More generally, I don't get this big dispute over which theistic religion is less believable than another. Belief in a deity of any kind requires you to suspend the ordinary requirement of some kind of rational grounds for belief. To narrow it to Christianity, belief in the incarnation and the resurrection require similar suspensions of reason. Belief in the doctrine of the Trinity requires one not only to believe in the absence of evidence, but to believe something that is incoherent. To which Catholicism adds the transformation of wine and bread into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, the virgin birth of Jesus, and the immaculate conception of Mary.
Once you've accepted all that, the South Parkish digs at Mormonism become straining at gnats. The craziest things about Mormonism aren't the things that distinguish it from orthodox branches of Christianity.
They're the things Mormonism and orthodox Christianity have in common.
MM
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> James Heartfield:
>
>> Yes, but all those saints - that's a bit hokey, mormonish,
>> even - not to mention those chintzy drapes, incense and
>> scoffing (and crapping out?) bit of Jesus every Sunday.
>> Papal infallibility? face it, it is a recipe for mockery. I
>> am afraid the protestants' attacks on the fetishism of the
>> catholic church are true, however much those delusions
>> enriched art and culture.
>
> Well that's a big exception. The barren walls and austerity of American
> Protestantism, at least its white branch, are the enemy of art and culture.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>