Rick Santorum DRUDGE: "Santorum's Satan Warning" (attacks mainline Protestantism)

[Beorn]

And Santorum's Catholic church has endorsed Darwinism. Big whoop! Here's what the United Methodists (also "mainline" Protestants) have to say on gay clergy.

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1324
While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Santorum lumping all mainline Protestant churches into one messy whole will bite him in the butt if anyone has the courage to call him on it.

Are you kidding me?

Gay marriage is a huge deal in the UMC.
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2789393&ct=9103189

For crying out loud a lot of evangelicals hate even the UMC branding of "Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors."

I'm not saying there aren't a few conservative mainline Methodists and a few conservative mainline baptists that would be bothered by this, but certainly not the vast majority of evangelicals supporting Rick.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Much to the chagrin of his political allies, he has narrowed Judeo-Christian down to Judeo-Catholic...

By the way, if you look at the Supreme Court, every justice is either Roman Catholic or Jewish. Under normal business law, that would result in a discrimination lawsuit.

They share a lot in common. Both are theocracies that seek special privilages. The Vatican is it's own country and seeks special privilage, lately seen in it's handling of getting rid of evidence of the pedophile scandal. The State of Israel is what it is, and likewise is spreading special privilage. In the middle ages, both were behind the Holy Roman Empire - the vatican in crowning the kings or removing them, and the other as the court bankers. For those with a more criminal bent (as if crooked government isn't), both groups have traditionally been the center of organized crime, in fact, it was the Jewish mob that organized the actual national syndicate, as opposed to the local gangs previously. The Talmud also claims that Nero, the first emperor to start killing Christians empire wide, converted to Judaism. Odd bit of history to leave out of the books.

And yes, all that occurs because the religions of both groups ARE phoney. It isn't true you can just believe whatever you want and expect no outcome. So kissing the pope's foot or believing in Kaballah magic HAS CONSEQUENCES. When kids are raped, or racial genocide is practiced against Arabs, ITS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME considering the ideas.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

By the way, if you look at the Supreme Court, every justice is either Roman Catholic or Jewish.

Interesting. A protestant Constitution judged entirely by non-protestants.

 

[jmdrake]

Are you kidding me?

Gay marriage is a huge deal in the UMC.
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2789393&ct=9103189

For crying out loud a lot of evangelicals hate even the UMC branding of "Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors."



I'm not saying there aren't a few conservative mainline Methodists and a few conservative mainline baptists that would be bothered by this, but certainly not the vast majority of evangelicals supporting Rick.

Are you kidding me? Sure there's a debate about it. But the official church stand has remained the same. There are openly gay Catholics who want to see their church accept gay priests also. (And consequently the Vatican has had far too of an accepting position on gay pedophile priests).

Here is a current bishop in Rick Santorum's Catholic church that supports gay marriage.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...osexual-ministry-calls-for-same-sex-marriage/
Bishop Raul Vera Lopez of the Diocese of Saltillo has repeatedly expressed support for same-sex unions.

In March of this year, Bishop Vera Lopez published a statement on the diocesan website expressing support for the “sexual, family and religious diversity forum.” The event was aimed at “eradicating what some sectors of the Church believe about homosexuality” — especially the belief “that homosexual acts are contrary to God.”

Fr. Robert Coogan, the American priest who founded San Elredo, told CNA, “The only answer the Catechism gives is to tell (homosexual persons) to be celibate, and that is not enough.” He voiced his own support for the legalization of same-sex unions and adoptions and said the community “has the strong support of the bishop.”

Noe Ruiz told CNA the purpose of the forum was to show that “two men or two women can raise a child and live normally like everyone else.”

Think before you post dude. A group of retired UMC bishops supporting gay rights isn't the same as the church even being close to taking that stand on the issue. Rick Santorum is a freaking hypocrite.

 

[hells_unicorn]

This notion of doctrinal unity within self-professed Catholic Churches is the biggest lie ever told by Romanist adherents like Santorum, and if you doubt this I invite you to look up all of the various Catholic conclaves that have sprung up in the past 50 years because of Vatican II, as well as the divisions that came about because of various doctrinal innovations following the Council Of Trent. His attacks on Mainline Protestantism as being a jumbled mess of inconsistency is tantamount to the pot calling the kettle black, and is remarkably commonplace amongst post-Vatican II Romanists who believe that the whole world revolves around whichever personality cult is currently enthroned at Vatican City.

P.S. - To further illustrate the level of division between Christians and why these blanket statements out of people are idiotic, I actually take offense to the term Judeo-Christian and view it as a nonsensical term created by Dispensationalist theologians that is comparable to dry-water. Anyone who has ever read the Babylonian Talmud, which is considered the true and holy law of Judaism by most of the Jewish faith will understand that the Jewish view of Christ and Christianity is in complete contradiction with The Gospel Message.

