Christian?
Tony Cooper
religion.
I was talking to a Brazilian today that made the comment that Brazil
is 60% Christian. I asked him what the other 40% is, and he replied
"Catholic".
Some time ago I was on an airplane idly conversing with my seatmate; a
total stranger. She had been doing missionary work in Canada with a
tribe of Indians with the intent of converting them to Christianity.
I asked her what form of religion the Indians practiced before
conversion, and she said they were mostly Catholic. (Meaning most of
them, and not most of each)
I am nominally Catholic. I've never thought of myself as not being
Christian.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Richard Fontana
I have attempted twice to start a thread with this subject but no one's
been interested in discussing it. I have noticed this
too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US, assuming it
ever did. I've been at schools where there were "Christian" student
organizations which were understood to exclude Catholics, and I think in
common usage today if you describe someone as a "Christian" you imply
stronly that he or she is not Catholic and that probably he or she is not
even a member of a mainline Protestant sect.
I think it's true that Catholics themselves sort of naturally think of
themselves as being Christian, and that the exclusion is a bit
jarring. I'm not sure whether it's rooted in anti-Catholicism or whether
it's just a natural narrowing of the meaning of "Catholic".
I think the narrower use of "Christian" may mean, in particular,
"Evangelical Christianity in general", which might explain both your
Brazilian and you Canadian case.
Richard Fontana
> I'm not sure whether it's rooted in anti-Catholicism or whether
> it's just a natural narrowing of the meaning of "Catholic".
Sorry, I meant "...of the meaning of Christian".
Skitt
"Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010719...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > Disclaimer: This post is intended to one on word usage, and not
> > religion.
> >
> > I was talking to a Brazilian today that made the comment that Brazil
> > is 60% Christian. I asked him what the other 40% is, and he replied
> > "Catholic".
> >
> > Some time ago I was on an airplane idly conversing with my seatmate; a
> > total stranger. She had been doing missionary work in Canada with a
> > tribe of Indians with the intent of converting them to Christianity.
> > I asked her what form of religion the Indians practiced before
> > conversion, and she said they were mostly Catholic. (Meaning most of
> > them, and not most of each)
> >
> > I am nominally Catholic. I've never thought of myself as not being
> > Christian.
>
> I have attempted twice to start a thread with this subject but no one's
> been interested in discussing it.
I thought this was a joke!
> I have noticed this
> too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US, assuming it
> ever did.
That's news to me.
> I've been at schools where there were "Christian" student
> organizations which were understood to exclude Catholics, and I think in
> common usage today if you describe someone as a "Christian" you imply
> stronly that he or she is not Catholic and that probably he or she is not
> even a member of a mainline Protestant sect.
Wow! What will those Christians think of next!
> I think it's true that Catholics themselves sort of naturally think of
> themselves as being Christian, and that the exclusion is a bit
> jarring. I'm not sure whether it's rooted in anti-Catholicism or whether
> it's just a natural narrowing of the meaning of "Catholic".
>
> I think the narrower use of "Christian" may mean, in particular,
> "Evangelical Christianity in general", which might explain both your
> Brazilian and you Canadian case.
That's a new one on me. My wife is Catholic, and she would be devastated to
find out that she's not a Christian.
ObAUE: I think the Brazilians and Canadians in question have it all wrong.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Tony Cooper
> I think it's true that Catholics themselves sort of naturally think
of
> themselves as being Christian, and that the exclusion is a bit
> jarring.
I haven't been to mass for a few Sundays, but I don't think they've
skunked Christ.
> I think the narrower use of "Christian" may mean, in particular,
> "Evangelical Christianity in general", which might explain both your
> Brazilian and you Canadian case.
Both were of the "born again" Baptist ilk. I didn't initiate further
conversation on the topic. I have no argument with their beliefs, but
I'm slightly offended that they argue with mine.
Tony Cooper
> > I have noticed this
> > too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US,
assuming it
> > ever did.
>
> That's news to me.
>
But not news to students and graduates of Bob Jones University.
Despite Bob Jones III backing down on the Larry King show, their
position is adamantly that Catholics are not part of Christianity.
John Seeliger
Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.21.010719...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > Disclaimer: This post is intended to one on word usage, and not
> > religion.
