Fr. John has chosen not to debate the “other issues”, i.e., huckster’s poor record and abysmal positions on any issue, because he has no response. If he had a clear and concise response, I am certain that he would be happy to share it with all of us. This is truly comparable to the child who is losing the game and rather than continue to get his or her head beat in, announces that he or she didn’t want to play anyway and picks up the ball and goes home. But we are supposed to believe him that huckster is a “good guy” and therefore a good candidate. I don’t think so.
Since I have a real life, and doubt that I am going to convince you, I simply do not care to debate you on the other points. I spoke up on this one simply because I know that most people would be ignorant of what it means to have a degree in Religion, and so I had a greater responsibility to speak up on the matter.
Christians have to be discerning about doctrine, and so we have to make clear that the Mormons teach a number of things that are clear departures from the Christian tradition. I would say this is also true of the Southern Baptists, but to a lesser extent.
Southern Baptists don’t teach or preach anything that is even remotely a departure from the Christian tradition or the Bible, whereas Mormonism is heresy.
I am not getting into other issues here, because I don’t wish to waste my time arguing with people about them. I just don’t like it when ignorance and slander are combined to accuse someone of dishonesty
But what if he was being dishonest?
and since I know that on this particular point, there was nothing dishonest in Huckabees claim to have had a theological degree, I am making that case.
There’s no way you can know this, unless you’re God, can read his mind or are his very best friend.
Since it is a verifiable fact that Huckabee has a theological degree, I do not have to be God to know that he was not being dishonest when he asserted that verifiable fact.
As for the baptist issue, that’s off the topic, suffice it to say that I do not agree… but that does not stop me from voting for a Baptist who most closely stands for the things I believe in.
It is not based on their religion… it is based on their morals… and the consistency thereof. And I did not say my choice was limited to just the two. I like Fred Thompson in many ways… it just doesn’t look like he is catching on. I also like some of the second tier candidates… but they are even more unlikely. I would take Mitt before Guliani, even though Guliani’s religion is closer to mine… his problem is that he seems even further removed from his religion than Mitt is from his.
I repeat: we’re not running a contest to elect a pope, a prelate or a minister.
And you’re doing an awful lot of moral judging for someone who’s been charged by their Savior to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
It is not right for you to say that Rudy “seems further removed from his religion than Mitt is from his.”
And Mitt isn’t removed from his--that is part of his problem.
Mormonism is heresy, yet he claimed the “faith of his fathers” in his religion speech, which one can only presume to include both racism and polygamy.
Both Holy Mitt and Holy Huck have governed their state as Liberals and that’s the problem, while Rudy, the “bad” Catholic, ran NYC as a Conservative.
It is for the Pope, his bishop and his confessor priest to say how good or bad a Catholic Rudy is and not you, who aren’t even in the Catholic Church, but Orthodox.
You wouldn’t let Rudy (or myself, for that matter) have Communion in your church anyway, no matter how good Christians/Catholics/Protestants we are, so there you are.
As for the baptist issue, that’s off the topic, suffice it to say that I do not agree…
Oh, yeah?
So where, in your humble Orthodox opinion, does Baptist teaching depart from the Christian tradition?
Because in my religious life and from reading my Bible, I have no found no departures or differences at all.
It is not based on their religion… it is based on their morals… and the consistency thereof. And I did not say my choice was limited to just the two. I like Fred Thompson in many ways… it just doesn’t look like he is catching on. I also like some of the second tier candidates… but they are even more unlikely. I would take Mitt before Guliani, even though Guliani’s religion is closer to mine… his problem is that he seems even further removed from his religion than Mitt is from his.
I repeat: we’re not running a contest to elect a pope, a prelate or a minister.
And you’re doing an awful lot of moral judging for someone who’s been charged by their Savior to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
It is not right for you to say that Rudy “seems further removed from his religion than Mitt is from his.”
And Mitt isn’t removed from his--that is part of his problem.
Mormonism is heresy, yet he claimed the “faith of his fathers” in his religion speech, which one can only presume to include both racism and polygamy.
Both Holy Mitt and Holy Huck have governed their state as Liberals and that’s the problem, while Rudy, the “bad” Catholic, ran NYC as a Conservative.
It is for the Pope, his bishop and his confessor priest to say how good or bad a Catholic Rudy is and not you, who aren’t even in the Catholic Church, but Orthodox.