 

[jay_dub]

Hello Forum! How are you? I'm doing well myself, and it's a pleasure to post with you!

This message is primarily for Rick Santorum. Hopefully he's browsing the threads here on RPF and can intercept this message.

I just wanted to let you know that Satan not only has his eyes on America, but he has his eyes on the whole world. We have to work on ourselves to expel the lies within us individually, before we can help others do it as well. Seeing that Jesus is truth, and the Son of God, who is also truth, and that Satan is the father of lies, and only gives birth to more lies, it is easy to see which forces are for good, and which ones are for evil. God is truth, and gives birth to truth. Satan is lies, and breeds liars.

So now that we have stated that fact we can see who we serve by figuring out if truth is in us, or if lies are in us. If we serve truth, we serve God. If we serve lies, we serve Satan.

So, in your circumstance Mr. Santorum, seeing that you are a politician, and that your decisons effects global events, we can see through policy decisions that you have made, or statements that you have made to find out whether you serve truth, or lies.

You have said you support invading Iraq due to the danger of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Later after your support for said invasion no weapons of mass destruction were found. This qualifies as a lie. So because a lie caused you to support warfare, you have served a lie, even if unknowingly. I understand that the Iraqi government was evil, but does one repay evil with more evil causing Satan to rejoice? Or should one repay evil with good, thereby cutting evil in half? Jesus actually gives us the answer, you should look it up. It does a lot of good to read the Word without an agenda, but with an open mind sir.

Also. Truth does not defeat lies by telling more lies. Truth defeats lies by being rock solid and continuing in truth.

There is a story in the old testament of the Bible in the book of Daniel that tells of three men who refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar, therefore he cast them bound in the fiery furnace. The three were engulfed in the flames, and there was a fourth who "looked like a son of the gods" who walked around in the fire with the three men unbound. When the three men came out of the flames, they were not hurt or burnt whatsoever! Do you know how that could be Mr. Santorum? I think I might know. I think the flames are temptations, lies, and deceit, and since the three men are of the truth [that is, of God] these men were not affected by Nebuchadnezzar's flames of lies. These men were not corruptable because they walked WITH truth. Truth was in them, so lies had no effect on these men!

There is a place, [I don't know where exactly] called hell, and Satan the father of lies rules it. Some of us are cast in the fire and quickly destroyed by its power. Others who walk in the truth, the way, and the life [sound familiar?] are not affected by these flames, and walk out of them unharmed. I invite you Mr. Santorum to walk in this way too, unless of course, you are content with serving your father of lies.

Just to add-on a little to your post:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 8:44

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew 7:16

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wish folks would consider this before throwing their support to Santorum. WE are responsible for whom we elect. If we vote for a fear/war mongering candidate, we are complicit in what follows. Frankly, it's the being pro-life until you're born and at the same time promoting pre-emptive war that disgusts me.

 

[Beorn]

Are you kidding me? Sure there's a debate about it. But the official church stand has remained the same. There are openly gay Catholics who want to see their church accept gay priests also. (And consequently the Vatican has had far too of an accepting position on gay pedophile priests).

Here is a current bishop in Rick Santorum's Catholic church that supports gay marriage.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...osexual-ministry-calls-for-same-sex-marriage/
Bishop Raul Vera Lopez of the Diocese of Saltillo has repeatedly expressed support for same-sex unions.

In March of this year, Bishop Vera Lopez published a statement on the diocesan website expressing support for the “sexual, family and religious diversity forum.” The event was aimed at “eradicating what some sectors of the Church believe about homosexuality” — especially the belief “that homosexual acts are contrary to God.”

Fr. Robert Coogan, the American priest who founded San Elredo, told CNA, “The only answer the Catechism gives is to tell (homosexual persons) to be celibate, and that is not enough.” He voiced his own support for the legalization of same-sex unions and adoptions and said the community “has the strong support of the bishop.”

Noe Ruiz told CNA the purpose of the forum was to show that “two men or two women can raise a child and live normally like everyone else.”

Think before you post dude. A group of retired UMC bishops supporting gay rights isn't the same as the church even being close to taking that stand on the issue. Rick Santorum is a freaking hypocrite.

Have you totally forgotten the argument you were making? Yes, the catholic church has issues, but your argument wasn't that Catholics would be offended by criticism of mainline churches, but that Protestant supporters of Santorum would be offended.

Most newer evangelical denominations and evangelical individual nondenominational churches are simply not dealing with the level of "liberal" influence that mainline denominations are encountering. Consequently, many of these evangelicals see the mainline Protestant churches as being outside of mainstream evangelicalism.

