[BurlyShirley]

I thought this was a pretty good quote that just about sums up what John Kerry is about, from the horses mouth:

"I am a politician who happens to be a catholic."

Is it just me, or should it be the other way around? If you can trivialize your supposed faith just to make your stance on abortion sound logical, than it pretty much says to me that you dont really have any to begin with, and that he is, of course, just pandering for votes. I am not, as I always say, a religious person in any sense, but if I actually were catholic and beleived it, there is no way Id say abortions were ok, because the pope has come out against them, therefore John Kerry's blessing of them is a definite condemnation IMO. So we can draw two things from this.

(A) John Kerry wants to be president so bad, he's willing to go to HELL for it.
or....
(B) He's just a liar, in which case he'll go to hell if hell exists, and if he doesnt beleive in hell, he's even more of a liar.

 

[Changleen]

Politics and religion should not go together in a 'civilised' nation. The sooner the US figures that out the better for everyone in the world.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Politics and religion should not go together in a 'civilised' nation. The sooner the US figures that out the better for everyone in the world.

As long as the majority of a country is religious to some extent, the country's morality will be based off that religion. Get used to it or keep whining.

 

[Silver]

or (c), he doesn't think a theocracy is a good idea.

 

[Changleen]

As long as the majority of a country is religious to some extent, the country's morality will be based off that religion. Get used to it or keep whining.

I'll keep whining thanks. Ever noticed how that, for example, most of Europe is basically Christian but they keep religion out of Politics? Ever noticed how Japan, Russia, China to name a few manage to do the same? Only in the US and, funnily enough the countries of your 'evil enemies' is Religion an issue in politics. Because US politics continues to pander to the lowest common denominator, your policies, creadibility and effectiveness continue to suffer both at home and abroad.

 

[BurlyShirley]

or (c), he doesn't think a theocracy is a good idea.

Fine, but that also proves either A or B.

 

[Silver]

Fine, but that also proves either A or B.

Not really. Find me a spot where Jesus advocated control of the government. I don't remember him trying to get his disciples into political jobs...

 

[BurlyShirley]

I'll keep whining thanks. Ever noticed how that, for example, most of Europe is basically Christian but they keep religion out of Politics?

Partisanship here is SO bad that they have to pander to the lowest common denominator, though, those that are religious would argue that that's actually the highest common denominator, the most important of all. This is not the fault of politics itself, but of US culture.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Not really. Find me a spot where Jesus advocated control of the government. I don't remember him trying to get his disciples into political jobs...

Slow today?
If a catholic endorses abortion, he's in the wrong as a catholic. Says the pope. If he's not a serious catholic, he's a pandering liar, if he's just going against it, thats (a).

 

[Changleen]

Partisanship here is SO bad that they have to pander to the lowest common denominator, though, those that are religious would argue that that's actually the highest common denominator, the most important of all. This is not the fault of politics itself, but of US culture.

Agreed. Don't you wish your politicians would try to be raising the bar, rather than lowering it all the time? And shouldn't Politicians be playing a MAJOR role in the direction and quality of US culture?

 

[Silver]

Slow today?
If a catholic endorses abortion, he's in the wrong as a catholic. Says the pope. If he's not a serious catholic, he's a pandering liar, if he's just going against it, thats (a).

So? Bush doesn't go to church. Shows none of the traits that you'd expect a born again Christian to show (humility, compassion, peacefulness.)

Same sh!t, different pile.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Agreed. Don't you wish your politicians would try to be raising the bar, rather than lowering it all the time? And shouldn't Politicians be playing a MAJOR role in the direction and quality of US culture?

I honestly dont really find it as that much of an issue, and Im not christian or catholic or anything. Im just an apethist (i think i made that word up). I find that the republicans and their values tend to coencide with thier christian beliefs and I dont have any issue with those beliefs and I am generally conservative, so its a fit. I find that democrats will pander to whatever will get votes, be it religion, welfare, tax cuts, abortions...Its just not genuine in my eyes. I place alot of emphasis on what makes a man, and being consistent is improtant in my eyes when choosing a leader. This is not about John Kerry flip flopping as much as it is about his entire base as a human in politics. With republicans, you usually know what you're going to get, with Democrats, its a crap shoot. I will say that I honestly did not mind bill clinton in alot of ways, because, though I disagreed with some of his views, he was just a dude who was the president. He got caught "lying" but not about something any man wouldnt. I just dont get that most of the time from Democrats and I just cant support VERY liberal people because its too far from what I feel is right.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Same sh!t, different pile.

