The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob
My first syndicated column of the week today chronicles the insane rage of the anti-Prop. 8 mob that’s not on your newspaper front pages or nightly news. The lawsuits are piling up: “Four Bay Area counties are the latest to join the legal fight to try to stop state Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage in California that voters approved Nov. 4. The Board of Supervisors for Alameda, Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties have approved joining a lawsuit filed in the California Supreme Court by the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties. The lawsuit is one of six cases filed directly in the state high court in San Francisco to challenge the Proposition 8.” California AG Jerry Brown wants fast action. The buzz over potential judicial recalls is building. Meantime, the anti-Prop. 8 mob is plotting its next action: “Day Without a Gay.” And the latest on the witch hunt against the Mormon Church is here.
***
The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
Before election day, national media hand-wringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The Right was, in the words of New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by “insane rage.” Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook in fear.
But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued. No nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis, and self-autopsy. In fact, there’s only one angry mob gripped by “insane rage” in the wake of campaign 2008: The mob of left-wing, same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved a traditional marriage initiative, Proposition 8, by 52-48.
Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.
That’s right. Activists have published an “Anti-Gay Black List” of Prop. 8 donors on the Internet. If the tables had been turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies’ list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming “McCarthyism” faster than you can count to eight. A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted the business, intimidated patrons, and brought employees there to tears. In fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Café pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.
Scott Eckern, a beleaguered artistic director at the California Musical Theatre, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Rich Raddon, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.
Over the past two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic, and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website “JoeMyGod,” are common across the left-wing blogosphere: “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting “Mormon scum.” The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religious-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the “hate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper’s car was keyed with the slogans “Gay sex is love” and “SEX;” another car’s antenna and windshield wipers were broken.
In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.
In San Francisco, Christians evangelizing in the Castro district needed police protection after the same-sex marriage mob got physical and hounded them off the streets.
Enthusiastically shooting themselves in the foot, anti-Prop. 8 boycotters are now going after the left-wing Sundance Film Festival because it does business in Mormon-friendly Utah. Also targeted: Cinemark Theaters across the country. The company’s CEO, Alan Stock, donated just under $1,000 to the traditional marriage measure. Never mind that Cinemark theaters are hosting the new biopic about gay icon Harvey Milk. They must pay for the sins of the company head who dared to exercise his political free speech!
Corporate honchos, church leaders, and small donors alike are in the same-sex marriage mob’s crosshairs, all unfairly demonized as hate-filled bigots by bona fite hate-filled bigots who have abandoned decency in pursuit of “equal rights.” One wonders where Barack Obama (himself an opponent of Proposition 8 and an opponent of gay marriage) is as this insane rage rages on. Soul-Fixer, Nation-Healer, where art thou?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama, White Guilt, Pay Back Time! « Riggword Weblog
- Gay Marriage? | Nicholas Fitzgerald
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Arrested for “erotic driving”? « Mark Epstein
- Take Our Country Back
- Democracy speaks… « Welcome to Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right
- Homosexuals in California Scapegoat Mormons for Prop 8 Loss « The Sisyphus Files
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » “The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob” by Michelle Malkin
- Why Can’t We Accept The "Will of The People"? | Pirates! Man Your Women!
- Militant homosexuality and anti-Prop 8 efforts « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Michelle Malkin » Gagging pro-lifers in New York City
- What About the Right to Choose Where You Protest? | BipolarNation.com
- Prop 8 should not have happened — The Opposite of Jim Bunning
- What I’m reading instead of working… : Pursuing Holiness
- If McCain Had Won - « Kerfuffles and Flourishes
- Angry Gay Crowds/Gangs Reject Laws - Attack And Intimidate | BigMouthFrog
- Todays Links | The Second Opinion Today
- Moderate Blogger » To Prop. 8 Opponents: Your Not Doing It Right
- GayPatriot » Will the Juvenilia of the Prop 8 Sore Losers Ever Cease?
- Random Jottings
- Wizbang
- WO’s Daily Roundup | Without Objection
- BelchSpeak » Post Topic » EHarmony Settles With Gays; Makes Website for Gay Hookups
- Michelle Malkin » eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services
- GayPatriot » Michelle takes on the insane rage of the anti-Prop 8 Rallies
- Sierra Faith
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Michelle on the “insane rage” of the anti-Prop 8 mobs
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » eHarmony Forced to Offer Same-Sex Dating Services
- Prop 8 Goes to Court! Voting; why bother? « Riggword Weblog
- BizzyBlog » Couldn’t Help But Comment ….. (112008, Morning)
- Political Opinion « Capitalist View
- KEEPING THEM HONEST - by Katy Grimes » Blog Archive » Coming Soon to eHarmony: Adam & Steve
- GayPatriot » Gay Activists Need to Learn from Conservatives
- Separation of Church and Hate « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Enough Already | America Needs Me
- Culture War Continues in California « The Right Knight
- Michelle Malkin » Anti-Prop. 8 mob watch: L.A. Film Festival director resigns over donations
- Tolerance in action — San Francisco style! : Stop The ACLU
- Jon Swift
- Let Us Remember the True Meaning of Thanksgiving Before It’s Abolished - The Political Hotwire
- Part of the job description « Datechguy’s Blog
- Michelle Malkin » Who will make the other Prop. 8 musical?
