Vote Romney/Ryan
(I clicked on the original link to Newsbusters, and read the portion Shepherd cited Prothero...which was 11 of Prothero's 15 paragraphs...so I read most of it)
Apparently Mr. Prothero thinks that Christians endorsing Romney are going against their own beliefs by doing so, that they are endorsing Mormonism and forsaking their own religion for political purposes (he calls them shills for the GOP). That is what I'm objecting to: his intimation that endorsing someone whom is of beliefs that your own religion condemns is somehow apostasy.
#1...re: "endorsing" Mormonism...I don't see most of the Christian groups or individuals openly endorsing Romney giving any qualifications or caveats re: his Mormonism, do you? (So what else do they leave others to conclude?)
Analogy: If you endorsed a pro-abort candidate because they were semi-conservative on a lot of issues, and the other major candidate was even worse abortion wise, if you endorsed that candidate without acknowledging at least some problems with their abortion stance, aren't you embracing/elevating/endorsing pro-abortionism to some extent?
*************************
#2 Allow me to use this other analogy (from the Old Testament):
Saul was Israel's first king (they had "judges" before then, but were clamoring for a king to be like the people groups around them).
The Lord relented, and Saul, who eventually fell out of kilter relationship-wise with both God and David, became that first king.
A Biblical commentator notes in 1 Samuel that the writer of 1 Samuel's narrative "show[s] the people's and God's initial approval of him. Saul is presented as Israel's deliverer, remarkably similar to the judges. While all Israel cowered at the threat of the Ammonites, Saul rallied the tribes and defeated the enemy. Just as during the time of the judges, the Spirit of God came upon him and he had victory in the battle. At the conclusion of the story, we see again that Saul's mighty deeds were known and acknowledged by the people. It is in light of these narratives that the subsequent failure of Saul is explained. A valiant and mighty leader is not necessarily a godly one...Saul failed as king because he did not provide the spiritual leadership for the nation." (NIV Compact Bible Commentary, p. 225)
So, just as the Israelites cowered at the threat of the Ammonites of that time, today's conservatives cower at the threat of another four Obama years and the threat of Muslim terrorists. Just as Saul alleviated some of that threat, "King Romney" is likewise seen as a threat alleviator.
And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.
Somehow, Christian voters for Romney don't seem to mind that they are openly endorsing -- without qualification or caveat -- a man who...
...(a) like 15-20% of all Mormons, believes he is a competitor to THE God as a rival god [otherwise known as open idolatry];
...and (b) would "feature" a man in the White House...as THE Leader of the Free World...praying -- in a crisis situation -- to a foreign god who is no god at all.
What kind of "leadership" is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?
Good post, at least to those of us who are curious as to what the Bible might have to say concerning the current situation. To the atheists, the irreligious (they seem to be legion around here), those of non-Christian religions, Mormons and such like, once they saw your post used scripture they probably read no more than the first few lines.
“What kind of “leadership” is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?”
That’s not even a question, because Obama pretty much demands everyone worship and adore him already. So I don’t have a single clue where you’ve been since 2008, or 2009, if all you wish to count as Obama’s presidency is his innauguration time onward. Obama demands blatantly that we pretty much regard him like he is God, it’s called NARCISSISM!
1) You make no sense about endorsing Mormonism, and in fact, you never did. So I voted for Bush I and II, you offered so little meaning as to how that equals endorsing the Episcopal Church (The English Crown), or Endorsing born again Christianity, and I so far, remain neither religion. I don’t have to convert to Mormonism to vote for a Mormon. I don’t have to convert or endorse Episcopalians to vote for an Episcopalian, so right here, you lack any proof whatsoever of some sort of equivalence that voting someone of a religion counts as endorsing or converting to that individual’s religion.
