including a president, without that being detrimental to the community's good. Even the christian folks who believe Carter a poor president (and worse past president) they don't attribute those failures to his faith. And the world is a better place for Carter's values and work.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon church to which Romney belongs, accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

But they deny that Jesus Christ is God.

Some other Mormon heresies:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Mormons.html

Mormons believe that God was once a man and that humans can become gods:

"?'God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted immortal resurrected man!' (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 322-23, 517, 643)

"?'...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...' (Journal of Discourses, V6, P3, 1844)

"?'As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become.' (Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, the Gospel Through the Ages, pp. 105-106)"

Mormons don't follow the Bible by accepting things other than the Bible as sources of authority. Mormonism teaches that many important points about salvation were removed from the Bible.

Mormonism denies the Trinity, teaches a form of polytheism (in that God is just the latest in a series of gods that have existed throughout eternity).

Mormons don't believe in Hell.

Mormons believe that salvation comes from good works, which is absolutely false: Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I just find it so amusing when anyone is so close minded to other's beliefs that they feel it is acceptable to call another's beliefs "heresy."

That's what I think makes organized religion silly, in that there are those adherents that are such "true believers" that they feel self-rightous enough to denigrate someone else's beliefs (rather than just accepting that it's a big world with many belief systems).

Anyway, I was under the impression that Catholicism believes Good Works is counted towards Salvation. Now how can so many Catholics, worldwide, be completely wrong? Considering it is the denomination of Christianity that existed for two-thousand years, it was so wrong from the inception? Sounds like Christianity is more than one religion?

And, as I've been told by Jehovah Witnesses, nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned. I was told early Church Fathers developed this concept; in effect, man made theology.

And, the belief in a Hell, I thought, was becoming passe in some mainstream denominations? I could be wrong. I could be in Hell right now.

And, in another post, in this thread, there was some thought given to which version of the Bible is more authetically the word of God. Well, man having free will could have made changes along the way for political purposes. I find it amazing that some people find this possibility impossible.

My basic point is that this is a very multi-religion nation, with some people not even subscribing to any formal religion. So, when I hear anyone claiming they know what is true and what is heretical, I have to wonder why they don't practice their respective faith, without feeling compelled to denigrate another's faith? (Other than trying to respond intelligently to a posting in this thread.)

I personally believe that denigrating another's faith is quite un-American.

0 Replies

Quote:

I personally believe that denigrating another's faith is quite un-American.

Un-American, un-French, un-Belgian, un-British, and un-Canadian too. It is un-Enlightened. It is also unnecesarily cruel and bigoted. Except when it isn't.

The exception is where a faith is used by its members to determine or compel the values and behaviors of those outside the faith. When the members of a faith group set out to influence, determine or compel the policies of the larger community, then their faith...the beliefs and the rationale behind those beliefs...become fair game for everyone to criticize and satirize. Religious beliefs, when directed outside the circle of belief members, deserve no special treatment or special status.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I personally believe that denigrating another's faith is quite un-American.

Un-American, un-French, un-Belgian, un-British, and un-Canadian too. It is un-Enlightened. It is also unnecesarily cruel and bigoted. Except when it isn't.

The exception is where a faith is used by its members to determine or compel the values and behaviors of those outside the faith. When the members of a faith group set out to influence, determine or compel the policies of the larger community, then their faith...the beliefs and the rationale behind those beliefs...become fair game for everyone to criticize and satirize. Religious beliefs, when directed outside the circle of belief members, deserve no special treatment or special status.

Hear! Hear!

0 Replies

This makes the sectarian point rather clearly...

Quote:

Despite his own interview with Rep. Ellison, Beck asked, "[W]hy are we going to a candidate and asking about religion?"
During a discussion on ABC's Good Morning America, regarding voter attitudes toward Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck commented, "First of all, why are we going to a candidate and asking about religion? Who cares?" But Beck himself has challenged a politician "about religion." As Media Matters for America documented, on the November 14, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck said to then-Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who, that year, became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

http://mediamatters.org/

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Our similarities are more powerful than our differences if we allow them.

Bravo!

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Mormons don't follow the Bible by accepting things other than the Bible as sources of authority. Mormonism teaches that many important points about salvation were removed from the Bible.

Mormonism denies the Trinity, teaches a form of polytheism (in that God is just the latest in a series of gods that have existed throughout eternity).

Mormons don't believe in Hell.