- Liberal Elites to People of Faith: “Please ignore your religion.” | Without Objection
- Prop 8 Protests Still Ineffective When Set to Music : Jenn Q. Public
- The New Civil Rights Movement » Dear Michelle Malkin: Stop Calling Gays Insane and We’ll Stop Calling You A Bigot. Well, If You Stop Calling Everyone Else A Bigot Too.
- Above the Hate: Below the Propaganda | Maine Gay Bars
- Once is an Event. Twice is a Coincidence. Three or more times is a pattern. « Teh Resistance Blog
- New York Times: Thumbs Up to Prop 8 Protesters Strategy! « Jane Q. Republican
- Skewering the Religious Right: Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Bench Memos
» Sunstein to OIRA
Riehl World View
» An Unnecessary PresidentNewsBusters.org
» Newsweek's Jonathan Alter Slams 'So Lame,' Sarah PalinWeekly Standard
» Beat to the PunchNewsBusters.org
» R.I.P., Rev. Richard John Neuhaus
Joy said:
By “attacks,” she means well reasoned arguments concerning the context of certain passages in question. Some of my “attacks” on her also included agreeing with her on certain points, earning the ire of fellow Christians. But you know, hateful ol’ me.
Hey guys, take a look at MM’s recent post about eHarmony caving to the gay agenda.
Well, it’s quite obvious that when Mormons and Christians get together the fur certainly does fly. I say “Mormon” and “Christian” for convenience: some Mormons are indeed Christians and many who call themselves “Christian” are not. We must all give Joy the benefit of the doubt when she says that she claims Christ as her savior. It is not our place to judge that. I think that all of us are going to be really surprised at the Great White Throne to see who made it and who didn’t.
As far as doctrine goes, I really do wish that I could embrace Mormonism as a valid choice. Joy, please know that I wish for that. I mean you know ill. I search scripture, I search for reports of archeological evidence to validate the Mormon claims, I pray (not enough, though). …Sweetie, it just isn’t there. I do not say this disrespectfully. I welcome your help in the fight against tyranny, but the Mormon claims simply stick in our collective “craws”.
Speaking for myself, and I hope for most others here, we don’t want to be mean to you or denigrate your faith. But what you ask of us is too much. We simply can not suspend what we know is true and embrace Mormonism. It hurts us to do that. I don’t know how Mormonism got so big and so established. It’s really weird. Maybe I’ll study that.
You and I and others have spewed a lot of scripture on these pages, and have asked and answered many questions (and have left many unanswered). We’re all trying to get our brains thinking the right thoughts (as the Bible dictates we should). It also matters what is in our hearts:
note: The Bible says “mouth”, but I believe it is referring to our brains controlling our mouths.
At any rate, I’ll consider you a sister in Christ. You do seem sincere. Please consider me your brother in Christ.
There seem to be two main reasons the Mormons got involved in supporting prop 8. One is a defense of traditional marriage. Although Mormons, like many other Christians, have been preaching against easy divorce, abortion, and the whole sexual revolution thing since they began, they have rarely been asked to turn out in force when these things have come to the ballot.
What seems to be the more compelling reason was that they foresaw a real possibility that the gay rights movement would succeed in redefining marriage in California, with state-enforced endorsement (not merely tolerance) of same-sex marriage and persecution of anyone who discriminated against it soon to follow, and they joined a broad coalition of supporters of traditional marriage and the families founded on it.
However, with the history of state tolerated or sponsored persecutions they experienced in the 19th century, they have better reason than many in this country to know just how ruthless a government can be when it wishes.
The same-sex marriage advocates were counting on a victory in California to give them substantial political momentum in the rest of the country, and have targeted the Mormons, because their support for prop. 8 was seen to have been pivotal in this close decision. Their rage at their defeat is demolishing the bounds of civil behavior.
The various claims that this is merely justified blowback for the oppression that gays have suffered is absurd. Mormons have not been out demonstrating, screaming insults and threats, and cursing openly gay-oriented establishments, and have not been organizing boycotts of those are discovered to have voted No on 8.
I don’t expect them to. Instead, they are likely to take only the necessary steps needed to defend themselves and let everyone see who is really full of hatred and who is not.