> >
> > I was talking to a Brazilian today that made the comment that Brazil
> > is 60% Christian. I asked him what the other 40% is, and he replied
> > "Catholic".
> >
> > Some time ago I was on an airplane idly conversing with my seatmate; a
> > total stranger. She had been doing missionary work in Canada with a
> > tribe of Indians with the intent of converting them to Christianity.
> > I asked her what form of religion the Indians practiced before
> > conversion, and she said they were mostly Catholic. (Meaning most of
> > them, and not most of each)
> >
> > I am nominally Catholic. I've never thought of myself as not being
> > Christian.
>
> I have attempted twice to start a thread with this subject but no one's
> been interested in discussing it. I have noticed this
> too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US, assuming it
> ever did. I've been at schools where there were "Christian" student
> organizations which were understood to exclude Catholics, and I think in
> common usage today if you describe someone as a "Christian" you imply
> stronly that he or she is not Catholic and that probably he or she is not
> even a member of a mainline Protestant sect.
Really? I was involved in the Baptist Student Union[1] (BSU) at a major
public university[2] and I would say the most and hopefully all of us
considered the University Catholic Union(?) to be a Christian organization
and one time all the campus Christian organizations had a progressive
dinner going from one group's building to the next. I am pretty sure the
UCU was involved in it. Anyway, I would consider a Catholic to be a
Christian if he or she was born-again (see John 3. I'm not making this
up.). What do you consider to be a "mainline Protestant sect"? Are you
implying that Baptists would not be considered Christians or that Baptists
would not be considered a "mainline Protestant sect"? The building next to
us was the Campus Christian Center (or Tri-C). They used to be called the
Church of Christ Student Center, IIRC and I assume were therefore supported
by the local churches of Christ. Unlike a member of a Baptist church who
would be called a Baptist and would consider himself or herself a
Christian, a member of a church or Christ would simply be a Christian and
wouldn't have a name associated with a denomination, AFAIK. We were also
told about one campus group, "the Local Church," who was associated with
the "Church of <fill in the blank>" (ex. The Church of Arlington) that was
supposedly basically a cult. I never met anyone from the and I don't think
they participated in the progressive dinner.
>
> I think it's true that Catholics themselves sort of naturally think of
> themselves as being Christian, and that the exclusion is a bit
> jarring. I'm not sure whether it's rooted in anti-Catholicism or whether
> it's just a natural narrowing of the meaning of "Catholic".
>
> I think the narrower use of "Christian" may mean, in particular,
> "Evangelical Christianity in general", which might explain both your
> Brazilian and you Canadian case.
See to me, Baptists are evangelical[3] and mainline.
>
[1]- Now known as the Baptist Student Ministry. Funded by the Baptist
General Convention of Texas I believe.
[2]- The University of Texas at Arlington
[3]- We have plenty of missionaries worldwide preaching the euangelion or
gospel and are evangelical in the sense of a conservative, Protestant
mainline denomination.
Benjamin Lukoff
> I have attempted twice to start a thread with this subject but no one's
> been interested in discussing it. I have noticed this
> too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US, assuming it
> ever did. I've been at schools where there were "Christian" student
> organizations which were understood to exclude Catholics, and I think in
> common usage today if you describe someone as a "Christian" you imply
> stronly that he or she is not Catholic and that probably he or she is not
> even a member of a mainline Protestant sect.
I disagree. "Christian" in common usage does include "Catholic", at
least in the Seattle area.
Mike Oliver
>
> Skitt wrote:
>
ref> I have noticed this
ref> too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the
ref> US,assuming it ever did.
>>
>> That's news to me.
>>
> But not news to students and graduates of Bob Jones University.
> Despite Bob Jones III backing down on the Larry King show, their
> position is adamantly that Catholics are not part of Christianity.
There are certainly some groups that hold that Catholics are not
Christian. For that matter there are Catholics that hold that
Protestants are not Christian. Members of both groups have doubts
about Mormons, Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. For anyone
not committed to one of these positions, it just looks like normal
sectarian bickering, and there doesn't seem to be any particular
reason to restrict the word "Christian" to those accepted by one
of the factions.