So then, enough with the Bush bashing on religion. Thats the point of the thread.

 

[Silver]

So then, enough with the Bush bashing on religion. Thats the point of the thread.

I'll stop when we have an Attorney General who doesn't feel the need to get anointed with cooking oil when he takes office.

You make it sound like Bush's religious beliefs exist independent of everything else. If they did, I wouldn't make an issue out of it.

 

[MikeD]

Slow today?
If a catholic endorses abortion, he's in the wrong as a catholic. Says the pope. If he's not a serious catholic, he's a pandering liar, if he's just going against it, thats (a).

There's a line between personally doing what you think is morally right/endorsing what you think is morally right and legally forcing others to do what you think is morally right.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about man's laws, other than what's ceasar's is ceasar's, and what's god's is god's. Although I'm not a Christian, I can't see Jesus petitioning Congress to make anything at all illegal. I can see him ignoring everything about the government and going to where people are hurting and trying to ease their pain, and lead them by example instead of condemning them for what they have done.

Frankly, I can't understand that how, if you truly believe in salvation by Christ, you can function in the modern world. If I really, really understood that life was the merest transitory part of an eternal existence, and I knew the way to make that eternity blissfull instead of painful, I wouldn't be much worried about anything at all...I'd be living off scraps and trying my hardest to help the most wretched people I could find in any way I could. I'd be accosting people in the streets wearing my rags, trying to tell them that they're on the wrong track, and they should join me...in other words, I'd be a homeless lunatic, and happy about it.

MD

 

[BurlyShirley]

You make it sound like Bush's religious beliefs exist independent of everything else. If they did, I wouldn't make an issue out of it.

So you'd rather have a guy that's either (a) or (b)?

 

[Silver]

So you'd rather have a guy that's either (a) or (b)?

That's the choice you get in the US. If you don't like, move somewhere civilized

 

[BurlyShirley]

There's a line between personally doing what you think is morally right/endorsing what you think is morally right and legally forcing others to do what you think is morally right.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about man's laws, other than what's ceasar's is ceasar's, and what's god's is god's. Although I'm not a Christian, I can't see Jesus petitioning Congress to make anything at all illegal. I can see him ignoring everything about the government and going to where people are hurting and trying to ease their pain, and lead them by example instead of condemning them for what they have done.

Regardless of what Jesus said or did, If he's a Catholic, a true Catholic, what the Pope says goes. If you're a true christian and given the opportunity to stop the murder of a million babies a year, you stop it.

 

[Changleen]

If you're a true christian and given the opportunity to stop the murder of a million babies a year, you stop it.

So no one of note in power in ANY country right now is a 'true christian' - least of all the Pope, who's sitting on a **** pile of cash which could be used for causes other than anothr coat of gold paint for the vatican.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So no one of note in power in ANY country right now is a 'true christian' - least of all the Pope, who's sitting on a **** pile of cash which could be used for causes other than anothr coat of gold paint for the vatican.

Hey, he's the pope. Only he knows...

I dont make the rules.

 

[Changleen]

Hey, he's the pope. Only he knows...

what a great scam Catholicism is.

 

[BurlyShirley]

what a great scam Catholicism is.

I agree.
I bet youre a scientologist though.

 

[Changleen]

If I 'believe' in anything, which I try not to, I believe in M-Theory.

 

[BurlyShirley]

If I 'believe' in anything, which I try not to, I believe in M-Theory.

I just dont piss in the sink. I dont know why

 

[Batman]

HAHA, A Republican attacking Kerry's choice of words? That's beyond laughable!

"To be honest, I'm really not that concerned..."

 

[BurlyShirley]

HAHA, A Republican attacking Kerry's choice of words? That's beyond laughable!

odd that you laughed then...

genius.

 

[MikeD]

Regardless of what Jesus said or did, If he's a Catholic, a true Catholic, what the Pope says goes.