Jet Jaguar said:
Look, the Muslim terrorists who flew into the WTC were sincere. That by itself means nothing.
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.” Romans 10:1-2
Joy refuses to answer questions, all the while she is hounding others to answer questions. She goes after people that she believes do not have as much Bible knowledge as she does, but runs when challenged by a knowledgeable person.
She accuses people of taking Scriptures out of context, while doing that very thing.
I see no sincerity, but I do see a certain level of hypocrisy.
On November 20th, 2008 at 12:55 am,
Just saw this. I know the feeling. Trollman, you put up some really great posts. I appreciate your insights.
Regards…
To vickisoup, right4life, et al.
I don’t have time to respond to all the misrepresentations and ad ecclesiastae attacks.
A couple stick out: please note that when you refer to “all Christians agree on…” you are referring to the secularly-led and voted-on creed fabricated at Nicea. The participants were so entirely varied that they couldn’t agree on anything, so “anything” is what they agreed upon. This trinitarian three-in-one is simply not supported biblically.
As for “not letting LDS children attend other churches”…you obviously didn’t grow up in my family. I’ve attended Catholic Mass more than most of my Catholic friends…I’ve also attended Lutheran services, Methodist, and a number of other fellow Christians’ services. I’ve even branched into studies of islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. I disagree with the latter three, because I am a Christian, but I respect the good in them–and the slivers of truth that they hold dear. (I wouldn’t refer to them as hateful apostates personally–as was noted elsewhere).
Also, as a seminary instructor myself (and student in HS, too) I find it hard to believe that anyone who was taught following the church-approved curriculum “…learned how to debate with Christians by trying to confuse the discussion and focus on the doctrinal differences between the denominations, in order to cause non-Mormons to question their faith.”
For a great discourse on that–and a clear refutation of this practice one need only turn to the words of Robert D. Hales, LDS Apostle, at the most recent General Conference of the Church. Contention is of the devil–we all agree on that I hope–and pointing out differences only serves to foment this contention, as religion is one of the few things many in this world are passionate about.
I realize this is totally inappropriate in this forum–and I hope none of us get “banned” for steering so far off course, because I think there is so much that we do agree on. Nevertheless, it is clear that many here are displaying the sort of inflexibility to understanding of LDS doctrine and the obvious similarities–and overlaps–with other Christian sects that this anti-8 mob displays against our common belief of marriage and its definition.
It seems to me it all stems from this arbitrary 4th-century “definition” of “Christianity.” Constantine wasn’t even a Christian–and only converted on his deathbed out of convenience for succession. Why let a pagan define what is godly for you?
As for the “mormonist” phrase “agency” — it’s simply a one-word term for our own inherent self-determination. We are endowed by our Creator with the ability to decide what we will do here, how obedient we will be to His commandments and therefore what reward to seek after. We are our own “agents” not beholden to anyone else (hence the “not letting our kids go to other churches” smacking of a misuse of agency, a sin for which the abusers must stand accountable.)
I wish you all well in your ongoing spiritual journeys.
Seacrest out.
Seacrest back in:
Confutus: I like what you said–and how you said it. Nice assessment of what’s happened in California.
It is funny, especially in light of jaguar’s comment about not knowing how Mormonism got so established, that this little church not even 200 years old, draws so much ire and whose light stirs up so much darkness.
Faithful LDS understand why. Other Christians should see it quite easily as well.
Light always stirs up darkness. Truth always cuts those who kick against it to the very center. The adversary of God stirs up others to fight against that which foments God’s plan for His children here.
Plain, simple.
Thanks all for offering your heart-felt and well-researched positions. I have much to review, and will. I trust you’ll find components here worthy of the same from you.
Okay, seriously, Seacrest back out.
Yes. I know what you mean. I feel the same way, but we must err on the side of caution when it comes to Joy’s salvation. I know that my belief and understanding isn’t perfect. We should not demand perfection from Joy’s belief, either.
My understanding of the Bible and relationship to God, and my maturity have grown over the years, as I trust they have for you. Who knows if the Holy Spirit is doing something in Joy’s heart right now? We should challenge her when we think she is wrong - as we would allow her to challenge us. Right, Joy?: we all want to be like the “noble Bereans” of Acts 17:11 It’s a two way street: to have credibility, you must answer the questions put to you. It’s ok if you don’t know or if you can’t give the “right” answer. No intelligent/mature person is going to jump you and say “aha! you can’t answer so I win the argument.” I’ve tried that tactic with my wife. It doesn’t work
We are Truth Seekers. …but we must also love Joy and not allow her affiliation with Mormonism to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.
Anyway, I do understand your position in regards to Joy and Mormonism, and I’ll respect your arguments (I really do mean that).