Are you Methodist? I could see how you could be percieving Christian culture different from me if that is so.

 

[jmdrake]

Have you totally forgotten the argument you were making? Yes, the catholic church has issues, but your argument wasn't that Catholics would be offended by criticism of mainline churches, but that Protestant supporters of Santorum would be offended.

I haven't forgotten my argument, but perhaps you never understood it. My argument is that the United Methodist Church is as conservative as any other church, members of the United Methodist Church could very well be Santorum supporters, and those members might very well be offended.

Most newer evangelical denominations and evangelical individual nondenominational churches are simply not dealing with the level of "liberal" influence that mainline denominations are encountering. Consequently, many of these evangelicals see the mainline Protestant churches as being outside of mainstream evangelicalism.

If Rick Santorum is only getting support from those denominations then you have a point. If he is also getting support for older conservative denominations like the United Methodists who have so far held the line against liberal influences then you do not have a point. There is a huge huge HUGE difference between saying that mainline protestant churches are having an internal struggle over liberal issues, just like Rick Santorum's own Catholic church is having, and saying that those churches are so far gone that they are no longer Christian. And many Christians (especially those attending non-demoninational churches) today switch from one church to the next without batting an eye over church politics or even church doctrine. You don't have a pulse on the average Christian if you think otherwise. And many non-denominational churches are extremely liberal, more so than mainline churches. Or did you miss the whole "Love wins...everybody eventually goes to heaven" debate discussion of 2011?

Are you Methodist? I could see how you could be percieving Christian culture different from me if that is so.

I'm not a Methodist. But you should be able to understand how someone else can have a different perception from you just because they aren't you.

 

[Beorn]

I haven't forgotten my argument, but perhaps you never understood it. My argument is that the United Methodist Church is as conservative as any other church, members of the United Methodist Church could very well be Santorum supporters, and those members might very well be offended.



If Rick Santorum is only getting support from those denominations then you have a point. If he is also getting support for older conservative denominations like the United Methodists who have so far held the line against liberal influences then you do not have a point. There is a huge huge HUGE difference between saying that mainline protestant churches are having an internal struggle over liberal issues, just like Rick Santorum's own Catholic church is having, and saying that those churches are so far gone that they are no longer Christian. And many Christians (especially those attending non-demoninational churches) today switch from one church to the next without batting an eye over church politics or even church doctrine. You don't have a pulse on the average Christian if you think otherwise. And many non-denominational churches are extremely liberal, more so than mainline churches. Or did you miss the whole "Love wins...everybody eventually goes to heaven" debate discussion of 2011?



I'm not a Methodist. But you should be able to understand how someone else can have a different perception from you just because they aren't you.

Here is a list of mainline Protestant churches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestants

The ELCA supports ordination of practicing homosexuals
http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-...munication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4253

The Pcusa supports ordination of practicing homosexuals
http://www.christianpost.com/news/presbyterian-church-usa-votes-to-allow-openly-gay-clergy-50176/

The Episcopal church supports ordination of practicing homosexuals
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15episcopal.html

50 American Baptist churches are officially LGBT friendly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Baptist_churches

The United Church of Christ (Congregationalists) actively champion LGBT causes
http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/

A Disciple's of Christ church has performed gay marriages. The denomination is decentralized and split on acceptance of LGBT folks by region.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/804691/posts

The RCA is still embroiled in the issue of gay marriage and has this pro-gay marriage essay on it's site
http://www.rca.org/page.aspx?pid=3474


Any culture warrior on the conservative side is going to consider the mainline Protestant church to be in shambles.

There may be some supporters of Santorum in southern and midwest churches in the DoC, UMC, ABC, and RCA. But, my guess is that the vast majority of them will not be offended, but rather think "yeah, those presbys, episcopalians, and Lutherans are a mess."

 

[Agorism]

 

[jmdrake]

50 American Baptist churches are officially LGBT friendly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Baptist_churches

I see you are being selective in your reporting of information.

Within the American Baptist Churches USA, a mainline American Baptist denomination of around 1.4 million members, there has been a variety of understandings on homosexuality. The convention holds "that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." It also opposes same sex marriage. It advocates dialogue on the issue. Some individual congregations, however, hold contrary views.[9]

Out of a church with 1.4 million members you find a mere 50 churches that are "gay friendly" and you somehow think that's significant? Get real dude! I already showed you that there are Catholic Bishops that support gay marriage. So by your own argument the Catholic church is as much in "shambles" as anyone else. Really, your arguments are getting ridiculous. If this is pushed by the right people in the right way this will hurt Santorum. Where I live there are a lot of Baptists, most of whom are very conservative and many would take great offense at Santorum's statement. Those are the ones who need to be reached by this. And Santorum's hypocrisy in trying to pretend the evolution supporting, pedophile priest protecting Catholic church is somehow above reproach can bite him in the butt.