You wouldn’t let Rudy (or myself, for that matter) have Communion in your church anyway, no matter how good Christians/Catholics/Protestants we are, so there you are.
I am not judging anyone eternal destiny here. I am discerning who is the most trustworthy candidate on the moral issues. Guliani is in direct conflict with his own Church’s teachings on Abortion and Homosexuality. Romney was in direct violation of his own Church’s teachings on those same issues until just before he declared his candidacy… and even still, he gave a mealy mouthed answer on Gays in the military at the youtube debate—“Now is not the time.” I believe there never will be such a time, and I think the Mormon Church would agree with me on that point. I am glad that Romney now says he is against the slaughter of innocent babies… but the fact that he only recently advocated killing babies makes him a less appealing choice than someone who has consistently opposed baby killing.
And these are not judgments.., these are verifiable facts.
I am not judging anyone eternal destiny here. I am discerning who is the most trustworthy candidate on the moral issues. Guliani is in direct conflict with his own Church’s teachings on Abortion and Homosexuality.
No, he isn’t.
He doesn’t personally support abortion, but knows that as President, there’s not a lot he can do to change Roe v. Wade except what he’s promised to do:
support the Hyde Amendment and the Partial Birth Abortion ban and appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in hopes that they will overturn Roe v. Wade and send it back to the states.
As for homosexual marriage, Rudy is not for it and has vowed to propose a Defense of Traditional Marriage Amendment should homosexual marriage get enacted by too many activist judges the way it has in Romney’s state.
If Rudy is in contravention against the Catholic Church and is being barred from receiving Communion or is even ex-communicated, then you might have a case.
John Kerry was even more flagrantly in opposition to the Catholic Church than Rudy and nothing happened to him.
If anything puts Rudy in conflict with the Catholic Church it’s his civil marriage to Judith and the fact that he may not have gotten his marriage to Donna Hanover annulled because there were children involved.
Strangely enough, Kerry had his marriage to his 1st wife annulled even though there were children involved (which meant that they were made “bastards"). Theresa insisted.
And yet he’s still welcome at his local parish church--divorce, abortion and homosexual “rights” and all.
Romney was in direct violation of his own Church’s teachings on those same issues until just before he declared his candidacy… and even still, he gave a mealy mouthed answer on Gays in the military at the youtube debate—“Now is not the time.”
I don’t think the Mormons have a view on abortion--they believe in the more little Mormon children the better.
What they think of “Gentile” (which is what they call the rest of us) babies is anyone’s guess.
As for homosexual matters, Mitt is singlehandlely responsible for making homosexual marriage legal in MA--he probably woudn’t have a problem with homos in the military.
but the fact that he only recently advocated killing babies makes him a less appealing choice than someone who has consistently opposed baby killing.
Mitt has flipped and flopped on abortion, gun control and immigration more than a bass on the deck of a bass boat!
As for the baptist issue, that’s off the topic, suffice it to say that I do not agree…
Oh, yeah?
So where, in your humble Orthodox opinion, does Baptist teaching depart from the Christian tradition?
Because in my religious life and from reading my Bible, I have no found no departures or differences at all.
For starters, you could begin by reading this article:
It is not based on their religion… it is based on their morals… and the consistency thereof. And I did not say my choice was limited to just the two. I like Fred Thompson in many ways… it just doesn’t look like he is catching on. I also like some of the second tier candidates… but they are even more unlikely. I would take Mitt before Guliani, even though Guliani’s religion is closer to mine… his problem is that he seems even further removed from his religion than Mitt is from his.
I repeat: we’re not running a contest to elect a pope, a prelate or a minister.
And you’re doing an awful lot of moral judging for someone who’s been charged by their Savior to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
It is not right for you to say that Rudy “seems further removed from his religion than Mitt is from his.”
And Mitt isn’t removed from his--that is part of his problem.
Mormonism is heresy, yet he claimed the “faith of his fathers” in his religion speech, which one can only presume to include both racism and polygamy.
Both Holy Mitt and Holy Huck have governed their state as Liberals and that’s the problem, while Rudy, the “bad” Catholic, ran NYC as a Conservative.
It is for the Pope, his bishop and his confessor priest to say how good or bad a Catholic Rudy is and not you, who aren’t even in the Catholic Church, but Orthodox.
You wouldn’t let Rudy (or myself, for that matter) have Communion in your church anyway, no matter how good Christians/Catholics/Protestants we are, so there you are.