As true as that may be, it's a pretty bizarre thing when you think about it.

Oddly enough, though, Kerry's probably representative of a large portion of the US Catholic population...disenfranchised with the establishment, in opposition to many of its dictates, but not willing to drop the identity yet.

MD

 

[Batman]

It can't be helped, it's just so ridiculous.

Anyone else see Daily Show tonight?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

well, catholicism its not as rigid you put is BS.
its quite a liberal religion compared to most other major religions.
you can have your interpretation, and not be 100% with the pope, and still you can call yourself a catholic.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

by the rigid of your standard, then no christian is a true christian, since there are like a million kinds of christians, and most with contradictory positions. thus only one or very few of them are right.

thus, chances are they are all(or at least most) full of chit.

i mean, protestants are full of it, since the bible somewhere talks about communion, and they dont do it. catholics are full of it as well, since the bible doesnt talk about the pope as such, nor defines a person with his rights.
i dont know much abuot the orthodox, in any of their presentations, but i bet they are full of it as well.

the only "religion" that is not full of chit is atheism, since the only requirement is to not believe in god. it just isnt posible to partially believe it, or to interpret it differently. but no candidate would accept it, in the US and most fundamentalist nations at least, it will make him out of race inmediately.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

uh, and dubya is less of a protestant than kerry a catholic!!!!!
(following the mine is better than yours).

christianism as dubya takes it, is a literal interpretation of the bible, and the 10 commandments. and he has signed more executions than any other. where is the dont kill? and no crap here about they are criminals and chit. no matter what they were, or if they deserved, they were killed and bush aproved in opposition of the bible where it says no killing. (and frying somebody in the chair aint no self-defense either)

 

[MikeD]

David killed Goliath, didn't he? He was a pretty popular guy...

"thou shalt not kill" is perhaps better translated as "thou shalt not murder," I'd think, given the fact that lots of biblical heroes kill. Of course, then, the definition of 'murder' comes into question.

To top that, the New Testament *should*, as I understand it, supercede 100% of the old testament. Jesus was something new, right? God's redemtion of mankind...and a break from the Hebrew traditions (at least it was decided this way after the fact...)

MD

 

[Damn True]

To top that, the New Testament *should*, as I understand it, supercede 100% of the old testament. Jesus was something new, right? God's redemtion of mankind...and a break from the Hebrew traditions (at least it was decided this way after the fact...)

MD

That is exactly the case:

In Prophecy:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


Hbr 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.


Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

..and in the word of Jesus:

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:20)

 

[Damn True]

But....

CHRIST'S USE OF THE BIBLE
Jesus Christ assumed the absolute authority of the Old Testament as God's word. Along these lines, Roger Nicole has written:


At the very threshold of his public ministry, our Lord, in his dramatic victory over Satan's threefold onslaught, rested his whole defense on the authority of three passages of Scripture. He quoted the Old Testament in support of his teaching to the crowds; he quoted it in his discussions with antagonistic Jews; he quoted it in answer to questions both captious and sincere; he quoted it in instructing the disciples who would have readily accepted his teaching on his own authority; he referred to it in his prayers, when alone in the presence of the Father; he quoted it on the cross, when his sufferings could easily have drawn his attention elsewhere; he quoted it in his resurrection glory, when any limitation, real or alleged, of the days of his flesh was clearly superseded. Whatever may be the differences between the pictures of Jesus drawn by the four Gospels, they certainly agree in their representation of our Lord's attitude toward the Old Testament: one of constant use and of unquestioning endorsement of its authority.1
Christ's approach to the Hebrew Scriptures was uniformly an acceptance of its claim to divine authority. When he quoted from it to establish anything, he considered the case closed, and that was the end of the matter. In John 10:34, he quotes Psalm 82:6, saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods?" In this passage, he refers to the Psalms as the law, indicating that he took for granted that the authority of the Psalms was on an equal footing with that of the law of Moses. Note the element of finality in this passage. Once He has cited this authority, the discussion is over. In Matthew 12:3 he asks in wonder, "Have you not read?", while in Matthew 22:29 Jesus said to the Sadducees, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

These passages are indicative of the underlying attitude that Christ had, that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). A number of times He emphatically states that the Scripture must be fulfilled. In Matthew 5:17,18, he says "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets." Here, He puts together the law and the prophets, indicating that they are equal in authority. After the resurrection, in Luke 24:25- 27, he states, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." In the same chapter, verses 44 and 46, Jesus says, "These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me." Here Jesus treats as equal in authority the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, which were the technical terms for the three parts of the Hebrew Bible.