Cosmo, you sound way too educated to believe the weak arguments you make about the Trinity.
I, along with many, many others, disagree with many of the Catholic church’s teachings. So we aren’t their stooges when it comes to believing a given doctrine, such as the Trinity.
Here’s the thing, we still have the NT Scriptures. We can examine and study them for ourselves. And you know what? While we disagree on many, many things, there is overwhelming unanimity regarding the Trinity. Not on the basis of some council’s ruling, but on the basis of the Biblical evidence that we can see for ourselves.
Furthermore, even before Nicea, and even before Christianity, Judaism was and is a monotheistic faith. That makes it wholly incompatible with Mormonism, but it is perfectly compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity, since the Trinity is a form of monotheism.
This is the crux of the matter, just like what happened to e-harmony. This is the consequence of recognizing same-sex marriage.
I’ll hang with you on this, Jet. I did not doubt joy’s sincerity, and never sit in judgment on anyone’s salvation. God looks upon the heart. My experiences in the LDS church were real to me, and joy’s are real to her. We share a common concern for the moral decline in our society, with gay marriage being on different rungs of our respective ladders. Nonetheless, your points are sound and I appreciate your thoughtful discourse.
G’night.
I was really hoping this would end like this…thank you all.
I believe you’ll find that very few folks are even aware of, much less informed about, things such as Nicaea, Cosmo.
Sadly, so many people have been told that their particular denomination is the right one and everyone else’s is suspect, at best. Many people do seem to have a strong need for what today is called “self-esteem” and have only found it in their respective denominatuions. To think of it an “open club” would thus undermine self-esteem. But I don’t believe it’s a good idea to tie one’s sense of self-worth to a history (such as where I quoted your note above) of which one is uninformed.
jangar said:
Why the desire for unity in places where there should not be?
Jesus prayed for the unity of His believers - not at any price - but on the basis of His Word, and upon the 7 things mentioned in Ephesians 4. Jesus does not wish for His people to be united with those who oppose His Word.
Paul, the person who wrote 1 Cor. 13, nevertheless refuses to embrace the party of the circumcision, even though they claimed to be followers of Christ. Rather than concluding “they are still my brothers in Christ,” he goes so far as to say he wishes that they would even emasculate themselves! (Gal. 5:12)
Jet, the Lord has provided different people with different temperaments in His Church, and for a reason. Jesus & John the Baptist had very different approaches and styles (Matt. 11:7-19). This isn’t a design flaw of the Church, it is a design feature. It is good that we each have different strengths and weaknesses, for it is the mortar God gives to hold the individual blocks together, to support each other for the mutual good.
Jesus was merciful to the Samaritan woman, as immoral as she was, but He was harsh and brutal with those who presented themselves as experts on God’s Law and yet lived hypocritically, preying on others’ faith.
Joy props herself up as some kind of Bible authority. Has anyone here not heard that she has over 20 years Bible study, and studied Greek? She claims that she has it all figured out, and that she is able to destroy the opposing view. And she harasses those who teach the truth, while twisting the Scriptures.
Jesus was not nice to these kinds of people. Paul was not nice to these kinds of people. There is a time for niceties, and there is a time for confrontation and rebuking people in the presence of all.
these are not ‘attacks’
if you want to use the word ‘attack’ then I consider the entire faith of mormonism an attack on christianity!
yes all christians DO agree on the trinity. by definition, if you do not, you are not a christian. it is the trinity, more than any other doctrine, that separates christianity from non-christian religions. it is the heart of our faith, if you have the nature of God wrong, you have the rest of it wrong too.
obviously it is. Since even you think God the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God…and the Bible is clear there is ONE GOD. there is no other conclusion possible.
this is SOOOO lame. Christianity has been wrong for 2000 years…and only the mormons have ‘the’ truth
please.
so the Mormons are HIS church…and the rest are not?? right? then why do you want to be called a christian, since the other ‘christians’ are not HIS church??
you see I would have no problem going to a lutheran church, a presbyterian church, a catholic or orthodox church….but you would.
to call Satan a ’spirit brother’ with Jesus is to say Jesus was created, as Satan was. so do you rebuke this doctrine? are you now going to agree with the trinity? If Jesus was NOT created, then He is God almighty, as is the Father, and the Holy Spirit, then you must agree with the TRINITY. right??
and if you do, you are not mormon.
oops forgot: obviously you couldn’t
I’d say you are quite wrong there, R4L, What makes faith in Christ different from any religion is Jesus himself.