As to Richard's descriptive observation that it has become so
restricted in practice, I don't think that's true as a general rule.
Richard Fontana
But this notion of "born again" necessarily excludes most Catholics; it's
an evangelical Protestant religious concept that is foreign to
mainstream Catholicism. If someone raised Catholic decides he is "born
again", it's understood that he's no longer identifying as a Catholic
(though I suppose the RCC will officially continue to consider him
Catholic); he will probably no longer attend Catholic churches, in favor
of evangelical churches. For all practical purposes, a Catholic who has
been "born again" is by definition no longer a Catholic.
> What do you consider to be a "mainline Protestant sect"? Are you
> implying that Baptists would not be considered Christians or that Baptists
> would not be considered a "mainline Protestant sect"?
Of course Baptists are Christians. I'm not sure whether they are
considered "mainline Protestant". Maybe my understanding of "mainline
Protestant sect" is too narrow, but I think of it as including
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans, and possibly not
including Baptists in general (though it might depend on the particular
sectarian orientation of the Baptist church in question). I may be
incorrect in this. I sense that fundamentalist and evangelical groups,
who are by definition not considered "mainline Protestant", are
sort of historically rooted in the Baptist branch of Protestant
Christianity.
I can't find any definitive online definition of "mainline
Protestant". It seems clear that it includes the following denominations:
Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of
Christ. Some web pages indicate that at least the "American Baptists" are
mainline, while others treat Baptists as "non-mainline".
> The building next to
> us was the Campus Christian Center (or Tri-C). They used to be called the
> Church of Christ Student Center, IIRC and I assume were therefore supported
> by the local churches of Christ. Unlike a member of a Baptist church who
> would be called a Baptist and would consider himself or herself a
> Christian, a member of a church or Christ would simply be a Christian and
> wouldn't have a name associated with a denomination, AFAIK.
Well, if there has been a growth in membership of such religious
organizations that are "churches of Christ" but do not identify with any
sort of named national denomination, that may explain why there is this
shift in usage of "Christian". Only these Christians are particularly
calling themselves "Christians", as opposed to Baptists or Catholics or
Lutherans or Methodists or what have you. I don't really know enough
about this phenomenon to say. I thought that many of the self-identified
fundamentalist Christians, born-again Christians, or members of
conservative "Christian" political groups were members of Baptist or
Baptist-affiliated churches and had conspicuously few members of the other
major Christian denominations.
> See to me, Baptists are evangelical[3] and mainline.
[...]
> [3]- We have plenty of missionaries worldwide preaching the euangelion or
> gospel and are evangelical in the sense of a conservative, Protestant
> mainline denomination.
I'm not sure that's what "evangelical" means in the common modern use of
"evangelical Christianity". It doesn't refer to missionary work, but, it
seems to me, a particular sort of style of religious worship or a
particular sort of religious culture.
Franke
Tony Cooper wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>
> > > I have noticed this
> > > too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US,
> assuming it
> > > ever did.
> >
> > That's news to me.
> >
> But not news to students and graduates of Bob Jones University.
> Despite Bob Jones III backing down on the Larry King show, their
> position is adamantly that Catholics are not part of Christianity.
The people who do not accept Catholics and mainline Protestants as
Christians are fundamentalist born-again believers in the literal
truth of
whatever version of the Bible is taught at Bob Jones U and all those
other "Capital 'C' Christian institutions of higher-level
indoctrination".
This has been true for at least 30 years that I am aware of.
In another post in this thread, an evangelical born-again Baptist
John Seeliger wrote:
> I was involved in the Baptist Student Union[1] (BSU) at a major
> public university[U Texas, Arlington] and I would say the most and
> hopefully all of usconsidered the University Catholic Union(?)
> to be a Christian organizationand one time all the campus Christian
>
> organizations had a progressivedinner going from one group's
> building
> to the next. I am pretty sure theUCU was involved in it. Anyway,
> I would consider a Catholic to be a Christian if he or she was
> born-again (see John 3. I'm not making this up.).
