<p>Bengali vegetarians eat fish - they call it “fruit of the sea”.</p>
<p>In much the same vein, we Texas vegetarians refer to beef cattle as “vegetables of the prairie”.</p>
<p>You’re NOT vegetarians!!! You’re NOT!!!</p>
<p>leal, I share your frustration with priests and any others - certainly including myself - who claim a belief in a faith but deviate all too often, and frequently in hypocritical ways. I turned away from the church years ago and it took a long time for me to return. I came back (to Protestantism) based on the thought process started when I read C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. His devil made a comment about Christians in church pews spending more time thinking about the squeaky shoes of the guy next to them, than about the God they were supposedly in church to worship.</p>
<p>I started thinking (and I hear some of that in you, I think?) that I had spent too much time criticizing what others Christians do and say, and very little time thinking about what Christ did and said.</p>
<p>I agree about Gandhi.</p>
<p>“Be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a very strong faith. I just no longer believe in organized religion (for myself; I recognize that many find it of value to them).</p>
<p>I agree that the world would be a far better place if everyone focused on following spiritual avatars like Jesus and Gandhi, instead of pointing fingers at who’s ‘saved’ and who’s not.</p>
<p>."You’re not vegetarians!! You’re NOT!!!</p>
<p>Tell that to the Bengalis - there are a lot more of them than there are vegetarians in the entire U.S. (But they’d also say that “Cows are our mothers.”)</p>
<p>(we have no priests, and no pews. Most of us think we are all “saved” at birth, so the question then becomes, “what next?”)</p>
<p>Thanks to hayden and WashDad for understanding my point. I just am VERY uncomfortable when Romney says things like he believes Jesus is the “Son of God”–especially when the S in captitalized. I view that as a “technical truth.” I think it is intentionally designed to mislead. Parse the words individually and it’s true, but “Son of God” has a definite meaning to mainstream Protestants and Catholics [insert words of your choice] and the concept that it refers to is not one that LDS accept.</p>
<p>I would have no problem with Romney if he just said my faith is my business, not the electorate’s—but I think the language he has chosen to use is disingenuous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should have put a smiley on that - can someone please tell me how to do a smiley?</p>
<p>Jesus said precisely what he meant when he spoke of the “Son of God” -</p>
<p>“Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they are the Sons of God.”</p>
<p>(: + ) :))</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s clear that Romney is trying to appeal to the conservative mainstream Christians. He knows he needs their vote to win.</p>
<p>Eh, I think he and huckabee are pretty much the same. Both used craftily chosen words to appear innocent but their intentions seemed clear.</p>
<p>Washington and Adams said our government couldnt even function without Christianity and the Bible.</p>
<p>Separation of church and state isnt an endorsement of secularism, its just an endorsement of religious freedom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is possible that they meant spirituality. They likely equated biblical Christianity with spirituality (as most Christians do) because that was their background.</p>
<p>To someone who is spiritual but not Christian, it could be argued that a core belief in some form of Divinity, with the accompanying ethics, is what really matters.</p>
<p>(Then again, there are those who believe the ethics are important but have no belief in any sort of Divine being at all, and their viewpoint may be just as valid.)</p>
<p>Leal:
</p>
<p>Well, yes and no. It’s not like a Mormon uses the “Group 2’ers” Bible but just tacks on the additional Book received by Joseph Smith. </p>
<p>Joseph Smith decreed that the Bible was mistranslated, and changed it in numerous places to conform to what Mormons accept as his revelations. So the Mormons don’t use the same texts as we Group 2’ers do. </p>
<p>As far as the Pope is concerned, I’m hesitant to speak for Catholics, but I believe what a Catholic might say is that the Pope speaks from a stronger grounding and that his teachings should carry the weight of a church leader. But contrary to what many Protestants think, the Pope does NOT routinely have the same authority as the bible itself. Protestants often misunderstand the concept of papal infallibility. Catholics do not believe the Pope is infallible when making pronouncements, in sermons, or in other normal opinions. The Pope is only infallible when speaking “ex cathedra”, at which time he speaks god’s revealed truth to the church. However, the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra on extremely rare occasions. Only one instance actually comes to mind, so I’m not sure what the actual number is.</p>
<p>Whoa are we getting into little points of theology, or what?</p>
<p>Washington refused even to take communion in his own church.</p>
<p>mini, Jesus also said “I am the vine” but that didn’t mean he had to be pruned. :)</p>
<p>Definitely espalliered.</p>
<p>It’s late and I’m heading upstairs before my puppy claims my pillow. </p>
<p>I want to thank all of you for an interesting discussion. I nominate each participant for a special CC award: one of the first threads that had totally diverse opinions on a really sensitive topic, yet no name calling or disrespect for the other posters. And that rarest of virtues: people actually reading the posters’ intent instead of trying to hang each other on parsed words. </p>
<p>Thanks, everyone. We win !</p>
<p>edit to add: mini, just saw your last post, and so I end the day with a laugh. Thanks and good night.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This constant assumption among a fair number of people who post here regularly that “evangelicals” are stupid, narrow-minded, disrespectful, under mind control, and generally sub-human really gets old. It certainly demonstrates the lack of tolerance on the part of the people writing such things.</p>
<p>Here’s a question for you, lealdragon, why do evangelicals try to sway others to their beliefs? That’s not a rhetorical question. Let’s see if you can figure it out.</p>
<p>
Thanks, Washdad. I was thinking (and tried with little success) to express this a while back.</p>
<p>And, if I may jump in before lealdragon wakes up and answers your question:</p>
<p>I think we “evangelicals” act out of impatience. If one, indeed, has (boy, oh boy, I HATE using “Christian-speak”!) truly “accepted Christ” into their lives (PLEASE look beyond the language, people!!!), it makes an unbelievably profound difference in your life, your outlook, just everything. It’s the best thing ever. It does not mean you are perfect and that your life will be great or better than anyone else’s. It just means you are completely different than you were. It means you want to go about living your life in a way that is centered on Christ, and that should make a huge, outwardly visible difference.</p>
<p>That is where we mess up, IMO. We want people to SEE the difference in us RIGHT NOW and instead of quietly going about doing what we most naturally would do with this most wonderful change in place in our lives, we go about TELLING everyone about it instead. After all, if you truly cared about others in your life and you knew something really great, would you not want them to know it too? Unfortunately, this (again, IMO) almost ALWAYS backfires. We come accross as smug, judgemental, “elitist”, etc. </p>
<p>Okay, lealdragon, what do YOU think is the reason??</p>
<p>Thanks, churchmusic mom.</p>
<p>As not-a-Christian, I don’t have a dog in this fight. It doesn’t concern me who counts as a “real Christian,” except that I am generally impatient with doctrinal fights. I realize that, for some Christians, being not-a-Christian means that they believe I can’t go to heaven, but that doesn’t bother me either.</p>
<p>As a Jew, what bothers me are is the deep misunderstandings I see from many evangelical Christians about Judaism. What is sometimes expressed is the idea that Jews follow the “Old Testament,” or what we would call either the Torah (the first five books- Genesis to Exodus) or Tankakh (the Torah and the rest, with prophets, writings such as psalms, etc.). It’s just not true! Judaism today - whatever the flavor - is rabbinic Judaism, which developed after Christianity began. Rabbinic Judaism is filled with interpretation and dispute, and arguments that go on over many centuries. Also certain themes (such as sacrifice to expiate sin) are not important in rabbinic Judaism but were present in earlier forms.</p>