If it were instead the trinity doctrine, you would expect Jesus would have noted so - repeatedly and very clearly. (e.g. verses reading something like “Jesus spake, saying unto them ‘By this shall all know ye are real believers, that ye have a trinity doctrine’”.) Instead you have a concept that wasn’t defined until almost 400 years after Him.
and what makes Him different is the He is God Almighty. ie the trinity.
uh He did, before Abraham I AM…thats why the jews wanted to kill him…
that concept was always there, in the OT too. let US make man in our image…
The problem there, R4L, is you’re using a classic example of what’s called “circular logic”. That is it goes -
Question: where did yo get the trinity idea from?
Answer:
A. Jesus is God
therefore
B.Jesus is “the trinity”
You jump back from A to B ad infinitum and it fails to address the question.
There’s no mention of a trinity there, R4L. (Also, you should note that Jesus was, and I would assume still is, a Jew Himself.)
Again, no mention of a trinity, R4L. That could be anywhere to 2 to at least millions of gods involved if you are assume it refers to deities talking back and forth amongst themselves, instead of one God addressing what’s usually called the “Host Of Heaven” in Scripture.
If it were that a trinity doctrine were a longtime given, it must have been a secret up to the late 300s, during the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. If it had been a given there would have been no need to devise a trinity doctrine at such a late date in the first place.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong in accepting the historical fact that major doctrines were not put into place until some 3 centuries after Christ, it doesn’t make them anymore right or anymore wrong. As I said, there are many Christians (actually most) who don’t know the historical context of how such doctrines were decided. That’s too bad, because like I sez it doesn’t invalidate beliefs to be informed of their history & formation and it’s helpful for any person to know how his/her beliefs were developed.
there is no mention of Divinity, Incarnation, Monotheism, and Rapture…so?? the word doesn’t have to be there for it to be true.
the context is clear.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
not God hovering over the waters.. the Spirit of God..
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…
this lame conspiracy theory is SOOO old…can’t you come up with anything better than that??
again this is bogus…the church fathers knew the divinity of Jesus..
Tertullian
“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).
“That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord” (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
and just in case you say..well it was from the 200s…
“But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos.” Athenagoras, Plea for Christians, 10 (A.D. 177).
To all of you who are trying to claim the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t Biblical, or that it originated in the 4th century, or that we only believe this because a council decided for us…
Just because the doctrine of the Trinity may not have been formally articulated centuries later, it does not mean that the truth behind that doctrine was invented at that same time.
You see, even during the time span of the writing of the NT documents, there was an evolution in thought about the nature of Jesus and the implications. Acts contains excerpts of very early sermons about Jesus, which scholars describe as having a primitive christology. NT books that record thoughts on Jesus a couple of decades later show a more developed christology. This isn’t to say that they were inventing new ideas about Jesus, but that over time they refined their articulation, their clarification of who and what Jesus is.
Which is what this council did. They didn’t invent new doctrines centuries later a la Joseph Smith, they were clarifying what the Bible already taught. Unlike the Mormon church, they had no need of new “prophets” or Scripture to justify some twisted doctrine that they wanted to add.
I have to say that’s an awful argument, R4L, because a Mormon can make the exact same defense. “just because x,y,z isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not so”. Arguing a doctrine from a lack of evidence just doesn’t work out very well.
Again, there’s no trinity there, though you might feel it’s in there somehow. You’re going by what’s called “paradolia” - like when a person looks at clouds and imagines he sees a house, a dog, a car in the clouds.
Don’t you suppose if that (”Hey, I’m really a trinity”) were the message in those verses - and others - God would very clear in conveying it?
What conspiracy? You don’t believe there was a Council of Nicaea in 325 AD???
Again, no trinity (3 in 1)at all there - which is what we’re talking about. And now you have to admit you’re making an extra-biblical case, which as I said, is fine since the trinity is an extra-biblical doctrine. “Extra-biblical” does not always mean “bad” or “wrong”.
You’ll note they were still trying to figure out what they were dealing with, as illustrated by one quote you cited was talking about an argument of “2 gods” - the argument dealt with a two-some, not a trinity. But there were a lot of ideas floating around at that time, so that difference (2, not 3) is not a surprise. What you cited there is called “Binitarianism”.
But, instead of massive copy and pastes from other sites, I believe it would be much more helpful to learn about how and when the doctrines were formulated, such as at the First Council of Nicaea. Trust me, Nicaea is church history, not a “conspiracy”. You’d be in massive detachment from reality to believe otherwise.
Again, there’s nothing necessarily evil about having extra-biblically based beliefs. If that were the case, every church and denomination would have to close it’s doors.
purplepeep said:
Once again, you miss r4l’s point: just because a certain word isn’t found in the Biblical text, that doesn’t prove that it isn’t a Biblical concept and teaching.
The word “monotheism” isn’t a word found in the Bible, but the concept of monotheism is clearly taught in both Testaments.
This is in opposition to many Mormon doctrines. There simply is no teaching in the Bible that would indicate Jesus and Satan are brothers, for example.
