Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the ground--at long last--finally shifting out from under the religious right's feet? (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here We Go Again (44+ / 0-)


    Mormons are not Christians.

    Just because I change the meaning of the word "Chinese" to include me, does not make me Chinese.

    Mormons do not believe in one God - the God of Abraham that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship.  They believe in multiple gods.  They believe that a good Mormon, when HE dies, will become a god himself and have his own planet to rule.  His wife, if she was a good wife, can be ONE of his wives in the aftermath.

    Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity.

    Mormons believe their god was a flesh-and-blood man who had sex with a spirit creature, and began both Jesus and Satan, who were brothers.

    This link describes it much better than I can:

    Mormonism a Cult

    And this is a summary of the Catholic teaching on Mormonism:
    Catholic Teaching on Mormonism

    I'm not saying the Mormon Church is bad.  I'm not saying it's good.  There are good Mormons and bad Mormons, just like any other religion.

    The point I'm making is that they are not Christian.  You are equating "Christian" with "good" and "nice" and not considering what it means to be a Christian.  If a Hindu leads a good life and is a good person, would you term him a "Christian?"

    The point is that the Christian Right, in their hypocrisy, supported a non-Christian over a Christian.  Their choice, but don't tell me again how we are a "Christian Nation."

    Demand Accountability.

    by stlawrence on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 09:36:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  stlawrence, loved your comment, there are many (7+ / 0-)

      truths, it's in the mind of the believer.

    •  i read both of your links and even (0+ / 0-)

      saved them

      the first is Christopher Hitchen's work.  I cannot consider this reliable as to its theological wisdom as Hitchen's was an atheist.  As to the content of the article, it seems reasonable.

      The second includes this sentence

      At this point anyone would be better than the man in the White House today in my opinion.
      Interesting to note that even though this blog post declares Mormonism a heresy, Obama is somehow also verboten.  It would be nice to know why.  Are we back to the abortion issue?

      In any case, I do not feel at all positive about Mormonism based on what I can objectively verify as fact.  Nutty underwear aside, it does not seem remotely Christian at its heart, but neither does the Catholic Church or all of evangelical Christendom.

      If they want to call themselves Christian, I cannot really argue because I don't want evangelicals telling me that I am not Christian.  Whether I want to take them seriously on a spiritual level is another issue.

      Frankly, I don't want my President to discuss his religion at all, and I especially don't want him declaring himself Christian as a way to appeal to the voters.

      Donate to Occupy Wall Street here:

      by BlueDragon on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 01:30:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you saying that atheists (4+ / 0-)

        can't be theologians because they don't believe in God?
        Theology isn't even discussed in the first article, for that matter.
        And really, if you look at Christianity side by side with Mormonism, they're both rather nutty.
        I emphatically agree with your last paragraph.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 03:29:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The idea that agreement with a thing (4+ / 0-)

          is a prerequisite for being considered knowledgeable about that thing is a great tool if you're trying to find a generic blanket defense of that thing, that always works regardless of the facts. It's a trick that a LOT of Christians use in regards to this topic.  Not a christian?  Then you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Christianity purely by virtue of the fact that you don't agree with it.

          It a very egotistical position to take because it's basically saying "To understand what I am saying is to agree with it.  It is impossible to correctly parse what I said and not agree with it."

          And it permeates the terminology they often use when proselytizing.  Not how it's not "we're going to talk to you to try to convince you to agree with us", but rather "we're going to teach you the good news" (as if you could grow up in America without already having heard about what they're going to tell you a thousand times before.)

    •  Mormons believe in multiple gods? & Xtians don't? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Yeah I figured (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cacamp, kplatv

      Look, I call people what they want to be called. You're arguing theology, I'm talking cultural and historical reality.

      And no, I am not equating "Christian" with "good" and "nice".  I'm equating "Christian" with "people who say they follow Christ." I am well aware that that includes a lot of really different people and beliefs. Anything else is details of interest only to club members. And I am not a club member.

      Conservatives believe evil comes from violating rules. Liberals believe evil comes from violating each other.

      by tcorse on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:55:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And here's why that's wrong. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neon Mama

        Words are not owned by the person being talked ABOUT.  I don't get to tell you "from now on I insist on being referred to as a genius, and if you choose not to do that, you're being intolerant."  The meaning of a word is not defined purely by the people who use it as a label for themselves.  If I insisted on being labeled a genius you would be well within your rights to say "no" if you didn't think I fit the definition.

        What you call yourself is a matter of controlling your OWN speech.  Demanding that others must call you what you insist on being called is controlling their speech.

        •  Good grief (0+ / 0-)

          Ok, I will no longer attempt to adjudicate between competing people claiming the title "Christian." Though to be blunt, there is no empirical definition of "Christian." These people say its this, those people says its that. But as the whole concept exists inside people's heads, and only inside people's heads, it's all a matter of personal preference.

          "Genius," by the way, at least can be thought of in relative terms, so there is some basis for ignoring people making absurd claims there.

          Conservatives believe evil comes from violating rules. Liberals believe evil comes from violating each other.

          by tcorse on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 09:25:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Totally missing the point there. (0+ / 0-)

            The point is that you tried the justification that a word only means what the people who use it for THEMSELVES say it means.  This is NOT how language works, and it's important to point this out because demanding that others must call you what you insist they call you is an attempt to control THEIR speech.

            "I want to call myself X"
            is a totally different statement from
            "I want everyone else to call me X".

      •  Mormons are christian enough to me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I've heard both sides and like most religious debates neither side is about to budge and both are sure of their beliefs. Some say Catholics aren't christian or Jehovas Witnesess aren't either. Protestants quit being christian when they left the Roman Catholic Church. I've heard it all most being said by folks totally confident they are right and they can prove it... blah, blah, blah... according to the bible or Billy Grahmn or a secret handshake.

        All of them are right and all are as christian as each other. Mormons are christians because they can prove it as much as a baptist can or a catholic or whatever domination which pops up next. It's all in how you look at it and that's the way I look at it so it's the one and only way. I have spoken.

        This is kinda fun really, a circular argument without end or meaning.

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 09:44:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The naming of religions is problematic (0+ / 0-)

          because they often branch off from previous traditions, and retain major elements even after they become quite distinct. The difference between a sect of a religion and a separate religion altogether can be more a matter of degree than of kind.

          Mormonism has a lot of Christianity in it, and maybe you could call it a kind of Christianity, but it is not the same religion. Any more than Christianity is the same religion as Judaism, even though it grew out of Judaism.

          "The pessimists may be right in the end but an optimist has a better time getting there" -- Samuel Clemons

          by native on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:42:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site