Liberty University Students to Mitt: "You're Not Christian"

Are you trolling yourself at this point?

 

Are any of us "criticizing" Mormons for not being Christian? I know I wasn't.

Atlas shrugs.

 

Matt is far, far more of a fundamentalist than you, or me, or el Jefe, or even Mt. Mike.

Ironic, no?

 

I am also very fundamentalist regarding Santa Clause, yes I know I can't prove 100% he is not real, but shit I fundamentally deny his fat ass (allegedly fat), could I be wrong? sure, I guess I will just have to apologies to him if I ever meet him.

 

I know many of us would like to, but do you really deny the existence of Tim Allen?

 

I think "Tool time" was just propaganda by the Chrismas fanatics to make us believe he is real? I think the show was fake, just like the landing on the moon

 

perhaps meaningless, but not without value.

 

Wow Matt. Carrying a grudge across multiple days? You really are morphing into vfish lite. I didn't call you a troll, I said your posts in here trying to drag the discussion way off topic with a poke at religion as a fairy tale was a trolling post. You do seem to be doing more of that lately. Now you just appear to be bitter. Maybe you should find religion.

 

I simply said that I didn't like my church getting involved in politics. I wasn't making a judgment on any other religion or on Martin Luther King.

I also think an individual (even a minister or priest) can personally get involved in causes that have a political nature to them but have a greater theme (like social justice) without directly getting into politics.

MLK is an interesting example. Most of his speeches that I have seen on video were not church events, and to be honest, I don't recall him addressing actual pieces of legislation much. He talked about fairness and justice. He did support bus boycotts and other things that are pretty clearly political, but most of what I saw was focused on a true Christ-like message that we should take care of the least of our brothers and sisters and that all are equal in God's eyes (and therefore, should be equal under the law).

If I were an adult back in the day, it is quite possible that I would have agreed with Dr. King on many issues and personally would wish that he did not get involved in others based on his role as a pastor. I don't know and with hindsight on his legacy, its impossible to tell how I would have reacted to him.

That is all very different than the church supporting or rejecting a budget plan. In fact, if I remember correctly, didn't the Kennedy's try to lure MLK into supporting specific legislative initiatives, and he declined? I might not be remembering that correctly.

Anyway, I'm really not condemning political action by the religious as much as I'm expressing an opinion about my own church and what I personally would like to see from it.

 

If you're going to follow the pursuit of social justice to its logical conclusion, it will necessarily lead into political action. If you don't follow it, then it's all just talk.

Do you think that back then you might have preferred that America wait until it became acceptable for someone outside the arena of religion but with Dr. King's ability to say/do what Dr. King said/did?

What purpose does faith serve if not to provide strength to rectify the wrongs of this realm (using whatever tools provide the quickest and surest cure)?

Describe your church and the level of its commitment to a better nation and world.

You don't have to name names- I'm just curious, because there's a lot of commentary floating around in this and other threads about what churches ought to do and not do. I'm trying to find out just what it is people here believe in and what the hell they go to church for if it isn't to advance the existence of Christlike activity, and for salvation.

 

Let me be clear. I have no objections to what Dr. King said or did. I don't know what he said during his sermons at his own church with his own congregation. My guess is it was much more bible-centered, how God can improve your life preaching. I thought much of what he did in public was outside of his official role of pastor at his church. That doesn't mean he has to separate himself from that role, but I always felt he was acting as Martin Luther King the man and leader and not as our collective pastor. I also don't recall him advocating for specific legislation (other than the civil rights act, but again, I don't recall him specifically lobbying for the legislation. He left that to the politicians while he talked about the foundational principles of justice).

Second, I have no problem with my church talking about those foundational principles of justice. I saw Cardinal George deliver an eloquent speech (not at a church) on the just war theory of the Catholic church where he reached a conclusion that the US should not preemptively strike Iraq. All of this is a fine line, but a bishop in Peoria actively campaigning against Obama from the pulpit is wrong. The bishops actively denouncing a budget (while I agree with the position) is not the role of the church. They can and should advocate for the things that the budget attacks, like aid to the sick and food (stamps) for the poor and hungry.