Thus, monotheism = Biblical, Trinity = Biblical, Jesus & Satan are brothers = not Biblical.
huh? actually its a very good argument…lets see there is no mention of monotheism, but the bible is clear..the shemah ‘hear o Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE’ so what ‘lack of evidence’ are you talking about??? there is PLENTY of evidence of the trinity.
you twist scripture. The trinity is clear…why is the Spirit of God mentioned if He does not exist…and why use US??? hmmm?? why does Psalm 2 talk about the Son?? please.
its VERY clear to anyone who has eyes to see it.
all those verses make the trinity clear. you just refuse to see it.
you are the one in a massive detachment from reality.
oh and you know we can actually read it for ourselves and figure it out! shocking isn’t it??
you’re lying. the Trinity is not extra-biblically based. if you think so, you’re not a christian!
TM, these people are projecting what they do onto christians…they believe whatever Joseph smith and the church tells them because the leader is a ‘prophet’
and they think we do the same.
Nope, TMan. I’m making what seems to me to be a very logical and valid point: arguing for something on the basis of “it’s not in the bible” and/or “the bible doesn’t say it isn’t so” is extremely faulty reasoning.
Well, first off, we have to remember you are arguing from anti-Mormon sources. Just as a source they might depend on might argue that you believe it’s okay to commit sins because you are “saved” from having to do the right thing.
That being said, you are actually underscoring my point of the foolishness of arguing from what the bible doesn’t say. i.e., you are both incorrect to do so.
e.g I could state the bible doesn’t say that ther’s no tooth fairy, so you can’t it’s not so. You’re both put in the spot of “proving a negative”.
Does’t matter if you think there are really 2 or 3 or whatever Gods-in-one or that Satan is really Jesus’ mother-in-law - it just doesn’t fly since it stems from a illogical start based on preconceptions and the “paradolia effect” of a person seeing what a person is looking for.
Well, if you think it’s a good argument we’ll just have to disagree on the wisdom of arguing from the negative.
You sound confused, I don’t believe I’ve cited a passage of Scripture. If so, feel free to cite it and please tell me where you feel it was “twisted”. I’ve argued from plain ol’ common sense and history (i.e. Nicea).
And again, you’re off track, the mention of a spirit doesn’t prove a trinity. It just mentions a spirit, such as when the Old Testament notes that God sent an eveil spirit to vex somesone. There’s no trinity in that either, just a spirit.
Actually you should have used something more firm to prove Jesus, like Psalm 22 which is a prophecy of His suffering. I don’t know of any reasonable person who doesn’t believe Jesus existed. But, again, we were talking about the trinity idea and in Ps.2 (or 22, for that matter), it’s just not there.
Wonder why it didn’t take hold until 300 years after Christ? You suppose maybe Christians were blind until then? Curious thing, that.
Well, I’m not the one having difficulty grasping that a defining fact of history actually happened. If you enjoy reading there is plenty of information both online and offline about it. Check it out where you choose - even ask a pastor you trust about it - but as a generic, general start here’s a link at Wikipedia:
First Council of Nicaea
Yes, just like all the other not-Christians who lived before 325AD when the trinity issue was decided on.
And, of course, just like the thief on the cross next to Jesus. He failed to come up with a trinity doctrine and just trusted Christ instead for salvation. How could he make such a big mistake?? Wonder why Jesus would promise him Paradise without the thief trusting the trinity doctrine to save him? Another curious thing, that one.
all you’ve done is repeat the same old same old….your ‘common sense’ sounds remarkable like the mormon’s ‘common sense’ gee what a surprise
good luck apprending God with your ‘common sense’
wow, so now you compare the Spirit of God to an evil spirit…and by doing so you admit the Spirit is a being….do you really understand what you are arguing??
its not ‘just a spirit’
HE is the Holy Spirit. I have the feeling I’m casting pearls before swine.
why? because you say so?? please.
it didn’t as the quotes I posted made clear…you sure are blind. obviously
you’re a fool. go ahead and trust your mormon ‘jesus’ to save you and we’ll see how it works out for you.
I’m done casting pearls before swine.
purplepeep said:
Again, you have missed the point. My point was, the concepts behind monotheism and the trinity are taught in the Bible, hence they are Biblical doctrines. The teaching that Jesus’ brother is Satan is no where to be found in the Bible, and hence, it is an unbiblical doctrine.
But to demonstrate your complete failure, consider that the Bible does teach things that are opposed to the notion that Jesus and Satan are brothers. The Bible teaches that Satan is an angel, and that Jesus is not an angel. Hence, how can they be brothers, have the same parents, and be different kinds of beings?