I should also point out that the statement in the Gospels which you cite is not an absolute ban on our making any judgments about what others do or say. It is followed by the words “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In other words, what ever standard you hold to other people will be held to you by God. So it is a warning about how we judge, not a ban against any discernment whatsoever. I would recommend you do a word study of the words “Judge” and “Judgment” and see what the Scriptures actually say on the subject.
I am not judging anyone eternal destiny here. I am discerning who is the most trustworthy candidate on the moral issues. Guliani is in direct conflict with his own Church’s teachings on Abortion and Homosexuality.
No, he isn’t.
He doesn’t personally support abortion, but knows that as President, there’s not a lot he can do to change Roe v. Wade except what he’s promised to do:
support the Hyde Amendment and the Partial Birth Abortion ban and appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in hopes that they will overturn Roe v. Wade and send it back to the states.
As for homosexual marriage, Rudy is not for it and has vowed to propose a Defense of Traditional Marriage Amendment should homosexual marriage get enacted by too many activist judges the way it has in Romney’s state.
If Rudy is in contravention against the Catholic Church and is being barred from receiving Communion or is even ex-communicated, then you might have a case.
John Kerry was even more flagrantly in opposition to the Catholic Church than Rudy and nothing happened to him.
If anything puts Rudy in conflict with the Catholic Church it’s his civil marriage to Judith and the fact that he may not have gotten his marriage to Donna Hanover annulled because there were children involved.
Strangely enough, Kerry had his marriage to his 1st wife annulled even though there were children involved (which meant that they were made “bastards"). Theresa insisted.
And yet he’s still welcome at his local parish church--divorce, abortion and homosexual “rights” and all.
Romney was in direct violation of his own Church’s teachings on those same issues until just before he declared his candidacy… and even still, he gave a mealy mouthed answer on Gays in the military at the youtube debate—“Now is not the time.”
I don’t think the Mormons have a view on abortion--they believe in the more little Mormon children the better.
What they think of “Gentile” (which is what they call the rest of us) babies is anyone’s guess.
As for homosexual matters, Mitt is singlehandlely responsible for making homosexual marriage legal in MA--he probably woudn’t have a problem with homos in the military.
but the fact that he only recently advocated killing babies makes him a less appealing choice than someone who has consistently opposed baby killing.
Mitt has flipped and flopped on abortion, gun control and immigration more than a bass on the deck of a bass boat!
The Roman Catholic Church does have a teaching on Abortion that does not include the “pro-choice” position… but specifically excludes it. One might as well be pro-choice on slavery, or rape.
The Mormons also have clear teachings against abortion.
The Roman Catholic Church does have a teaching on Abortion that does not include the “pro-choice” position… but specifically excludes it. One might as well be pro-choice on slavery, or rape.
Rudy has said that personally, he’s against abortion.
This should be all his Church needs for him to remain within the faithful.
The Mormons also have clear teachings against abortion.
Really?
What are they? Because I don’t think the book of Mormon contains them.
Has their “President” had a “revelation” about this lately, too?
I know they’re fond of keeping their women barefoot and pregnant, even in the next life on their planets, but what about the rest of us non-Mormons?
[
I should also point out that the statement in the Gospels which you cite is not an absolute ban on our making any judgments about what others do or say. It is followed by the words “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In other words, what ever standard you hold to other people will be held to you by God. So it is a warning about how we judge, not a ban against any discernment whatsoever. I would recommend you do a word study of the words “Judge” and “Judgment” and see what the Scriptures actually say on the subject.
I’ve searched, read and studied the Scriptures, thank you.
And I know what these verses mean: your own life had better be PERFECT, then, in order for you to be judging others so.
In that we know you’re not Jesus, we can also know that you’re not perfect. Not even close.
So stop judging Rudy, the Baptists, me, and everybody else or it will be meted out to you by God in the same way!
No, thanks.
I realize that you (Greek) Orthodox think you’re the original and only true “Church” but you’re not.
All professing, baptized Christians are in the body of believers.
I’ve talked with a Greek Orthodox priest here, and he wanted to argue about petty, infinitesimal wordings of prayers, creeds and Bible passages as translated from the Greek, Latin or Hebrew that he believed invalidated my faith....
what a waste!
Long story short, I found no conflict in the Baptist Church with the Holy Bible and more importantly, Jesus came into my heart and I was baptized there in the Holy Spirit and that is what matters.
And it’s not for you to say differently.
