skilletosis
05-15-2007, 06:03 AM
My hubby and I got into this conversation the other day. Mit Romney for president or not. Hubby said he liked him. I said I like him but no I could never vote for him. So he asked my why. I told him that I could never vote for a candidate who's faith is one that falls under the definition of cult. He gave me a puzzled look. So I said let me put it this way could you vote for a candidate who is a practicing Wiccan even if they had similar ideals on politics because I can't. He got what I was saying. Now I don't know much about Wicca and don't really care to study it. I was just using something I knew that had completely different beliefs on God than Christianity just because it comes with a pretty package with a golden bow on it.

So how much does the religion of the candidate matter? If I had to choose between 2 candidates who shared my political views I's rather vote for a check the box non practicing Christian than one practicing a religion that doesn't believe in God that is the one and only true God taught in the bible. If that may seem a little zealous I'm ok with that.

Anyhow there's a lot of time to think about it before casting that ballot.

NightCrawler
05-15-2007, 06:09 AM
Ya know, Kennedy was the first Catholic US prez. All the rest before him were Protestant. People seem to think similarity of faith is crucial. {Bill Clinton was "Baptist", John Kerry was "Catholic", Bush was "Baptist"}

skilletosis
05-15-2007, 06:20 AM
Catholics, Protestants and Baptists all believe in God. So it wouldn't be a problem for me. For me it's more about a faith that goes against Christian principles and who God is which is why I could vote for someone that doesn't practice but just states a religion because they feel they have to. Now I never would have voted for Kerry but he claimed Catholicism yet one of the high up bishops said they would deny him communion because of his stance on abortion. So it didn't seem that he practiced his religion.

skilletosis
05-15-2007, 06:21 AM
Bill Clinton said he was an Evangelical Christian.

Tromos
05-15-2007, 06:32 AM
Catholics, Protestants and Baptists all believe in God.

So do Mormons.

Personally, I'd rather have a Mormon that was solid in his faith than a more traditional Christian that denied his faith with every action.

Say what you will about Mormons, they practice their beliefs with a dedication and vigor missing in more than 90% of the Christians I've met. Romney isn't going to push Mormon agenda in the White House. But he's sure as heck going to push a moral agenda much more than Hillary will.

I agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a cult. I think their theology is abysmal. But their moral stance (apart from the fringe fanatics that practice polygamy) is solid and unwavering.

I'd suggest not making the mistake of thinking that God's work will be limited by the poor theology of the man executing it.

timmyrotter
05-15-2007, 06:48 AM
My hubby and I got into this conversation the other day. Mit Romney for president or not. Hubby said he liked him. I said I like him but no I could never vote for him. So he asked my why. I told him that I could never vote for a candidate who's faith is one that falls under the definition of cult. He gave me a puzzled look. So I said let me put it this way could you vote for a candidate who is a practicing Wiccan even if they had similar ideals on politics because I can't. He got what I was saying. Now I don't know much about Wicca and don't really care to study it. I was just using something I knew that had completely different beliefs on God than Christianity just because it comes with a pretty package with a golden bow on it.

So how much does the religion of the candidate matter? If I had to choose between 2 candidates who shared my political views I's rather vote for a check the box non practicing Christian than one practicing a religion that doesn't believe in God that is the one and only true God taught in the bible. If that may seem a little zealous I'm ok with that.

Anyhow there's a lot of time to think about it before casting that ballot.we should all vote for someone who has a chance.

NightCrawler
05-15-2007, 06:48 AM
Bill Clinton said he was an Evangelical Christian.
Really? I could've sworn he was baptist (as well as Britney Spears ::] )

NightCrawler
05-15-2007, 06:49 AM
we should all vote for someone who has a chance.
A vote for them is required for a chance. No vote = no chance. Therefore, if someone wasn't already voting for the person, we shouldn't?

skilletosis
05-15-2007, 06:49 AM
***So do Mormons.***

****I agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a cult. I think their theology is abysmal.***

That's a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. Your later statement is the correct one.

****Say what you will about Mormons, they practice their beliefs with a dedication and vigor missing in more than 90% of the Christians I've met. Romney isn't going to push Mormon agenda in the White House. But he's sure as heck going to push a moral agenda much more than Hillary will.****

Dedication and vigor to a cultic faith are the pretty package and glittering bow. Right now we are in primary season. So at this time I'm commenting on Republican candidates. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my original post.

****I'd suggest not making the mistake of thinking that God's work will be limited by the poor theology of the man executing it.****

I never suggested that at all. I just said I personally couldn't vote for someone who practiced in a religion defined as a cult.

skilletosis
05-15-2007, 06:52 AM
we should all vote for someone who has a chance.


Timmy I think that we may see a couple more Republican candidates in the next coming months. Remember Bill Clinton entered the race with only 10 months to campaign.

skynes
05-15-2007, 09:21 AM
So if there's a campaign between a Christian who's a moron at politics or a non-Christian who really knows his stuff.

Which is the best choice?

Tromos
05-15-2007, 10:16 AM
That's a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. Your later statement is the correct one.

Not a contradiction at all. I said they believe in God. Which they do. So to Jews and Muslims. I didn't say they acknowledged salvation through Christ alone. I said they believe in God. David Koresh and Jim Jones did that much. They're all still cults. They are monotheistic cults who have twisted Scripture to fit their agendas. But then you could say the same about Catholics and Protestants too, so...