Mr Seeliger is decidedly not Dave Barry in disguise and he does
express the prejudice of bible-thumpers everywhere about who is
and is not a Christian. If you ain't born-again, you jest ain't a
"Capital 'C' Christian". His ecumenical attitude toward Catholics
is most generous, most laudable. That is the problem with these
"Capital 'C' Christians": They cannot understand that Catholics
do not need to be born again according to fundamentalist bible-
thumper criteria to be Christians, and because Catholics
are not born again according to the definition of "born again"
provided
by the fundies, the "Capital 'C' Christians" do not consider them
Christians. If they were born again according to that definition,
however,
they would no longer be Catholics but fundamentalist born-again
"Capital 'C' Christians". Of course, Catholics do consider themselves
born again as a result of being baptised shortly after birth (John
3:3),
but the "Capital 'C' Christians" do not accept this as adequate. "Do
it our way or it ain't done" is their motto.
Anyone who lives in the Bible Belt, small towns in the South, the
Mid-West, or the mountains in California and Nevada knows this.
Spehro Pefhany
> That's a new one on me. My wife is Catholic, and she would be devastated to
> find out that she's not a Christian.
If they are not Christian, then who the hell is that up on all those
crucifixes?
Best regards,
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Contributions invited->The AVR-gcc FAQ is at: http://www.BlueCollarLinux.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Martin Ambuhl
> The people who do not accept Catholics and mainline Protestants as
> Christians are fundamentalist born-again believers in the literal
> truth of
> whatever version of the Bible is taught at Bob Jones U and all those
> other "Capital 'C' Christian institutions of higher-level
> indoctrination".
> This has been true for at least 30 years that I am aware of.
It was true (of Catholics) when my mother went there 60 years ago.
Somehow she managed to escape to UKy and then Stetson. Stetson is
an interesting case. It was one of those southern Baptist schools that
allowed very early (at least by the late 40s) liberal theologians and
other teachers unacceptable to the right-wing Southern Baptists. The
school cut most formal links to the SBC (and its Florida branch) by the
end of the 60s.
As a side note, many of those of us who were raised in the southern Baptist
churches of the 40s, 50s, and 60s have a hard time admitting
that the current controllers of the Southern Baptist Convention are
Baptists. Baptists were early fighters for separation of church and
state; current "Baptist" leadership is against it. Baptists
historically opposed hierarchy; current "Baptist" leadership insists
on it. Baptists historically fought against the imposition of creeds;
current "Baptist" leadership insists on it.
John Seeliger
<3B57BB12...@seed.net.tw>...
...
I actually didn't define what I meant by being born again. I merely said
that they are Christians if they are born-again. I would say the same
about Baptists. Debating what the meaning of born-again would is in this
newsgroup probably wouldn't be a good idea. I wouldn't generally argue
with a Catholic who says that he or she is born again. Many Catholics I
know though would be loathed to call themselves born-again.
John Seeliger
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, John Seeliger wrote:
> > Really? I was involved in the Baptist Student Union[1] (BSU) at a
major
> > public university[2] and I would say the most and hopefully all of us
> > considered the University Catholic Union(?) to be a Christian
organization
> > and one time all the campus Christian organizations had a progressive
> > dinner going from one group's building to the next. I am pretty sure
the
> > UCU was involved in it. Anyway, I would consider a Catholic to be a
> > Christian if he or she was born-again (see John 3. I'm not making this
> > up.).
>
> But this notion of "born again" necessarily excludes most Catholics; it's
> an evangelical Protestant religious concept that is foreign to
> mainstream Catholicism. If someone raised Catholic decides he is "born
> again", it's understood that he's no longer identifying as a Catholic
> (though I suppose the RCC will officially continue to consider him
> Catholic); he will probably no longer attend Catholic churches, in favor
> of evangelical churches. For all practical purposes, a Catholic who has
> been "born again" is by definition no longer a Catholic.
I have heard that there are Catholic churches that consider themselves
"born-again". I'm not sure I know of any specific ones, but I kind of had
the impression, though perhaps wrongly, that they were kind of like Baptist
churches, but just Catholic in name and affiliation. Anyway, I believe and
certainly hope that most Catholics have been "born-again" whether they
understand what that means. Many Catholics (and Baptists too) might
disagree or not understand what Jesus meant by being "born-again", but I
hope that they would at least acknowledge that He did say that that was a
requirement to be in His Kingdom. Therefore, I don't find myself doubting
the Christianity of most Catholics I meet, whether they call themselves
"born-again" or not. How am I to know?