 

[Matthew5]

I see you are being selective in your reporting of information.

Within the American Baptist Churches USA, a mainline American Baptist denomination of around 1.4 million members, there has been a variety of understandings on homosexuality. The convention holds "that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." It also opposes same sex marriage. It advocates dialogue on the issue. Some individual congregations, however, hold contrary views.[9]

Out of a church with 1.4 million members you find a mere 50 churches that are "gay friendly" and you somehow think that's significant? Get real dude! I already showed you that there are Catholic Bishops that support gay marriage. So buy your own argument the Catholic church is as much in "shambles" and anyone else. Really, your arguments are getting ridiculous. If this is pushed by the right people in the right way this will hurt Santorum. Where I live there are a lot of Baptists, most of whom are very conservative and many would take great offense at Santorum's statement. Those are the ones who need to be reached by this. And Santorum's hypocrisy in trying to pretend the evolution supporting, pedophile priest protecting Catholic church is somehow above reproach can bite him in the butt.

+rep! As someone with inside knowledge to the Presbyterian church, I can assure you that some of the wealthiest and most influential churches are getting ready for and actively creating a schism over the recent developments of homosexual ordination. LGBT rights is hardly an indicator of anything.

And honestly, the Body of Christ (whether Catholic or Protestant) has been battling Satanic influences since Jesus was on this planet (Temptation in the Wilderness). Santorum's comments were offensive to Protestants and far from valid.

 

[hells_unicorn]

+rep! As someone with inside knowledge to the Presbyterian church, I can assure you that some of the wealthiest and most influential churches are getting ready for and actively creating a schism over the recent developments of homosexual ordination. LGBT rights is hardly an indicator of anything.

And honestly, the Body of Christ (whether Catholic or Protestant) has been battling Satanic influences since Jesus was on this planet (Temptation in the Wilderness). Santorum's comments were offensive to Protestants and far from valid.

I agree in principle with this statement, the problem today isn't necessarily that Romanism or Protestantism is in shambles, it's that the entire American Christian population is pretty well in shambles. I can count on one hand the number of communicate members of various mainline churches as well as Roman churches I've met who even know what their church's stances are on doctrinal matters. The so-called theologians that belong to most Evangelical Churches are so obsessed with Daniel, Zachariah, Revelation and everything else pertaining to end time prophecy that they can't even keep their doctrine of grace straight, and in some cases can't even differentiate between moral and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament. Likewise, when they talk about prophecy, they mostly argue things that was originally cooked up by Jesuit counter-reformation figures 400 years ago and then picked up by a few fruitcakes in the British Isles and later America.

Be all this as it may, during my days in the Roman Church, I was delighted to behold a strongly feminist tendency in theology, not to mention a plethora of contradictory views regarding social issues. From what I've seen, many Protestants can't keep their own doctrines straight, while most Roman Catholics probably never studied their own doctrine, for as Mother Teresa stated: "Ignorance is the mother of devotion" (actually it's the mother of heresy).

So yes, Santorum's comments are offensive and fairly hypocritical, but unfortunately there is some truth to them.

 

[Matthew5]

The so-called theologians that belong to most Evangelical Churches are so obsessed with Daniel, Zachariah, Revelation and everything else pertaining to end time prophecy that they can't even keep their doctrine of grace straight, and in some cases can't even differentiate between moral and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament....

Again, end times prophecy is not a new phenomena. If anything, it was probably at its peak in American religious history in the mid to late 1800s. Ignorant people have always been a part of religious movements since the dawn of time. Do we honestly believe that the average church goer in the 1800s was more theologically sound than a church goer in 2012?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Again, end times prophecy is not a new phenomena. If anything, it was probably at its peak in American religious history in the mid to late 1800s. Ignorant people have always been a part of religious movements since the dawn of time. Do we honestly believe that the average church goer in the 1800s was more theologically sound than a church goer in 2012?

It's not a new phenomenon, but it has become a lot more dangerous now that these people have a means to act out their heretical delusions, and someone like Santorum probably knows how easy it is to manipulate these people since his church's Jesuit minions came up with most of this nonsense to throw everyone into confusion, and sadly that is precisely how you win votes with these fanatics, hence all of this Israel nonsense that we're constantly having to answer for.

And no, I don't think the average church goer in the 1800s was all that much more theologically sound (I was talking theologians, not mere congregation attendees), but back then and especially 200 years before that there were a heck of a lot more people who were able to keep their doctrine and church history straight.