Mormons believe that salvation comes from good works...

I'm liking these folks more and more.

0 Replies

As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

0 Replies

mango santa maria!

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

liked that quote from a 19th cent. linguist, Blatham..

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

I know for certain that they do not follow legitimate Christian doctrine

1. what determines legitimate Christian doctrine?
2. what allows you to determine if any group or person is a "legitimate Christian"?
3. what value is there in identifying these "legitimate Christians"?
4. when will you be able to provide the definition of "legitimate conservative", which phrase you have forwarded on another thread?

0 Replies

[quote="blatham]A book does not constitute a doctrine.[/quote]

The Book is a written record of doctrine. Without it any latterday messianic sinner could say doctrine is anything he wants to believe.

Quote:

Doctrines arise, in the case of christianity, from often quite differing and conflicting intepretations of the book you point to.

False doctrines you mean.

[/quote]Further, that single book is not the sole source of doctrinal positions among varying christian sects.[/quote]

It is the only source for legitimate Christians. Any doctrine that does not agree with it is false doctrine.

Quote:

Catholic doctrine and Mennonite doctrine or the doctrines of southern evangelicals are often profoundly at odds.

If you equate Evangelicals with Pentecostals, then none of these groups follow true doctrine and thus none of them are Christian.

Quote:

In Africa, many christian sects who use the book you mention, also include ancestor worship as a part of their basic doctrinal beliefs.

Meaning they are not Christians.

Quote:

Even singular faith groups, say Catholic or Anglican, are commonly wrought be divergent doctrinal positions (re homosexuality, for example).

Because they are following the teachings of man and not the teaching of God.

Quote:

All of which is to ignore that your founders and writers of the constitution/bill of rights included agnostics and deists.

Care to name them?

BTW: The U.S. Constitution is not a source for Christian doctrine. It is the work of men, not God.

Quote:

Clearly, their beliefs and contributions to your polity must be held as illegitimate.

Why?

Quote:

You haven't begun to answer the question of what faith stance might be 'legitimate' and who establishes such 'legitimacy'.

Anything that is counter to the King James translation of the Holy Bible is contrary to the doctrine that I accept as a matter of faith.

Quote:

You've avoided the entire subject.

No I haven't. As long as you have a stony heart you will be unable to understand the things of God. You asked your question in hopes that you would have cause to mock me and denigrate Christians in general. If you have serious, legitimate questions, ask them and be prepared for a serious and honest discussion. Otherwise I won't waste my time with the fool's errand you've asked me to venture on.

0 Replies

So, the King James translation of the Bible is the one and only legitimate Christian doctrine?

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

liked that quote from a 19th cent. linguist, Blatham..

Wonderfully clarifying, isn't it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Every sect considers their ideology or doctrines the most valid, truthful, and closest to the 'original version' of the faith (note that this is the claim made by every group which splinters off..."the church has gone astray with false ideas, bloat and corruption and we are returning it to the pure form."

Which is why any doctrine must be believed as a matter of faith and only God can be the judge of which doctrine is true. And thus it is pointless to discuss matters of faith with anyone who isn't willing to accept the possibility that his faith is false and yours is true.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

You don't think a candidate's religious beliefs have any effect on his positions regarding the issues?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

flaja wrote:
I know for certain that they do not follow legitimate Christian doctrine

1. what determines legitimate Christian doctrine?
2. what allows you to determine if any group or person is a "legitimate Christian"?
3. what value is there in identifying these "legitimate Christians"?
4. when will you be able to provide the definition of "legitimate conservative", which phrase you have forwarded on another thread?

Holy Bible, Authorized King James Translation 1611- as a matter of faith.

0 Replies

The thought as to what constitutes a "legitimate Christian" is interesting. Would Jesus have considered the converts, reflecting Saint Paul's proselytizing, legitimate Christians? I say this since I was under the belief that Jesus spent his time at the Jerusalem Church with his brother James. And, Jesus was only proselytizing to Jews. In other words, where did Saint Paul or Constantine get their authority to make Christians out of Gentiles?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

So, the King James translation of the Bible is the one and only legitimate Christian doctrine?

The AKJ is the only complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of Christian doctrine that I have access to and can read. Since I have no access to translations made prior to 1611 and cannot read any language but English, I cannot comment on pre-1611 English translations or a translation in any other language. I have examined quite a few post-1611 English translations and they all contain false doctrines.

0 Replies

Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know