Jesus treats the Old Testament in such a way as to assume that their inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture. In Matthew 22:45, the argument Jesus presents hinges on a single word of the text, while in Matthew 22:32, his argument hangs on the tense of a word.

Jesus felt free to juxtapose two entirely separate verses of the Scriptures in Matthew 22:36-40, which states:


"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said unto him, "`Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.' This is the first great commandment. And the second is like unto it, `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'"
The first of these quotations is from Deuteronomy 6:4,5, while the other is from Leviticus 19:18. These two separate verses, although from completely different sections of the Pentateuch, are treated as equally authoritative. In fact, Christ quoted all parts of the Scriptures in the same way: the law, the prophets, and the writings. Moreover, He accepted without question the historicity of everything in the Hebrew Bible. He accepted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He took for granted the trustworthiness of the accounts in the Bible of creation, of the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, of Noah's flood, of God's covenant with Abraham, of Daniel's prophecy, of all of the historical books, and of Jonah's episode of three days in a great fish. In all cases, Jesus was very matter-of-fact about accepting these things.2

In Luke 16:19-21, Jesus makes very clear the finality of the authority of the Old Testament. Here he concludes that "if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (v. 31). Here, he puts together Moses and the prophets, and makes a very definite statement about their final authority. He makes a similar statement in John 5:46,47: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Here, Jesus equates His word with that of Moses. According to Him, the teaching of the Old Testament is on a par with His own teaching.

 

[MikeD]

But....

CHRIST'S USE OF THE BIBLE
Jesus Christ assumed the absolute authority of the Old Testament as God's word. Along these lines, Roger Nicole has written:

Although he cites it during his life, as a good Jew would have, doesn't his death and sacrifice seem to override the old stuff once it's happened? His blood being a 'new covenant' and all? I think it's at least a valid point...and perhaps also just a convenient one, to help dissolve all the contradictions.

An evangelical friend of mine once told me the Old Testament was 'god's law' and the New was 'god's grace,' which supplanted the old. That's where I'm basing this line of thought...I'm no biblical scholar myself. But it seems some christians think this way.

MD

MD

 

[Silver]

Although he cites it during his life, as a good Jew would have, doesn't his death and sacrifice seem to override the old stuff once it's happened? His blood being a 'new covenant' and all? I think it's at least a valid point...and perhaps also just a convenient one, to help dissolve all the contradictions.

An evangelical friend of mine once told me the Old Testament was 'god's law' and the New was 'god's grace,' which supplanted the old. That's where I'm basing this line of thought...I'm no biblical scholar myself. But it seems some christians think this way.

MD

MD

Yeah, but then you get into the fact that Jesus didn't say a whole lot about stuff like homosexuals. He was really into the whole love thing, when he wasn't busy whipping moneylenders out of the temple (funny that, Jesus didn't like commerce in the house of the Lord. Whoa...)

So if you want your fire and brimstone, you have to go the the OT, or head north to Paul, both of which have some wierd ass stuff you have to try to explain...

 

[golgiaparatus]

Bush is Catholic?!

Not a good one though eh? Didn't the pope tell him, in person, that he needed to back off of the Iraq war Iraq (this was before the invasion if I remember correctly).

See I would have guessed GW was Southern Babtist.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Bush is Catholic?!

No.

Kerry is catholic, bush is wiccan.

 

[golgiaparatus]

No.

Kerry is catholic, bush is wiccan.

Ahh I must have misread...

Bush is Wiccan? Thats funny

 

[Andyman_1970]

Not really. Find me a spot where Jesus advocated control of the government. I don't remember him trying to get his disciples into political jobs...

Peter and John when they are before the Sanhedrin they say "there is no other Name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" they are "borrowing" this from Ceasar and asserting that Jesus is this Name not Ceasar. They were not trying to take a political office, but they did make some very politically subversive statements when talking about Jesus.