Posted on 06/19/2007 7:39:44 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Total CLASS Act. He puts others to shame.
Great video, thank you.
George asked him if Jesus would not come to Jerusalem but rather to Missouri. Technically it is both and technically Mitt’s answer is correct.
First of all, you don't have to quote C.S. Lewis to find "be ye perfect" (it wasn't original w/him...According to a certain "Matt" a certain "Jesus" said we were to be perfect.)
Secondly, if you're equating "perfection" with godhood, then you're resurrecting Brigham Young's Adam-god theory, eh? (only now you're adding Eve, too?)
Why do I say this? Yes or no (I expect an answer): Was Adam & Eve at one time morally perfect beings? (If you answer "no" then you slander their creator; If you answer "yes" then you are equating perfection with natural godhood and you are claiming that Adam, Eve, and every angel either were or are gods).
Thirdly, Lewis clearly says we will remain creatures ("He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command."--not creators of our own world or our own universe).
Fourthly, Lewis isn't coming up with any new reference about "gods"...he clearly says he is citing the Bible and it's obvious He's only referencing Ps. 82 & John 10 (John 10 cites Ps. 82). The "god"-judges in Ps. 82 are "unjust"--not the sort of divines I'd care to be under. You?
Fifthly, Lewis writes quite a bit about the transformation process mortals undergo in "Mere Christianity" (more on that in a moment). Your reference, tho, clearly says: "we WERE gods" (not WILL BE gods)...so whatever form of godhood the Bible assigns to (some) men, it's not future-tense. [This is always the big error of Mormonism: It can never cite any Book of Mormon or Biblical passage about becoming gods, future-tense].
To continue your Lewis citation: He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.
Lewis, in The Weight of Glory, further described what he meant above: "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations--these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit--immortal horrors or everlasting splendours...Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ...the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden."
So, (a), immortality and the dazzling nature of reflecting God's image perfectly (as re-created beings in Christ) still does not equate to supernatural inherent godhood.
(b) that "image" we shine forth is as Lewis said "the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself" tucked away in us. Lewis makes this clear in Mere Christianity in chapter 29: "And now we begin to see what it is that the New Testament is always talking about. It talks about Christians `being born again'; it talks about them 'putting on Christ'; about Christ 'being formed in us'; about our coming to 'have the mind of Christ'."
Simply put: Jesus lives through His body. At one time it was simply a 33-year-old body of flesh. Now that body has multiplied so that it encompasses millions of people. We the church are temples of Christ (as Lewis said citing Scripture He is "formed in us"), temples of the Holy Spirit. Does this very reflection of divinity in us mean we are divine? Read Lewis more carefully in chapter 29 (& beginning of chapter 30). I quote from Lewis:
"It is a living Man, still as much a man as you, and still as much God as He was when He created the world, really coming and interfering with your very self; killing the old natural self in you and replacing it with the kind of self He has. At first, only for moments. Then for longer periods. Finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity. And soon we make two other discoveries. I have been talking as if it were we who did everything. In reality, of course, it is God who does everything. We, at most, allow it to be done to us. In a sense you might even say it is God who does the pretending. The Three-Personal God, so to speak, sees before Him in fact a self-centred, greedy, grumbling, rebellious human animal. But He says `Let us pretend that this is not a mere creature, but our Son. It is like Christ in so far as it is a Man, for He became Man. Let us pretend that it is also like Him in Spirit. Let us treat it as if it were what in fact it is not. Let us pretend in order to make the pretence into a reality.' God looks at you as if you were a little Christ: Christ stands beside you to turn you into one. I daresay this idea of a divine make-believe sounds rather strange at first...In the previous chapter we were considering the Christian idea of 'putting on Christ,' or first 'dressing up' as a son of God in order that you may finally become a real son."
So, yes, the very life of God flows in us and through us; as the temple of God, our body shares space with Him. But we are not divine by nature. Secondly, to sum up Lewis, God treats us (Lewis uses the word "make-believe") as if we were not simply the adopted sons Paul talks about in Romans & elsewhere; we become transformed beings who cannot receive any credit for any of this transformation. That is exactly opposite the Book of Mormon, which says that grace kicks in "only after all you can do."
Finally, if you agree with Lewis' Mere Christianity, then why don't give us all rave reviews of his chapter 24 and the "Three-Personal God" he writes about there?
Truth is not the same as priesthood authority. Truth was slowly lost as it became Hellenized with Greek philosophy.
I am curious how do you defend the changes in Catholic doctrine over the many centuries?
[Some of us have been saying this for months, that the media would shed light on the mormon beliefs, only to be disputed as cubreporter just did.
Now it has started, and don’t think this will end it.]
As I’ve said before, imagine eight years of very uncomfortable questions.