Dedication and vigor to a cultic faith are the pretty package and glittering bow.

A cultic faith that shares the same moral principles that Christians are supposed to! Except they actually do them while we Christians cradle our wealth to our collective breasts and mourn the injustices of the world as we drive $40,000 SUVs! When it comes to a president, I was a person (regardless of gender) with integrity, honesty, and a solid moral foundation. Someone who proclaims the name of Jesus while slaughtering another 50 million unborn children is not an acceptable substitute.


I just said I personally couldn't vote for someone who practiced in a religion defined as a cult.

Just out of curiosity, why is Mormonism a cult and Southern Baptist is not? The Roman Catholic Church, whose adherents comprise 1/6 of the world's population, considers every other denomination a cult. Based on that, who's right?



So if there's a campaign between a Christian who's a moron at politics or a non-Christian who really knows his stuff.

Which is the best choice?

I haven't seen a candidate who really knows his stuff, morally and politically, in my lifetime. But I would say it depended on the issues. I don't care how good you are on foreign policy, if you're sacrificing lives in the name of freedom and choice, secondary redeeming qualities are irrelevant.

All of this is, of course, in my apparently not so humble opinion. ;D

on_a_mission
05-15-2007, 11:44 AM
Voting for a president is like hiring someone to do a job for you. Unless that job is pastor, then relgious preference should not be a factor in the decision making just as race and sex should not be a factor. The deciding factor should be will they do the job the way you want it done. To pre-judge someones performance by their race, sex, or religion is the very definition of prejudice.

As far as the cult thing goes, I am pretty much of the opinion that most people feel that any other religion outside their own is a cult. However the following quote from wikipedia does a good job of describing cults:

According to what is one common typology among sociologists, religious groups are classified as ecclesias, denominations, cults or sects.

A very common definition in the sociology of religion for cult is one of the four terms making up the church-sect typology. Under this definition, a cult refers to a religious group with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society combined with novel religious beliefs. This is distinguished from sects, which have a high degree of tension with society but whose beliefs are traditional to that society, and ecclesias and denominations, which are groups with a low degree of tension and traditional beliefs.

According to Rodney Stark's the Theory of Religion, most religions start out their lives as cults or sects, i.e. groups in high tension with the surrounding society. Over time, they tend to either die out, or become more established, mainstream and in less tension with society. Cults are new groups with a novel theology, while sects are attempts to return mainstream religions to (what the sect views as) their original purity.[2]

Since this definition of "cult" is defined in part in terms of tension with the surrounding society, the same group may both be a cult and not a cult at different places and times. For example, Christianity was a cult by this definition in 1st and 2nd century Rome, but in fifth century Rome it is no longer a cult but rather an ecclesia (the state religion). Or similarly, very conservative Islam would (when adopted by Westerners) constitute a cult in the West, but the ecclesia in some conservative Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban). Likewise, because novelty of beliefs as well as tension is an element in the definition: in India, the Hare Krishnas are not a cult, but rather a sect (since their beliefs are largely traditional to Hindu culture), but they are by this definition a cult in the Western world (since their beliefs are largely novel to Christian culture).

Geneva
05-15-2007, 03:17 PM
Voting for a president is like hiring someone to do a job for you. Unless that job is pastor, then relgious preference should not be a factor in the decision making just as race and sex should not be a factor. The deciding factor should be will they do the job the way you want it done.



I agree 100%

NightCrawler
05-15-2007, 03:54 PM
But it isn't just like an employee. A president is a representative of our nation to other nations.

The question is, How do we want to be represented? We want a competent, faithful, wise and dedicated president whose morals and beliefs regarding the role of the government are congruent with our own.

Is a Mormon (latter day saint) necessarily in conflict with that?

Personally, I don't see anything right off. However, the question might be continued -- how much of a religious representative is a president? If a distinct religious representative, then a Mormon would conflict. If it is not distinct, then it would not necessarily conflict.

alienyouth9292
05-15-2007, 05:12 PM
Just out of curiosity, why is Mormonism a cult and Southern Baptist is not? The Roman Catholic Church, whose adherents comprise 1/6 of the world's population, considers every other denomination a cult. Based on that, who's right?



uhhhh well if you believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the universe and he is the one way to heaven, all the religions such as Mormanism are cults::] ....

terrasin
05-15-2007, 05:23 PM
I'm still at odds with who I think will be the best choice for office...

My standing right now is with Rudy Giuliani. He's proven his worth several times over, and apart from his views on abortion and gay rights, we need someone in office who can get this country back on it's feet both economically and socially. I think he might be the one who can do it.

CJ

bob
05-15-2007, 07:07 PM
Yeah, but Giuliani isn't experienced with foreign affairs. I can't bring myself to support a Pro-Choice candidate either. My own convictions.

As far as Romney goes, he's too much of a flip-flopper. The mormonism part doesn't concern me as much. But he doesn't have a chance of winning anyway because too many people associate mormonism with polygamy.

terrasin
05-15-2007, 09:21 PM
Yeah, but Giuliani isn't experienced with foreign affairs. I can't bring myself to support a Pro-Choice candidate either. My own convictions.
But how many of the front running candidates (not canididates husbands) do have much experience in foreign affairs?

I kinda wish there was a chart with the voting records side by side so I can compare a lot of the ones I don't know. In any event, I can't vote primaries because I'm a registered independent and I don't like any of the ones running in my party.

CJ