To answer your last question, their commitment to a better nation and world should be absolute. They should advance the message of love and peace and our collective responsibility to our brothers and sisters who should all be equal in the eyes of God and therefore in our own eyes. They can do all of those things without getting involved in specific political acts.

 

No, I never thought you did. I'm just saying that he was able to say so much because he was a minister, and not doing so would have made him negligent as a clergyman.

I think he was doing both.

If he didn't lobby for it directly, he should have. It's limited-range clergymen like the ones he wrote to from Birmingham that need their ideology examined. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of calling oneself a servant of God or one's church a place of holiness without being involved in the battle for human rights at the governmental level.

What positive change occurs when these same men fail to advocate for the candidate who will bring those principles into American life for everyone, not just those who've had it since the Mayflower landed?

Yet another reason that churches and clergymen like Dr. King needed to express themselves in their role as clergymen. The bolded illustrates a whole culture of opposition that goes unanswered from the pulpits of those who know better and live better, and as a result, Christianity as a whole gets tarred with bigotry.

Should decent Christian clergymen like Dr. King speak only as individuals and allow the vacuum in which you seem to think faith exists to be filled with hatred? Should he not instead ask God to help change the look and thoughts of a body of elected governmental representatives?

Playing the role of a religious man here, I'd say that isn't very Christian at all.

But they cannot do this --not successfully, anyway-- without advocating for specific candidates and ideologies in government. Chances are they're, uh... preaching to the choir on Sundays. On Monday thru Saturday they're faced with real-world opposition that doesn't care what happens in their churches. If they ignore that opposition in favor of limited-range faith and action, the bad guys win. Every time. I know if I were a conservative, I'd love to see more churches that didn't directly interfere with my power grab.

I'm sorry. I'm just not getting what it is you or anyone else thinks is important about Christianity if it isn't using ALL the tools at your disposal to shape a better world.

 

I agree. I also think that someone who is the equivalent of a Cardinal in the Mormon Church getting the GOP nomination is far different (and profoundly more worrisome) than someone whose religious affiliation is limited to attending church at Stake Center A or B (and giving their mandated 10%).

 

Auria, I think you advocate for something that goes too far. Unless a church is comfortable losing it's tax exempt status, it can't endorse politicians or campaign actively against politicians. That bishop in Peoria may very well get tue Catholic church in some hot water.

I personally believe that Jesus should be the model for Christians. Don't you think that there were politicians in his day that supported policy that was more in line with his teachings than others? He didn't get involved in any of the politics of Rome or the Temple.

You push the message and drive opinion through the people. That is essentially what Dr. King did. He led a movement seeking fairness and justice. I honestly don't remember him getting wrapped up in the minutiae of legislative policy, and he shouldn't. The Church CAN and should be an advocate for pushing for equality and justice in a big picture way. They should drive the message so that people demand these things. Politicians are rats and snakes motivated by very different things. They act when it is in their interest to act. No individual politician deserves or should get the endorsement of a church.

 

Their tax-exempt status has no busness existing in the first place. I wholly recommend getting rid of it for all churches regardless of whether they step to the plate or not.

 

And BigSoccer figures out a way to unify all religions in the USA!

 

Just wanted to point out that today is the feast day of noted anti-Arianist St. Athanasius.​

 

Yesterday I was driving through rural NC for my job. Next Tuesday we're going to vote on an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. Man, I saw so many friggin' churches telling people to vote for this amendment!

 

it's not always that obvious though.
what if the church doesn't tell you who to vote for, but the church members do. or perhaps the pastor gives you his opinion on who he would vote for, but not in his official capacity as the pastor, but rather as a brother in Christ? as a friend?
unless churches start donating money to political parties and political causes, you're going to have tough time making the argument for stripping them of tax exempt status.

 

Well preaching while doing the service is one thing, a conversation after the service is another IMO.

The Mormon Church did donate money for Prop 8 in California I think.

Also how about denying services if a member votes a certain way? Like say pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, etc.

 

You mean like the Catlicks denying communion to pro-choice candidates?