by Hal Eaton » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:20 pm
It's been said before (and a time or two by me) that any man's (or woman's) religious affiliation ought not be questioned (first premise)- - - until that person's prospective influence or effect on my own life becomes a possibility.
(Second premise) If the possible influence on me becomes a reality, then I might well question whether that religious commitment is the product of childhood up-bringing, and whether adulthood should give the adherent second thoughts concerning the background, origin, psychology, practicality, theology, and, of course, electability concerns of the faith he/she clings to. (Does this apply to Bachman, Palin, Huckaby, etc.? Of course.) (Except, of course, those with whom I agree.)
I voiced the same considerations when JFK was on the political scene, and willingly repeat them now.
With regard to Bro. Jeffress, he has had his few minutes of fame, and chose, like many of his fellows, to brag about the "largest Protestant denomination" as indicative of support of his public claim that another faith qualifies as a "cult" -- a typical four-letter word that offers many definitions, and a variety of repercussions . . .
Christianity is certainy not a "cult," but we rely for assurance of that fact only on our numerical superiority.
Is Fred Phelps leader of a "cult?"
IMO, TIC (if you please)
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -- Thomas Paine