So while the Bible does not explicitly argue against Jesus and Satan being brothers, the concepts that demonstrate this point are already in the Biblical text. So this Mormon doctrine is not only unbiblical in the sense that it is not taught in the Bible, but also in that it contradicts what the Bible does teach.
And yes, the Trinity is taught in the Bible.
In Psalm 2:7, it says YHWH (the personal name of the God of the OT) declares that the Messiah is His Son. And yet, in John 8:58, Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was born, I AM” (which is the translation of YHWH). Jesus, the Son, claimed to be YHWH, which is why they then tried to stone Him - a man claiming to be the one true God.
So YHWH, the one and only God, is the Father, and yet is the Son, too. YHWH promises that He will not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8), and yet He does just that (Daniel 7:9-14). So God, who will not give His glory to another, gives His glory to the Son of Man. Only with something akin to the Trinity can God keep His glory to Himself while giving it to another.
And the same could be demonstrated with the Holy Spirit. In the great commission, we are to baptize disciples into the Name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - one divine Name, yet 3 persons.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that these 3 are in someway distinct from each other, and yet there is only one God. It is all of these Biblical teachings that the Trinity doctrine articulates.
purplepeep is using all the tools he learned in seminary. Nicely done, purple. But it doesn’t change the fact that you are the one using circular arguments and trying to confuse the discussion. Having been reading your posts, I am reminded of why I left the LDS church, and how grateful I am to know the simplicity and beauty of the cross of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the truth has set me free.
I would say the trinity doctrine is extra-biblical, TMan - not to be confused with anti-biblical. I think it’s fair to say you have to look to back up the concept, there’s no trinity doctrine passage.
The doctrine is not mentioned by any of those closest to Christ and who penned the Scriptures. If it were an important, central belief - much less a defining doctrine - it just wouldn’t have been omitted from all the other teachings of the bible. e.g. women wearing head-covering and speaking in church is covered, but I think you’d agree that’s not a make or break doctrine.
Keeping that in mind, I can illustrate one of the problems of going by inference when one takes the bible to be the inerrant source:
Now, one of the practices of Mormonism is “baptising for the dead” which was clearly a practice among the first Christians, as mentioned in 1st Corinthians Chapter 15. There’s no need at all to infer the practice from Scripture.
Compare that to the trinity doctrine which is based on inference.
You may object to the clear practice of baptism for the dead and say it’s in the Scriptures, but the Mormons got it wrong. On the other hand, they can point at the trinity doctrine, note it’s not even mentioned in the bible and has to be gotten to by inference.
I’m not saying that either the practice of baptising for the dead or the trinity doctrine is right or wrong. I’m just saying in making that comparison they would have a stronger leg to stand on as there is no biblical vagueness to the existence of their practice almost from the get-go of the Christian faith.
purplepeep said:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but not purplepeep! You’re like that guy in the commercial - you’re. always. wrong.
The truth is, I could easily multiply the passages I’ve already mentioned that proves a Trinity is taught in the Bible. There are many clear passages that teach the following:
1. YHWH is the One placing Someone on His throne to reign forever
2. YHWH is the One being placed on this throne
3. and YHWH is the only true God, there are no Gods before or after Him.
Neither you nor your Mormon friends can dispute these things, since they are attested plainly, multiple times throughout the Bible.
The basic concept behind the Trinity isn’t in doubt, which is why so many Bible scholars, throughout the centuries, from different backgrounds, have all reached the same conclusion, even when they couldn’t agree on much else. So your analysis continues to fail.
Compare this to the “baptism of the dead.” This is mentioned precisely once, and it is by any honest analysis, an obscure phrase.There is no evidence that this phrase teaches what the Mormons call the “baptism of the dead.”
What you continue to fail to understand is that, just because a word or phrase is/isn’t in the Bible, that doesn’t mean a certain concept is or isn’t in the Bible. Unless you can prove that the Mormon’s practice of baptism for the dead is the same that Paul talks about, you have done nothing to prove that it is a Biblical practice at all. In fact, if you examine the Greek and the context, you’ll find out that it argues for something different from what the Mormon’s teach.
Just because the Muslims refer to Jesus as the “Word,” that doesn’t mean their understanding of Him being the “Word” is the same as what the Bible teaches when it describes Jesus as the “Word.”
very true my friend. the mormons use the words, but have different meanings for them. claiming to be christian, then claiming all other christians are apostate…while twisting our doctrines…and they expect us to accept it…or its an ‘attack’
vickisoup & right4life, exactly, Mormonism, from the beginning, has been about deception. It stems from the fact that Joseph Smith was a charlatan.
Consider how the Mormons “know” Mormonism is true:
Notice something about this quote. It purports to present a test, a way to find out if the Book of Mormon is true. But this is no true test, it is a trick.