>
> > What do you consider to be a "mainline Protestant sect"? Are you
> > implying that Baptists would not be considered Christians or that
Baptists
> > would not be considered a "mainline Protestant sect"?
>
> Of course Baptists are Christians. I'm not sure whether they are
> considered "mainline Protestant". Maybe my understanding of "mainline
> Protestant sect" is too narrow, but I think of it as including
> Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans, and possibly not
> including Baptists in general (though it might depend on the particular
> sectarian orientation of the Baptist church in question). I may be
> incorrect in this. I sense that fundamentalist and evangelical groups,
> who are by definition not considered "mainline Protestant", are
> sort of historically rooted in the Baptist branch of Protestant
> Christianity.
I'm not sure about the history of most denominations. I believe the
Eastern Orthodox church split with Rome over whether the Bishop of Rome was
really more important than the other bishops and then the Eastern church
had popes of their own for a while. Then Luther circa 1520 founded his own
church to protest indulgences and he translated the Bible in German. And
shortly after this (circa 1530) Zwingli and some others in and around
Switzerland who were called Anabaptists (i.e. one who baptizes again)
former their church because they didn't agree with baptizing babies but
only those who had professed a faith in Christ; hence they re-baptized many
who had been baptized as newborns. This (baptized only on a profession of
faith) is similar to the beliefs and practices of church of Christ,
Baptist, Bible, Assemblies of God and Pentecostal AFAIK. I am not sure
though how those other groups came into being. The Baptist and the Bible
are very close in beliefs though.
>
> I can't find any definitive online definition of "mainline
> Protestant". It seems clear that it includes the following
denominations:
> Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of
> Christ. Some web pages indicate that at least the "American Baptists"
are
> mainline, while others treat Baptists as "non-mainline".
I believe the Baptist and Church of Christ are fairly similar except that
most Church of Christ believe in baptism is necessary for salvation and
that you can lose your salvation and they don't use musical instruments in
the church.
>
> > The building next to
> > us was the Campus Christian Center (or Tri-C). They used to be called
the
> > Church of Christ Student Center, IIRC and I assume were therefore
supported
> > by the local churches of Christ. Unlike a member of a Baptist church
who
> > would be called a Baptist and would consider himself or herself a
> > Christian, a member of a church or Christ would simply be a Christian
and
> > wouldn't have a name associated with a denomination, AFAIK.
>
> Well, if there has been a growth in membership of such religious
> organizations that are "churches of Christ" but do not identify with any
> sort of named national denomination, that may explain why there is this
> shift in usage of "Christian". Only these Christians are particularly
> calling themselves "Christians", as opposed to Baptists or Catholics or
> Lutherans or Methodists or what have you. I don't really know enough
> about this phenomenon to say. I thought that many of the self-identified
> fundamentalist Christians, born-again Christians, or members of
> conservative "Christian" political groups were members of Baptist or
> Baptist-affiliated churches and had conspicuously few members of the
other
> major Christian denominations.
I do recall that Ken Starr is church of Christ. Not saying that he is part
of the Christian coalition though many might think so. Can't recall what
Pat Robertson is. Maybe Baptist but he seems almost Pentecostal. Probably
a lot of Assemblies of God and Pentecostal in the CC. But I would
definitely expect Baptists, Pentecostal and Assemblies of God to refer to
themselves as born-again.
>
> > See to me, Baptists are evangelical[3] and mainline.
>
> [...]
>
> > [3]- We have plenty of missionaries worldwide preaching the euangelion
or
> > gospel and are evangelical in the sense of a conservative, Protestant
> > mainline denomination.
>
> I'm not sure that's what "evangelical" means in the common modern use of
> "evangelical Christianity". It doesn't refer to missionary work, but, it
> seems to me, a particular sort of style of religious worship or a
> particular sort of religious culture.
Yes, I agree. It seems to be associated with fundamentalist and
conservative beliefs.
