If Kerry were a Christian...

Excuse me? Are Catholics now not considered Christian?

Nope. Screw Papists.

Well, technically, Jesse, the Republicans DO own a form of Christianity. Just one so warped far away from rational Christianity. Any attempts to use rational Christian thought like Jesus actually preached, like 'Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself' threatens their fabricated faith, they can't help but cry out.

At least, that's the only way I can find to explain it, since for all their flaunting, I can hardly find much truely Christian about most of these thugs. And this is coming from one of those evil evil papists. ;) (Well, former papist)

"Excuse me? Are Catholics now not considered Christian?"

Seriously, to a lot of right wingers, no, they are not. Catholics are not Christians to these people -- they are Mary worshipers or Papists. A Catholic has as short a bus ride to hell as an aethist does, to these people. Anti-Catholic bigotry may be lessened, but tis still around.

It's inevitable that Democrats injecting religion into their politics causes some glitches in the matrix now and then.

I think the fundie attitude towards Catholics has undergone a change since the days when my mom refused to vote for JFK(1) because he was a Catholic. So long as Catholics are on the side of smooth-brained cruelty--see Gibson, Brooks--the fundies are cool with that.

As for what a 'rational Christianity' looks like, well, jeez.

Seems, also, that the standard exegesis of Jesus withering the barren fruit tree is that works matter. . . .

href="http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html">The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus from Al Franken and Don Simpson

A young couple in their 30's moved in across the street from us recently here in Houston. They were asked by one of their friends (also in their 30's) the faiths of their neighbors. They replied that one neighbor family attended Second Baptist, another was a Catholic and another family was Coptic Catholic. The reply from their friends? " Well at least you have one Christian neighbor." Welcome to Bush's America.

If Kerry were a Christian, he'd know that the biblical standard of the test of faith doesn't rest on whether poor people exist or teenagers are killed in the streets.

Wha...?! Wha...?! It boggles the mind even to begin thinking about how this person might have come up with this, uh, interesting new scriptural exegesis. Especially since at least as far as an (admittedly minor) authority once told his followers that their fate in the next life was going to depend on just how well (or poorly) they treated the poor. What was his name? Jeezus or something like that? Jeebus?

Oh, and Quanex, I'm envious that you even know a Coptic Catholic (or your friend does; it wasn't clear from your comment whose neighbors were being enumerated). I've only ever gotten to catch a glimpse of a few of them, mainly in documentaries, and once I got to cut through one of their churches on top of the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but didn't have time to tarry and take in what they were doing. Talk about your rare breeds!

Y'know, I'm not a Christian so somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism that every person has the right and duty to interpret scripture as they see fit?

Seems to me this guy is attributing to post-modernism what should be attributed to Luther.

By the way, that problem with James has been around for a long time - Luther wanted to kick the whole epistle out of the Bible, I believe, because it was so difficult.

It is strange that Barber points out that the fruits of works are not in their results. There is good scriptural reasons to believe this, but it fundementally undermines the conservative attack on welfare (i.e. it doesn't work). Good works are meant to be done because they show compassion and love towards one's neighbors, not becuase it solves a problem. Therefore, acting to alieviate poverty is fine, even poverty doesn't end. This has been a firm part of the Catholic tradition (less so in many parts of the Protestant tradition) which is why, for example, there are AIDS hostels run by nuns even as bishops denounce homosexuality and decry AIDS prevention based on condoms.

I'm a woman, not a man, by the way. And there is no "liberal" or "conservative" interpretation of the Bible. "Faith informing government" is a new phrase to me. All I was doing was properly exegeting (as opposed to interpreting) the passage.

Bush's faith-based initiatives aren't "works" in the sense of a believer's outworking of faith. That's where John Kerry is confused. If Bush is a believer in Christ, God's grace saves Him, not his works. How his faith plays out in his life are "works", the fruit of his faith.

Faith-based initiatives aren't Bush's own personal "works." It's a legitmate government function to generate revenue for the "general welfare." These programs are designed to solve the problems of illegitimacy and family breakdown by providing a vehicle for faith-based organizations to help certain segments of society. Shamefully, many Christians have abdicated this role to the government.

And if I'm not mistaken, because of the misapplication of "separation of church and state", these organizations will not be allowed to evangelize.

Exegesis is interpretation (or analysis, if you prefer). I'm not sure where your definition comes from, but it's certainly not the word. You're being dishonest if you say otherwise.

And Kerry isn't saying any of what you talk about, which is where the divide comes from. He's got a perfectly apt interpretation of the passage, one that appears to differ from your selective interpretation of it.

You favor a reading of works that's solely personal, as if one's own actions in a position of power aren't personal in some way (where does the difference between what I do in my "personal life" and what I do and work for as a person in my professional life come?).

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the passage makes little sense to me unless you stop reading where Kerry ended and insert your gloss on the text without quoting it. I agree on the narrow point that works are not results-dependent, but the NT is very clear that neither faith nor works alone suffice, the very point James and Kerry were making.

Michael,

"I'm envious that you even know a Coptic Catholic"

I know two. I had a classmate who was a Copt, and her fiance converted - I not only know a Copt, but a white-bread, frat-boy Copt. Know a Maronite also.

Believing what you have to say, La Shawn, basically boils down to believing both that Kerry was saying that Bush hasn't had the proper results from his works (debatable, at best) and that it's impossible to believe that what Bush has done isn't accordance with how Kerry and many liberal Christians read the Bible (simply false).

You seem to be a simple anti-government conservative who justifies that through the blanket of Christianity. If that's your choice, fine, but it is possible for Christians to believe differently from you and be Christian, oddly enough. The Bible is not yours and yours alone.

