Republican hopefuls in TV debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone who believes in Transubstantiation, I have a hard times lobbing stones at the Mormons.
Click to expand...
Amateurs… Since you brought it up, I feel impelled to respond. As you know, transubstantiation states that what is appears as bread and wine, i.e., has all the physical properties of bread and wine is in a supernatural reality, the glorified body and blood of Christ–it must be accepted with faith based on Christ’s own words. This can’t be proven false with science since the claim is that it physically appears as bread and wine. Likewise the transfiguration, assumption and resurrection among others are historical facts that can’t be dis proven with science or history beyond a reasonable doubt other than making assumption that miracles are impossible–not a reasonable assumption. in my opinion.

Mormomism makes at least 2 claims proven false by science and history: that the BOM is a historical account and that native americans are decedents of Jews. DNA evidence show absolutely zero middle eastern decent among pre-columbian natives and there is obviously no historical evidence to support any claims of the BOM. There are many other contradictions and unreasonable tenets of Mormonism that could be listed.

I take truth seriously and believe we are put here on earth to search for the truth to the extent we can. Therefore I have a difficult time voting for a person who doesn’t take truth seriously enough to not see these glaring flaws; they are not ideal candidates for the presidency, the highest office. Faith does matter and it ultimately should affect our decisions.

As an aside, Transubstantiation is analogous to the doctrine of the Incarnation, something all Christians accept.
 
Pork_Roll said:
This can’t be proven false with science since the claim is that it physically appears as bread and wine. Likewise the transfiguration, assumption and resurrection among others are historical facts that can’t be dis proven with science or history beyond a reasonable doubt other than making assumption that miracles are impossible–not a reasonable assumption. in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning is off. It’s not to others to prove doctrines false, it’s up to believers to prove that those doctrines are believable so that they might be accepted. Those examples you gave are historical “facts” only to believers.
 
Your reasoning is off. It’s not to others to prove doctrines false, it’s up to believers to prove that those doctrines are believable. Those are historical “facts” only to believers.
Click to expand...
No, it’s up to us to show our catholic beliefs are reasonable. I agree that it takes faith to believe all of it but it is no way contradicted by reason, like in Mormonism.
 
Pork_Roll said:
No, it’s up to us to show our catholic beliefs are reasonable. I agree that it takes faith to believe all of it but it is no way contradicted by reason, like in Mormonism.
Click to expand...
As I said, it’s up to believers to make their case.
 
As I said, it’s up to believers to make their case.
Click to expand...
Says who? What are you talking about? It’s up to the believers to search for the truth.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Says who? What are you talking about? It’s up to the believers to search for the truth.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you don’t become a believer to start with unless you find the claims of a religion reasonable and believable.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Oh, sure. No Republican political candidate ever told lies about his or her opponents. “Tell it to the Marines.”
Click to expand...
In my 44 years of life experience, Marines are one of the few groups I would trust nearly without exclusion. I find Marines more inherently trustworthy than fellow Catholics. Our Church is in a sad state of affairs.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
In my 44 years of life experience, Marines are one of the few groups I would trust nearly without exclusion. I find Marines more inherently trustworthy than fellow Catholics. Our Church is in a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
The phrase is “Tell it to the Marines, they’ll believe anything.” The phrase originated with the Royal Navy whose sailors considered Marines totally gullible. I accept the Navy interpretation as it is the traditional historical one.
 
Someone who says, “I won’t vote for candidate x because he or she is [black, Mormon, a woman, etc]” Is not voting based on values.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, Mormonism is just like being born a certain race or gender. You don’t have a choice.
 
ishii said:
On the contrary, I think you are being the unreasonable one. Can you think of a historical precedent in which a Mormon politician changed their position because of what their bishop said? Further, can you think of any reason why a Mormon bishop would suddenly announce that they are for abortion? POrk Roll, I think you’re being unfair here. The Mormon religion is a strange one, I’ll admit, in terms of their theology. But the Mormons I know are good Americans who believe strongly in traditional family values. Can you point to an instance in which Romney or Huntsman did something wrong because of the Mormon religion? I think the burden of proof is on you to make your case. So far, you have failed to do so.