R H Draney
news:9j82v6$in8$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
I rather doubt this is what happened, but is it possible she meant their
beliefs were "catholic", with a small "c"?...I once described myself thus to
someone who was a "big C Catholic" and had to point out and define the
generic term...don't think I used David St Hubbins's description of "bits
and pieces of whatever Eastern philosophies happened to drift through my
transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
Neo-Pagan)....
If you think certain groups exclude the Catholic church from the rubric of
"Christian", you should see what happens to the Mormons...and they've got
the name "Jesus Christ" right in the long name of their church!...r
Mike Oliver
>> Protestant". It seems clear that it includes the following
>> denominations: Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and
>> United Church of Christ. Some web pages indicate that at least the
>> "American Baptists" are mainline, while others treat Baptists as
>> "non-mainline".
>
> I believe the Baptist and Church of Christ are fairly similar except that
> most Church of Christ believe in baptism is necessary for salvation and
> that you can lose your salvation and they don't use musical instruments in
> the church.
Richard didn't mention the Church of Christ, but rather the United
Church of Christ (UCC). The UCC was formed by the merger of the
Congregationalists with the Disciples of Christ. They (we; I'm
at least technically still a member) are probably the most "liberal"
of major denominations calling themselves Christian, with few qualms
about (for example) openly homosexual clergy. There is no official
set of beliefs you are expected to hold; rather, you join by accepting
a "covenant" which goes something like this (pre-inclusive-language version):
We convenant one with another
And do bind ourselves in the presence of God
To walk together in all his ways
According as He is pleased to reveal Himself.
There is therefore no official line on what is required for salvation. Most
members, I expect, don't really believe in Hell, so it's not clear what
salvation would even mean.
Mike Oliver
> The UCC was formed by the merger of the
> Congregationalists with the Disciples of Christ.
Now that I think about it, I think the Disciples are
still separate, though they have talked about joining
the UCC. I think the Congregationalists merged with
some other church, probably "Evangelical and Reformed".
Many if not most UCC churches still have "Congregational"
in their name.
Richard Fontana
> transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
> http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
> Neo-Pagan)....
I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
Raymond S. Wise
The people who are using the word _Christian_ in the manner indicated
above have a rationale for doing so (as others in this thread have
explained), and will continue to do so no matter what anyone else
says. Those of us who do not share their views should learn to
recognize this usage when we encounter it, in the same sense that we
learn to understand the word _gentile_ as used by a Mormon, or
_English_ as used by a person of the Amish faith.
However, while I would have little problem when speaking with a Mormon
and using the word _gentile_ as he uses it, or speaking with an
Amishman and using the word _English_ as he uses it, if I were to
speak with an evangelical Christian I would not use _Christian_ in the
restrictive sense given above. I would consider it to be an offense to
other Christians, and couldn't bring myself to do it.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Mike Oliver
I wound up matching 100% with "Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants",
which I guess isn't too surprising, except that I didn't answer a single
question in a way that would imply belief in Christianity. I was pretty surprised
though that I matched only 21% with "Roman Catholic". Why, I got 70%
for "Scientology"!!!
Roger Whitehead
> Some time ago I was on an airplane idly conversing with my seatmate
Not heard "seatmate" before. Got a certain logic to it.
Regards,
Roger
R J Valentine
...
} Many Catholics (and Baptists too) might
} disagree or not understand what Jesus meant by being "born-again", but I
} hope that they would at least acknowledge that He did say that that was a
} requirement to be in His Kingdom.
Some might, especially if it's printed in red. Others might acknowledge
that someone said he said it, though some are surer than others as to who
that someone might be and whether he or she was there when he said it.
} Therefore, I don't find myself doubting
} the Christianity of most Catholics I meet, whether they call themselves
} "born-again" or not. How am I to know?
...
I was going to snip that, because I don't have any particular comment on
it, but it may come in handy for someone with a comment on my previous
paragraph.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Steve Hayes
wrote:
This is a topic where it is simply not possible to separate word usage from
theology.
I'm a member of the Orthodox Church, and we usually call ourselves "Orthodox
Christians" or "Christian Orthodox". If you ever visit Mount Athos, that's
what gets stamped on your "diamonitarion" (permission to visit) - XO.
Sometimes makes a difference to how you are received and what you get to see
at the monasteries.
