So you are a believer, in what?
I disagree, but I’m not a Christian and I’m not sure what the rational for this idea is. Certainly entire Christian movements have celebrated doing well as a sign of God’s favor.
I fully respect and support the laws of the US. I also regularly drive faster then the speed limit. The two are completely contradictory and yet seem fine to me.
I believe that if you say you believe something, your actions should be consistent with what you say you believe.
And if the Bible is to be believed, those people are all, so to speak, playing rotisserie baseball right about now.
But even if they’re not applying logic to their own situation, why shouldn’t we, as outside observers, apply our logic to their situation? That’s what I’m after here – that we shouldn’t be shy about critiquing somebody’s faith, or apparent lack of it. If it looks to me like Romney or anyone is blatantly ignoring the dictates of the religion he pretends to espouse, I feel like I get to call bullshit and call their faith into question.
I’ll note in passing that one of the hazards of being a Christian, as opposed to, say, a Wiccan, is that it’s all there in black and white, in the text of the Bible. It makes the gulf between theory and practice pretty easy to spot.
Only if you read the Bible in a certain way. Regardless of how obvious you think the words are on the page, others disagree with you.
If you ask me, there’s not a lot of room for ambiguity in Jesus’, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19)
NH[sub]4[/sub]Cl, your argument is ridiculous. A Christian believes that Jesus is God. All else is negotiable. Even those who do profess the Bible as the inerrant word of God are capable of cognitive dissonance. That is the proper term for what you’re talking about, not “atheism.”
Oh, and whoever was talking about Christ and killing children? He wasn’t advocating any such thing. He was asking (ironically, I think) why that commandment was never applied to adult offspring who dishonor their parents by denying them goods or food that they had declared “corban” – gifts intended for sacrifice.
Whoever stated that the “God and mammon” sermon merely forbids “blind accumulation of wealth” – not so. It very clearly speaks against knowing accumulation of wealth, commanding followers to “take no thought” for their food, clothing, or future. The necessities will be provided.
Me, I’m an atheist; but I do try to be consistent.
Sure, critique all you want, I’m right there with you calling bullshit on it. I’m just saying that your statement that they are atheists is simply wrong.
Nor in this: I Timothy 6:17-19: “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.”
Hard does not mean impossible, nor is there a command to get rid of your wealth. You’re taking a single line out of context. It seems like the message is to be wary of falling in love with money, not that money itself is evil. Used properly, it can be a force for good.
Again, I’m not Christian so I’m going by some surface reading. But your interpretation appears to be rather blinkered.
There is if you read it as a warning that wealth is a spiritual danger, rather than an absolute prohibition against having wealth whatsoever. Note that he says it’s hard, not impossible.
You know, there’s actually a much easier argument you could be making about a much less ambiguous passage:
Jesus, Luke 16:18. There you go, everyone who remarries (including McCain and Giuliani) is an adulterer and atheist. Knock yerself out.
That’s not what I said, though. What I said was “Jesus isn’t condemning wealth per se, but the blind accumulation of it and making it the center of your life instead of God.” That’s entirely consistent with your reading, as it’s part of a general prohibition against concerning oneself with the material world first and God second.
The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not require a vow of poverty. That theology has no problem with someone praying for wealth provided the intent is to use it for the greater glory of God. As far as I can tell, the man is sincere in his beliefs (not that it’s any of my business to judge the man).
As mentioned above, you’ve set up a “no true Scotsman” argument. You’ve decided on your own what a word means and condemned the man for not following your definition of it. IMHO, you should’ve stopped at failing to understand that particular dictionary entry instead of launching an attack on an individual when you fail to understand the scriptural basis of his beliefs–and you might want to remember that the LDS believe in a tad more scripture than just the Bible.
And where in the Bible does Jesus say his teachings are negotiable, or mere suggestions? The idea that you can be a Christian and not follow the teachings is absurd. It’s like being a vegan who feels free to eat meat.
There are denominations of Christianity that hold that Jesus the Christ was not deity.
Right, so it’s a question of odds. And what you’re suggesting then is that Romney, shrewd businessman that he is, is staking his immortal soul on a turn of the roulette wheel.
If the theology of the LDS church conflicts with that of the Bible, that’s a subject for another thread, I’m afraid. I’m operating on the assumption that as he claims to be a Christian, he can be judged as a Christian.
And I haven’t decided “on my own” what a word means. The Bible verse I cited is fairly lapidary. The condemnation of the wealthy is near-absolute, consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, and Christ reverts to it several times. And if you have a different exegesis of the “eye of a needle” verse, I’d like to hear it.
No, perhaps he’s suggesting that Romney understands his church’s scriptures better than you do.
Here are just two verses for you to ponder:
By the way, are you aware that another key point of LDS theology is that a person owns nothing? He is only the steward for whatever the Lord sends his way as a blessing.
Well, you seem to be alone in this thread in your appraisal.
Actually, you have. You admitted to that upthread.
How about you explain how your admission that the verse you’re citing–ignoring the ones brought to your attention–as absolute is now “near-absolute” (to use your own expression) but still permits your interpretation of it as absolute?
I’ve already indicated to you what the LDS position is. Others have shown you your error and they just limited it to the Protestant Bible.
Question for you: Why are you singling out Romney here? It appears to me there are other Christians declaring their candidacy for President and they’re not exactly poor either.
No, because when he prays for forgiveness, he’s absolved. Everybody wins! Yay!
No, seriously, there’s a large school of thought in Christian theology that holds that it’s not the following of the rules that gets you into Heaven. You do what’s right because it’s pleasing to God and it’s right to do so, not because you’re trying to earn a spot in Heaven. You never, ever can, because you’ll never be good enough. All your “righteous deeds are filthy rags before the Lord.” (Isaiah 64:6) What gets you into Heaven is not what you do, but grace. The whole point of grace is that it’s undeserved, a gift.
That’s actually one of the primary messages of Jesus historically, one that often gets lost on modern audiences; Jesus’ teachings were a rebellion against the overly legalistic view of the Pharisees, and instead of merely following rules an advocacy of a personal relationship with God. That aspect is played up more in Islam.