I didn’t vote for him, but that’s OK: I didn’t vote for a lot of the Presidents we’ve had in my lifetime. In fact, prior to 2000, I had voted in every election since 1984 (the year I turned 18) and never voted for a winning candidate. So what? The voters have spoken, and made their choice.
It’s actually way cool that we have a black President. And what a name: Barack Hussein Obama? Really? Americans elected that guy? How cool is that? I actually think it’s very cool.
I think he’ll be a little more sane on the absolutely insane “war on drugs.” I think he’ll be on the right page when it comes to my fellow sinners, the gays and lesbians. I think he’ll deal with corporate greed appropriately (by which I mean, harshly). I think it’s great that he’s an unabashedly religious Christian–even if I do think that Bible-centric fundamentalist Christianity, from which he springs, is totally wrong theologically, I see him as a good man in that way. People being wrong theologically is common; his heart is in the right place and I appreciate that.
He’s going to pursue his agenda. Which is exactly as he should. I don’t agree with all of it, but I know he ultimately does care about this country and wants to make it a better place.
I didn’t vote for you, Mr. President, but I do appreciate who you are and what an inspiration you are in so many ways. Now the next 4-8 years begins. Good luck to you, sir.
{ 2 comments }
It seems to me that you don’t care much for Bible-centric theology when it says something you disagree with. Because you’re perfectly willing to quote Scripture when you need it to support something you believe.
You know, the whole, "The Bible isn’t authoritative… except when I think it says the Catholic Church is authoritative."
As for your ‘fellow sinners’ the Bible doesn’t say sin = not sin when you want it to.
And, I think, that’s what ultimately turns me off to your version of Catholicism. It’s logically inconsistent and subject to the whims and passions of whomever happens to be interpreting it at the moment. The Bible doesn’t mean what it says unless you say it does, sin isn’t sin unless you say it is… I mean, what’s even the point of having the Bible if you can make it say whatever you like? Hell, your position on homosexuality isn’t even consistent with what your Pope says!
You say Bible-centric theology isn’t common to Protestantism? Your brand of Bible-when-needed theology certainly isn’t common to Papal-lead Catholicism.
So I guess we’re both on the outs of our particular sects.
Anyone can use scripture to support almost anything. Anyone who thinks differently hasn’t read it much, obviously. Nor have they paid attention to the endless arguments between Christians who all claim to be interpreting the Bible correctly, yet vehemently disagree with each other on countless issues.
Bible-centric Christianity is an outgrowth of Protestantism, but it is not Protestantism itself. That’s just a fact. The early reformers didn’t suggest that anyone could pick up the Bible and decide for themselves whatever they wanted to think. That’s a form of theological liberalism (and I might add arrogance) first embraced by the Baptists and is now common in most Evangelical and Fundamentalist sects–and I’m sorry to tell you, but I have met quite a few Protestants, including working ministers, who basically think evangelicals and fundamentalists are nuts and do a lot of damage. So you, sir, are not entitled to say you speak for or represent all Protestants in your theological views. You do not, and much of what you believe is directly contrary to what most mainline Protestant sects believe and teach. I keep trying to give you references on that, and you keep ignoring it. [shrug] I’m tired of arguing with you about it. But just so you know, the world isn’t divided into “Catholic” and “Protestant.” Christianity’s a lot bigger than that; indeed, at last count there were some 33,000 sects of Protesatantism. Nobody can speak for all Protestants; it simply can’t be done.
By the way, the Bible is of course authoritative. I’ve explained that many times already, but clearly you pay very little attention to anything I say on this matter. But in truth, it’s you who reads and interprets the Bible however you feel like, who follows the whims of whatever speakers or writers you find most compelling and in agreement with your point of view. That’s just the nature of fundamentalism; you guys just run to whatever church meeting you want to hear people tell you what to think. And if you stop liking what you’re hearing, you run off to form a new church or just shop around until the preachers are more to your style.
Indeed, your whole "Bible-only" theological view is a sham, and the thousands of books written by Fundamentalists is the most undeniable proof of that. You have a library full of them–so clearly, you don’t just read the Bible, you follow the teachings of whatever men whose writing or preaching you find most convincing or compelling. Which is of course your right, and doesn’t make me not-your-friend, but I won’t stop saying what I believe just to make you happy.
I chose a sect that’s a lot less loosy-goosy than yours is. We know perfectly well that the scriptures, which are infallible, are worthless without an infallible interpreter. And, since it’s actually the Church established by Jesus and the Apostles at Pentecost, I’m fine with it even when I sometimes disagree with its leaders. I’m allowed to do that–they said so in Vatican II.
Comments on this entry are closed.