Phalamir--Dang, I've gotta get out more!

Republicans are starting to believe some of the Pat Robertson stuff out there. You may or may not recall that Rev. Robertson revealed to us that God told him Bush would win “in a walk.” Funny, they didn’t seem to be too upset about that freaky comment. Here’s a tip for the nuts that have hijacked the White House- Remove the beam from your eye before you look for the speck in your brother’s eye.

Also, George Bush doesn't have a monopoly on the bible.

As for "Faith Based Initiative," check this out....

Lets try that again....As for "Faith Based Initiative," check this out....http://iliketowrite.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_iliketowrite_archive.html#107726982475395095

F.B.I (don't you just love the initials) is a big FAT HOAX

As former students at the largest Baptist theological seminary, my husband and I would like the world to know that yes, Baptists can be Democrats. They can even be Progressives/Liberals. After spending our whole lives in the Southern Baptist denomination we left the Baptist church because we were tired of listening to right-wing screeds against gays, Democrats, Liberals, etc. from the pulpit. Yes, an important distinction between Protestants and Catholics (and yes, they're ALL Christians!) is that Protestant denominations believe in the "priesthood of the believer"; i.e., each individual believer can interpret Scripture and deal directly with God without need of an earthly intercessor (priest), since Christ is our intercessor with the Father. Wingers often have a problem with what are called "the hard sayings of Christ" -- e.g., "If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them." "If you have two coats and you see a man who has none, give him one of yours." They'd like to forget the passage from James 1:26-27: "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." Their idea of pollution is gays, drugs, sex-not-for-procreation, Hollywood, etc. OUR idea of pollution is materialism, lying for profit or CYA, status snobbery, sending young people to die for corporate interests -- bet y'all can think of LOTS of others.

As former students at the largest Baptist theological seminary, my husband and I would like the world to know that yes, Baptists can be Democrats. They can even be Progressives/Liberals. After spending our whole lives in the Southern Baptist denomination we left the Baptist church because we were tired of listening to right-wing screeds against gays, Democrats, Liberals, etc. from the pulpit. Yes, an important distinction between Protestants and Catholics (and yes, they're ALL Christians!) is that Protestant denominations believe in the "priesthood of the believer"; i.e., each individual believer can interpret Scripture and deal directly with God without need of an earthly intercessor (priest), since Christ is our intercessor with the Father. Wingers often have a problem with what are called "the hard sayings of Christ" -- e.g., "If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them." "If you have two coats and you see a man who has none, give him one of yours." They'd like to forget the passage from James 1:26-27: "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." Their idea of pollution is gays, drugs, sex-not-for-procreation, Hollywood, etc. OUR idea of pollution is materialism, lying for profit or CYA, status snobbery, sending young people to die for corporate interests -- bet y'all can think of LOTS of others.

LaShawn raises what I've always thought to be an interesting phenomenon in American evangelical Christians: The fact that so much of the way they live runs so harshly counter to what their faith propounds.

For example, how does one reconcile the idea that a Christian gains salvation merely through thought, and cannot earn damnation through actions? The classic examples being Hitler accepting Jesus as his personal savior one second before shooting himself--and goes to heaven. Mother Theresa, despite a lifetime of faith, hope, charity and good works, goes to hell because she didn't accept Jesus as her personal savior.

It presents an inherent contradiction in that one's professed faith becomes completely disconnected from one's life. Oppressing widows and orphans is okay--indeed, any behavior becomes okay--because you have "earned" salvation merely by accepting Jesus as your personal savior.

This, then, opens the door to unspeakable cruelties. Because one's salvation is no longer dependent on the works of one's life, what do those works matter?

What I find interesting is that when it's convienent, the Christian right thinks government shouldn't be involved in religion. That's the whole point behind the "good works can't be done by government" thing, right? But when it comes to controlling other people's behavior, suddenly the government should follow the Bible to the letter.

I wonder if La Shawn Barber is from Utah. The name fits, and the ideology is very much one that I used to hear when I lived in the Beehive State.

When I pointed out to my librul hatin Christ lovin cousin that Jesus was actually a liberal himself, she stopped speaking to me. Which is OK, since she stopped sending me Rush Limpdick's writings also.

George W. Bush is living proof that one can become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal without ever successfully speaking the tongues of men, let alone those of angels.

Faith vs. works I don't think is even a problem in the original Greek, since the Greek word for faith is inextricably tied to the actions that follow it. New Testament faith implies action, not mental assent. So Christians are justified by faith alone, but there is no faith in the absence of works to prove it.

---------------------------------------

It is puzzling that the priesthood of believers is now attributed to "post-modernism," rather than the Reformation. I notice that the Southern Baptists no longer affirm the priesthood of all believers, which I suppose means they no longer are Protestant, much less Baptist.

I guess it's not a big surprise that the SBC now values indoctrination, power, and control over the spiritual development of believers through Bible study.

Good works are meant to be done because they show compassion and love towards one's neighbors

Surely you mean to say that good works are meant to be done out of compassion and love for one's neighbors -- because it's the right thing to do, not because you can issue a press release about it...

[quote]Yes, an important distinction between Protestants and Catholics (and yes, they're ALL Christians!) is that Protestant denominations believe in the "priesthood of the believer"; i.e., each individual believer can interpret Scripture and deal directly with God without need of an earthly intercessor (priest), since Christ is our intercessor with the Father.[/quote]

Catholics can deal directly with God, through prayer and all that other stuff too. Some do read the Bible and think about it. A layperson's prayers are just as valid and listened to by God as a priest's are.

But yes, a priest is often necessary for the sacraments, which confer special Grace.