Ishii
Click to expand...
If we go with your initial charge, “a Mormon polititian changed their position because of what their bishop said”, one would only have to look back to the 1978 revelation regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood. Not a public policy matter, but certainly formative of a candidate’s world view. Likewise with the “revealation” regarding “plural marriage”. Prior to 1890, if you asked a Mormon, they would probably have viewed plural marriage as a God-given right, and the US government as heartless oppressors of religious liberty.

I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Romney because of his Mormonism, but would it also considered “bigotry” for Romney’s 85% support in the Utah primaries in 2008?
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The phrase is “Tell it to the Marines, they’ll believe anything.” The phrase originated with the Royal Navy whose sailors considered Marines totally gullible. I accept the Navy interpretation as it is the traditional historical one.
Click to expand...
I prefer, “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.”
 
scipio337 said:
I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Romney because of his Mormonism, but would it also considered “bigotry” for Romney’s 85% support in the Utah primaries in 2008?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if voting for someone because of their religion would be considered bigotry. I’ve only seen the word used in the negative sense. That said, I think it would be wrong to vote for someone just because of their race, gender or religion, rather than basing one’s vote on the values, ability and experience of the candidate.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I prefer, “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.”
Click to expand...
I doubt that your phrase would make as good a slogan as “Tell it to the Marines.” 😉
 
rlg94086 said:
I don’t know if voting for someone because of their religion would be considered bigotry. I’ve only seen the word used in the negative sense. That said, I think it would be wrong to vote for someone just because of their race, gender or religion, rather than basing one’s vote on the values, ability and experience of the candidate.
Click to expand...
I guess you could see it both ways. A vote FOR Huckabee because he’s an evangelical is also a vote AGAINST Romney’s Mormonism, and vice versa.
 
scipio337 said:
I guess you could see it both ways. A vote FOR Huckabee because he’s an evangelical is also a vote AGAINST Romney’s Mormonism, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
All irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned. I wouldn’t vote for a Catholic just because he’s Catholic, and I wouldn’t exclude voting for an Evangelical or Mormon just because he is Evangelical or Mormon. 🤷

I vote for the best candidate based on ability, experience and shared values.

As I said before, you are free to vote based on any arbitrary criteria you wish. I just think it’s wrong to use a “religious test.”
 
rlg94086 said:
I don’t know if voting for someone because of their religion would be considered bigotry. I’ve only seen the word used in the negative sense. That said, I think it would be wrong to vote for someone just because of their race, gender or religion, rather than basing one’s vote on the values, ability and experience of the candidate.
Click to expand...
If one would vote against someone of similar values due to being black or Mormon or what have you, this is a form of bigotry.
On the other hand, voting for a person simply on the basis of group identity is more properly termed Identity Politics. It makes the often false assumption that people of the same colour or sex or orientation therefore share similar values.

We hear this kind of thing often on this forum, that we Catholics ought really to stick together. The thing is, in a forum such as this, where we are stripped down the the level of the ideas and values that alone can be expressed in writing, we are able to see just how ludicrous Identity Politics can be.
Without a shared set of common values on at leat the most basic of issues, such as life, there is no “we” in any faith community.
The Catholic community is a very heterodox one, in terms of values. Mormon communities are much less heterodox in their shared values, from what I have been led to understand at least.
 
As I said before, you are free to vote based on any arbitrary criteria you wish. I just think it’s wrong to use a “religious test.”
Click to expand...
In light of evaluating the many qualifications an ideal presidental candidate should have, it’s reasonable to take ones faith into account. I don’t think that makes you a bigot. Religion is a choice of how you view and live your life. I wouldn’t vote for a nihilist if there was a better choice. Does that too make me a bigot?
 
Pork_Roll said:
In light of evaluating the many qualifications an ideal presidental candidate should have, it’s reasonable to take ones faith into account. I don’t think that makes you a bigot. Religion is a choice of how you view and live your life. I wouldn’t vote for a nihilist if there was a better choice. Does that too make me a bigot?
Click to expand...
And that choice can become a real show-stopper in terms of being acceptable for Catholic voters if it is a radically wrong choice, such as Islamist jihadism or Satanism (and Mormonism is NOT to be included in this category)—even if one’s position on certain litmus issues is the correct one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top