Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_Daniel Peterson]

DrW, meet Madeleine. Madeleine, meet DrW. I hope you two have a fun time engaging each other.

Daniel Peterson, there is something you should understand, the main creed that almost all of Christianity professes today is the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, which didn't just pop into being.

I'm glad that you recognized that only "almost all of Christianity professes [it] today."

That's very significant.

It contains the core elements that have been taught for 2000 years,

Wellllllll, yes and no.

I hope, sometime within the next two years or so, to write a brief book for Latter-day Saints, a sort of primer, about the classical creeds and the ecumenical councils. I've already lectured on them, but it takes time to put it all into book form.

It didn't happen that Mormonism was put at the center and the core beliefs of Christianity defined around Mormonism as to purposely exclude Mormons. Mormonism is outside the core beliefs of Christianity by the fact that the beliefs of Mormonism are divergent from the long-existing beliefs of Christianity. This is not meant as a slight against Mormons. This doesn't mean that Mormons are distant from Jesus Christ, as He calls to all, with equal love and an earnest desire for all to know the Father, through Him.

I'm quite content to be considered outside the Christian "mainstream." You needn't apologize for saying so. I agree.

But Mormonism is not of the One Faith, professed by Christians.

We disagree.

The Body of Christ is not one thing, and simultaneously something else.

Quite so.

And yet Christianity contains Catholics and Quakers and Copts and Anglicans and Baptists and Methodists and Armenian Orthodox and Pentecostals and many other exotic breeds.

We profess a belief in the Holy Trinity, the second Person of the Holy Trinity is Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father.

So far so good. So do we.

The Incarnation is CENTRAL to Christianity,

Absolutely!

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 John 4:3, KJV).

and LDS have no grasp whatsoever of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Sorry. I've got to reject that statement.

Not understanding the Son to BE THE ONE TRUE GOD, but A God.

I don't think your view can survive biblical scrutiny. For its first two or three centuries, Christianity was almost unanimously subordinationist in its Christology. Your view represents a later development.

You can, if you wish, go with Cardinal Newman's view (I'm rather fond of him, myself) and argue that the later non-subordinationist Christology represents a divinely-guided evolution from the earlier view, but I don't buy it.

It is so fundamental to Christian belief that without this understanding, you are speaking of another God.

And yet, curiously, it's not clearly taught in the Bible.

How odd of God to lose that news.

Anytime we speak of God as something He is not, this is idolatry.

In that case, since no mortal human being can have a perfect understanding of the divine nature, we are all idolators.

It would be an extreme disservice, to the point of being derelict, to tell you that you possess the Truth of Jesus Christ, when you don't.

You're right. I've been remiss in my duty:

Repent, Madeleine, and be baptized!

[_MrStakhanovite]

Well, this has been a edifying engagement.

[_Blixa]

Only if, tomorrow, you post something to which I feel I need to reply.

The threshold is exceptionally high in your case, but not impossible.

This may or may not be the case. I wouldn't know.

But I could always roll a sock puppet and then post insanely idiotic, easy-to-refute arguments about Mormonism. That seems to be a surefire way to get your attention.

No kidding.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Mr. Peterson is, as usually, an idiot. Jesus.

V/R
Doctor CamNC4Me

[_DrW]

DrW, meet Madeleine. Madeleine, meet DrW. I hope you two have a fun time engaging each other.

Dr. Peterson,

Unless Madeleine engages me directly, I have no interest in debating religion with her.

The subject of the thread is the problem that Mitt Romney's brand of religion generates for him among his fellow religionists.

Your treatment of a board member who you suspect of being the sock puppet of a fellow Mormon apologist is a great example of how this dynamic works.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Unless Madeleine engages me directly, I have no interest in debating religion with her.

I hope she will.

The subject of the thread is the problem that Mitt Romney's brand of religion generates for him among his fellow religionists.

Your treatment of a board member who you suspect of being the sock puppet of a fellow Mormon apologist is a great example of how this dynamic works.

How, exactly?

I take it that I'm supposed to have done something bad to this other board member on account of theological differences.

If that's correct, could you explain what wrong I've done to him? And what theological differences there are between me and either Will Schryver or Nomad?

Or else, if I haven't understood what it is you're trying to say, could you please explain it more clearly?

People have been speculating and declaring on this board for the past couple of years or more that Nomad is actually Will Schryver. I've long suspected that they might be correct. Finally, just this afternoon, I said so.

What "religious dynamic," exactly, does that illustrate?

Nomad's implicit complaint about me doesn't seem to have involved any religious issue. My response to him certainly involved no religious issue. What are you talking about?

[_Daniel Peterson]

No kidding.

I don't expect that MrStakhanovite, Shades, and Madeleine -- three of those who've had my attention here of late -- are going to be very pleased at seeing their posts characterized as "insanely idiotic, easy-to-refute arguments about Mormonism."

[_MrStakhanovite]

No kidding.

I don't expect that MrStakhanovite, Shades, and Madeleine -- three of those who've had my attention here of late -- are going to be very pleased at seeing their posts characterized as "insanely idiotic, easy-to-refute arguments about Mormonism."

I specialize in the above underlined.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't expect that MrStakhanovite, Shades, and Madeleine -- three of those who've had my attention here of late -- are going to be very pleased at seeing their posts characterized as "insanely idiotic, easy-to-refute arguments about Mormonism."

I specialize in the above underlined.

Ah. Then I stand corrected.

You have my apology.

And -- it scarcely needs saying -- my complete attention.

[_moksha]

So who would make a better running mate for Mitt Romney:

1. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson
2. Ms. Jack
3. Will Schryver
4. That crazy lady from Alaska
5. Bcspace