“A Biblical commentator notes in 1 Samuel that the writer of 1 Samuel’s narrative “show[s] the people’s and God’s initial approval of him. Saul is presented as Israel’s deliverer, remarkably similar to the judges. While all Israel cowered at the threat of the Ammonites, Saul rallied the tribes and defeated the enemy. Just as during the time of the judges, the Spirit of God came upon him and he had victory in the battle. At the conclusion of the story, we see again that Saul’s mighty deeds were known and acknowledged by the people. It is in light of these narratives that the subsequent failure of Saul is explained. A valiant and mighty leader is not necessarily a godly one...Saul failed as king because he did not provide the spiritual leadership for the nation.” (NIV Compact Bible Commentary, p. 225) “
How about reading about Cyrus the Great, a Gentile (Zoroastrian) King who was the First “Messiah” or annointed King of the Jews, second, we don’t have kings in America, so your reasoning is out of bounds of this discussion.
“What kind of “leadership” is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?”
That point is irrelevant, as the pluralistic interpretation of “God” already leaves uncertainty as to what the true God is? The True God of Judaism? The God as according to Catholicism? The God according to Greek Orthodoxy? The True God according to Deists? Which one, because people of all these beliefs exist here in America, plus more.
“And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.”
And what if the Christians are hypocrites, again, you’ve never answered the fact that a Zoroastrian like Cyrus can save God’s covenant people, and give them a decree permitting them to return to Jerusalem. God could allow a Zoroastrian (polytheist) to be his chosen ruler, so I honestly don’t have a clue what you are trying to say. Go back to the Bible, and read more, because I find you grossly, and hillariously in error.
1) “Analogy: If you endorsed a pro-abort candidate because they were semi-conservative on a lot of issues, and the other major candidate was even worse abortion wise, if you endorsed that candidate without acknowledging at least some problems with their abortion stance, aren’t you embracing/elevating/endorsing pro-abortionism to some extent? “
That’s a complete strawman: There are times where you don’t have a choice for a candidate who is “born conservative” or “born pro-choice” however, there’s also a portion which is the duty of the general populace in voting for him. If a better candidate shows up GOP or otherwise, and if Romney doesn’t do as promised on all issues, we don’t have to vote for his re-election. Making no attempt to push a cause or issue via popular referendum, voting more local candidates, not voting for re-election of a candidate, voting for pro-life congressional candidates, and so on, are other options, not just voting for president. So your analogy is a false one, as well as a vast oversimplification of the process a person works with when voting. Plenty of people, myself included, have no problem with also paying attention to Senate and House candidates as well. So your reasoning is circular, ignoring many variables that really are in play.
Likewise, voting for GW Bush wasn’t an endorsement of Born Again Christians, or voting for Bush Sr. an endorsement for Episcopalians, or a vote for Thomas Jefferson an endorsement of his form of deism (a.k.a. a denial of the miracles of Jesus) so frankly, your idea has no precedent to lean on regarding the president of the United States, nor does your false analogy of a theocratic king, which I already knew full well a counterexample to so, frankly, that’s more redundancy there.
And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.
Again, you compare apples to oranges. Saul professed monotheism, but became a total hypocrite due to a variety of factors, including disobedience to Samuel, and hatred of David to the point where he sought after witchcraft. Again, as my point about Cyrus shows, even nonchristians like the Zoroastrian Persians make a better leader than a hypocrite who merely acts like he believes in God.
Additionally, you fail on the fact that it’s known that Romney is Mormon, so what’s your point? Saul was supposedly known to be an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, but threw God out the window, does that mean that I shouldn’t already distrust plenty of professed Christians who are hypocrites about their faith?
Again, it happens that Obama is a hypocrite who proclaims to be Christian, so I would rather prefer someone who is or is not, yet leaves me alone.
Again, you also have always failed to make sense on Mormonism being made public being a bad thing. Again, a vast oversimplification, but since you oversimplify and refuse to really answer anything I ask you, I shouldn’t be surprised.
Again, what I find odd is your refusal to acknowledge Obama’s open self-worship on national television of how he is to receive credit for things that other people do, sort of like our military risked their necks to get bin Laden, or got killed trying to save our ambassador in Benghazi. If someone thinks they can be God in the afterlife, so be it, I could care less in a flat-earth believer, so long as he/she has some manners, and I don’t have to believe one word of it, I could care less.