It is like saying, “Let’s make this fair. I’ll flip a coin: heads I win, tails you lose.” To those who aren’t paying attention, it sounds legit, but it is really a trick - the person flipping the coin can’t lose.
The Book of Mormon says if you pray and feel a burning in your bosom, then the book is true. But if you pray and don’t feel a burning in your bosom, then it’s not true? No, that is not what it says. If you pray and don’t feel a burning in your bosom, it is because you didn’t pray with sincerity!
So here you have a test that really isn’t a test at all. If we are to believe this book was inspired by God, then we must believe God is either a trickster, or bad at logic. Or far more likely, Joseph Smith was both a trickster and bad at logic.
No, I certainly do understand that and have been, in fact, emphasizing it in pointing out the argument for the trinity concept is based on what the bible doesn’t say. Since there is no trinity doctrine passage, evidence for the doctrine, decided on 3 centuries after the fact, is limited to inference.
To do so, I would have to do as you are have, arguing from negatives - “who knows? You can’t say it isn’t so just because it’s not in the bible” to try to validate an assumption. As with the trinity doctrine, it would be a stretch to say “this is what it is”.
Also, in using your reasoning: “You can’t prove it was —–” the reverse is also true - you cannot prove that it wasn’t —–. Both are silly arguments to make.
Though it is absurd to say it’s not a biblical practice, since it is quite specifically in the bible and it was practiced. As I said before, you can say “Well, yes it’s there, but the Mormons got it wrong.”
On the other hand, the Mormons can say “there is no trinity doctrine passage” and they would be obviously correct. The good news is that since there is no trinity doctrine passage, you can’t possibly get it wrong - no one can. The bad news is that since there is no trinity doctrine passage, you can’t get it right either.
As for me, I’m happy to let folks decide for themselves - in the paradox I offered - to decide what seems to have more legitimacy: A practice derived from a passage of Scripure, thus obviously contemporary with the early Christians, or an entire doctrine derived totally from inferences made necessary by a 4th century vote in Rome.
Be my guest to go with the inference. Doesn’t matter to me, but giving your argument the benefit of the doubt, the best you can get is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other as to validity.
And at any rate, although this is a dead comment thread so we’re not interrupting others, it’s gotten much too long. And I expect you can wage mortal battle against the Mormon folks again somewhere else along the line. Not my idea of fun, tho. Have a good evening.
purplepeep said:
There are Trinity passages. Matthew 28:19 does teach the Trinity, even though it isn’t called the “Trinity.” But names do not matter, for a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
purplepeep said:
It is not absurd. The phrase “baptized for the dead” is in the Bible, and it is not dangling all by itself. It is written within a context. Context can tell you what a given word or phrase may or may not mean. Paul does shed some light on what he means by baptism of the dead, and it isn’t what the Mormons teach. Therefore I have positive evidence that it is something other than what they claim it is.
purplepeep said:
There are Trinity passages. Apart from something like a Trinity, how does Matt. 28:19 even make sense, given that it was said in the context where monotheism was universally considered by them to be an essential doctrine?
purplepeep said:
Where is the first articulation of the Mormon’s practice of baptism for the dead? Hint: It is looooong after the 4th century.
Second, you do see NT passages that argue over the nature of Jesus, which is a core part of figuring out the Trinity. So various aspects of the Trinity had already been established and elaborated on by the NT writers.
Third, by your logic, if I were to cut a live chicken in half, drink it’s blood, and wear the chicken’s liver on my head for a hat, if I were to do all this and call it the Lord’s Supper, then I would have some basis for claiming it is a Biblical practice that goes back to the very dawn of Christianity.
Of course, this is bogus, because the Bible says what the Lord’s Supper is, and it isn’t that. The same is true for the baptism of the dead. The Bible tells us about it, and it ain’t what the Mormons are selling.
very true…you know the mormons keep talking about Jesus, Jesus…but which Jesus is it?? the muslims talk about Jesus too. the thief on the cross talked to the Jesus of the Bible…a real person…if you’re not talking to the real Jesus, does He hear you?? and if He hears you, does He listen??
good point. I find it amusing that they complain about a doctrine they say started in the 4th century, but they have no problem with a doctrine started in the 1800s by some charlatan with gold plates that no one has ever seen.
They call Joseph Smith a prophet…but he was a FALSE prophet. but they follow him anyway. They didn’t have black ministers (or black couldn’t be fully saved whatever) until 1978…it was a NEW REVELATION…which superceded the old revelation….they’re like the muslims…whatever is said last is true….its scary.
right4life, do you think they’ll ever have a “new revelation” concerning same sex marriage? They’ve already had a convenient revelation about polygamous marriages…
yeah why not? I’m sure they’ll think tattoos on the hand or forehead or just great too someday!!
and the left are the tolerate ones???