Neither Christianity nor the Church can be confined to a particular sect or denomination but are to be found in human hearts and souls and where one or more are gathered in Christ’s name.
I can’t believe that I have missed all of this excitement.
Fr. John—I am amazed at your doublespeak. You claim that we should trust your analysis of huckster and his purported educational accomplishments because you are of the same faith and therefore have special insight into those alleged facts. Now you are telling us that you apparently also have special insight into all other religions and therefore can announce to everyone reading this thread that mormonism is evidently not a very good religion and, in any event, Romney is not a good Mormon and Rudy is not a good Catholic, and anyway you are taking the higher ground by vouching for the more moral candidate blah blah blah .... Using your analysis, as a Catholic, I am astounded that you claim any type of expertise in Catholicism, which you clearly lack, because you are not Catholic. From what I can tell from reading everything you have posted, it appears that the sole reason for this zealous support of the huckster is that this guy is from the religion that is closest to yours, in your mind, regardless of what he has done. You have dismissed all other aspects of a candidate’s qualifications claiming that you choose not to address them because it is beneath you to do so. So essentially, you have created a Fr.John litmus test for the proper candidate—if you say that person is the one then we should simply accept and believe it! Isn’t that nice!!
The bottom line is that the huckster is a joke and for whatever reason decided to to try to bolster his education credentials by suggesting that he is more educated than he truly is. Some people who followed a similar education path, like you, might know the proper insider terminology for that degree that he never received. Huckster, however, was banking on the fact that the vast majority of Americans did not know that and the use of that statement was intended to overstate his credentials and deceive these voters. Fundamentally dishonest.
BTW, I am glad that you have a life but cherry-picking what to respond to when you obviously have taken the time to participate in this debate to a fairly significant extent opens you up to the challenge that you not making an informed argument because you wholly ignore some very important facts and issues, which undermine any credibility you might have. If you had taken the time from that full life to read my earlier comments, you would know that from the beginning I stated that I am not a Romney supporter, never have been. I find huckster’s attack on Romney, however, repugnant.
I can’t believe that I have missed all of this excitement.
Fr. John—I am amazed at your doublespeak. You claim that we should trust your analysis of huckster and his purported educational accomplishments because you are of the same faith and therefore have special insight into those alleged facts. Now you are telling us that you apparently also have special insight into all other religions and therefore can announce to everyone reading this thread that mormonism is evidently not a very good religion and, in any event, Romney is not a good Mormon and Rudy is not a good Catholic, and anyway you are taking the higher ground by vouching for the more moral candidate blah blah blah .... Using your analysis, as a Catholic, I am astounded that you claim any type of expertise in Catholicism, which you clearly lack, because you are not Catholic. From what I can tell from reading everything you have posted, it appears that the sole reason for this zealous support of the huckster is that this guy is from the religion that is closest to yours, in your mind, regardless of what he has done. You have dismissed all other aspects of a candidate’s qualifications claiming that you choose not to address them because it is beneath you to do so. So essentially, you have created a Fr.John litmus test for the proper candidate—if you say that person is the one then we should simply accept and believe it! Isn’t that nice!!
The bottom line is that the huckster is a joke and for whatever reason decided to to try to bolster his education credentials by suggesting that he is more educated than he truly is. Some people who followed a similar education path, like you, might know the proper insider terminology for that degree that he never received. Huckster, however, was banking on the fact that the vast majority of Americans did not know that and the use of that statement was intended to overstate his credentials and deceive these voters. Fundamentally dishonest.
BTW, I am glad that you have a life but cherry-picking what to respond to when you obviously have taken the time to participate in this debate to a fairly significant extent opens you up to the challenge that you not making an informed argument because you wholly ignore some very important facts and issues, which undermine any credibility you might have. If you had taken the time from that full life to read my earlier comments, you would know that from the beginning I stated that I am not a Romney supporter, never have been. I find huckster’s attack on Romney, however, repugnant.
I never said I shared the same faith as Huckabee. I said I had a degree in Religion, and explained the historic use of the term, and that at my alma mater at least, the same degree program is now called a theology degree.
As for my knowledge of Roman Catholicism, I have seen little evidence of your expertise on the subject. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I do know Church history, and the dogmatic controversies that separate the Orthodox from the Roman Catholics, as well as the controversies that resulted in the Protestant Reformation. I have also been very active in the Pro-life movement, have worked with my Roman Catholics in that capacity, and am quite familiar with the RC Church’s teaching on the subject of abortion.