“President Romney, do women get to be Gods with their own planets?”
Colofornian, the C.S. Lewis apologist. When C.S. Lewis is dead-on and matches Mormon thought, he tries to rationalize it away! LOL!
Re: My response to another poster also serves as a partial response to your deification stuff. (see post #44)
Abraham Lincoln was peppered with embarassing questions through his presidency.
He was asked constantly if Jesus died for his sins. He refused to answer and it just enraged the press. If Mitt is the same stature as Lincoln and but has to endure embarassing theological questions, then I think America would be better off!
There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations--these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.
So, NAL, you're not suggesting that I am a gnat to be ignored in light of Lewis' great value he places on people. LDS folks are of great value highly esteemed by God & folks alike (I just don't think they're so worthy to be praised as gods :)
So you also agree with Lewis in chapter 24 of that book about the "Tri-Personal God," eh? (Or do you "rationalize it away?")
LOL. Ok, you got me. I ammend my remarks. My recommendation is to ignore “gnat”-like behavior!
I agree with C.S. Lewis implications. And I agree with a Tri-Personal God. But, not one which is mystically of the triune hellenized description, but one of the Hebrew, and early Christian tradition and something that is more concrete.
“If Mitt is the same stature as Lincoln “
That’s a Mighty Big IF there nowandlater, not a whole lot of evidence that he is that stature. And besides, you aren’t arguing that the country was better off from Lincoln staying mum about his religious beliefs, only that he endured the questions. Mitt will have a whole lot more to explain besides.
All,
Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, James Garfield, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, James Polk, J Monroe, and George Washington were all Masons.
John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, Howard Taft were all Unitarian, which likely deny the absolute divinity of Christ.
Dwight Eisenhouser was a lapsed Jehovah Witness
Abraham Lincoln was the biggest religous misfit of all the presidents. If one examined Abraham Lincoln’s beliefs, they would be viewed as heretical. In the words of Lincoln’s friend Jesse Fell the president “seldom communicated to anyone his views” on religion, and he went on to suggest that those views were not orthodox: “on the innate depravity of man, the character and office of the great head of the Church, the Atonement, the infallibility of the written revelation, the performance of miracles, the nature and design of . . . future rewards and punishments . . . and many other subjects, he held opinions utterly at variance with what are usually taught in the church.”
So, Lincoln like Mitt Romney held views which were likely at utter “variance” with many other churches. Is it fair to say it impacted his Presidency? No, it didn’t and likewise, if he is elected, it will not affect Mitt Romney’s presidency so long as his moral worldview, not necessarily a pure theological wordlview, is compatible with ideals of our society. And in every respect in terms of policy making, Mitt Romney has a healthy worldview which would be indistinguishable from any other typical Evangelical.
I am afraid, this purity of theology test is not unlike the test of faith we are seeing in Iraq. This kind of behavior is unhealthy to our democracy and to our society. I believe in my heart, America is above religous tests and its focus, historically, has been and will instead be on the political and moral wordview of any aspiring candidate for the Presidency. So far, in this regard, I don’t see any problem with Mitt Romney or his faith.
Oh, yeah, that darn truth drain in the Middle East & thereabouts that always sucks up truth. So the Holy Spirit has the power to inspire the Bible, but not preserve it, eh?
Isn't that like saying God has the power to delegate "translation" of certain gold plates, but not preserve such a translation?
What about Jesus' words that not one tidbit--not one iota--would be taken away from the Law of God?
Lincoln was in some respects more herectical than Mitt is to some believers. If Mitt is disqualified then so was Lincoln!
Here we go again these oh heaven help me to sitll my tongue are at it again turning this into a religion war!
Please move to Religion forum or tell these same instigators to get a life!
I find this interesting when these Romney threads turn religion, are moved off of front page they get little attentions from the smear the Mormons crowd!
These News/Activism threads are hijacked by the same players who only agenda is to spread disimformation about anothers faith on the News/Activism forum!
This has been going on for months with the same old sickness of these characters!
Every freeper and lurker have been fully exposed for months I ask the mods to to please let News/Activism stuff to be free of hijackers!
Thank you
Sorry, I have a starkly different opinion than you.
Men are not the reservoir of divine truth. Only God is! If God’s authority is gone then men are on their own. They may get alot of it right, but ultimately they fail.
Technically, the point of my posts and the Newsbuster article is that Romney's (and your) religion is now being questioned by the main-stream media, which many of you have said to me directly would never happen because there would be a "backlash".
Did you click on the link and read the article, the heading of which was "ABC’s Harris: Will ‘Uncomfortable Questions’ Torpedo Romney?" Voters who read that article and hear the questions will not be interested in the technicalities, they will remember the meat of the comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.