There is a debate among some Orthodox Christians over what non-Orthodox
Christians should be called. Some insist that they are not Christian at all,
but should simply be called "heretics" or "heterodox". Those who take that
line tend to have a rather sectarian mentality though.
If we simply call outselves Orthodox, without the "Christian", some people
think we are Jews, because there are Orthodox Jews as well, though in the
Western media at least Orthodox Jews usually have the prefix "ultra".
That is also an interesting question of word usage - Orthodox Jews call
themselves Orthodox Jews, and sometimes Hasidic or Chassidic or various
transliterations. But the Western secular media like to call them
"ultra-Orthodox" - I wonder why? Could it be that the media are somewhat
prejudiced against religion, and especially where people take it seriously?
But to get back to the main topic, I think, as I said, that the reason is
theological. If one is a Christian, then those who are closest to one's own
theology get the epithet "Christian". Those who are further away might get it
with reservations, and those whose theology is very different might not be
regarded as Christians at all, or with even more qualifications and
reservations.
There was a fellow called Steve Winter who was notorious on the internet some
years ago, who called everyone who didn't belong to his minuscule sect "false
Christian scum".
One topic leads to another, and this leads to one that I haven't seen on the
list of skunked words, but ought to be - "cult".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Oliver
> [...] though in the
> Western media at least Orthodox Jews usually have the prefix "ultra".
>
> That is also an interesting question of word usage - Orthodox Jews call
> themselves Orthodox Jews, and sometimes Hasidic or Chassidic or various
> transliterations. But the Western secular media like to call them
> "ultra-Orthodox" - I wonder why? Could it be that the media are somewhat
> prejudiced against religion, and especially where people take it seriously?
I think you're misunderstanding this. Virtually the entire Jewish
population of Israel is Orthodox Jewish, including those who don't
really believe in God. The Conservative and Reform movements essentially
don't exist there. So you can't accurately represent, say, Shas, by
calling it a "party of Orthodox Jews", since most Jews (and thus almost
a fortiori most Orthodox Jews) don't support it or its approach.
Hence the term ultra-Orthodox.
Richard Fontana
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:50:02 +0000 (UTC) John Seeliger <jsee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> ...
> } Many Catholics (and Baptists too) might
> } disagree or not understand what Jesus meant by being "born-again", but I
> } hope that they would at least acknowledge that He did say that that was a
> } requirement to be in His Kingdom.
>
> Some might, especially if it's printed in red. Others might acknowledge
> that someone said he said it, though some are surer than others as to who
> that someone might be and whether he or she was there when he said it.
Before someone objects that all this is hopelessly off-topic, let us
AUE brethren and sistren remember that, in fulfillment of the Scriptures,
AUE's Mark Israel did recently come back to AUE in full glory,
though one fears that there will be another long wait before he comes
again.
Please, everyone join me in prayer.
O, Lord Mark Israel, we, the People of Israel, thank Thee for securing the
Sacred FAQ File, and we ask that Thou not judgest us too harshly for
whatever it is that we've done wrong. We ask Thee to forgive us our
usage sins. While we wait for Thee to return and lead us into eternal
idiomatic salvation, we shall be guided by the words of Thy Sacred FAQ
File, which verily is Thine own intellectual property. Have pity, O Mark,
on our Respected Regulars, and guide them in all matters.
O Mark, Shepherd of Thy devoted flock, guide the AUE Webmaster, thy
anonymous Emissary in this Newsgroup, so that he or she may write
the AUE FAQ Supplement in a manner consistent with Thine own true
teachings of the Usage Way.
In the name of the Bother, the Father, and that Hot Coffee Catchworthy Car
Park in the Sky, AMAN.
Okay, who has the sheep? Quickly, Brother Charles. Our Lord Mark is
swift to anger.
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>
[...]>Of course, Catholics do consider themselves
>born again as a result of being baptised shortly after birth (John
>3:3),
>but the "Capital 'C' Christians" do not accept this as adequate. "Do
>it our way or it ain't done" is their motto.
>
>Anyone who lives in the Bible Belt, small towns in the South, the
>Mid-West, or the mountains in California and Nevada knows this.
>
my brain for years. What's the origin of the idea that God is the author of the
Bible? The Bible itself, AFAIK, makes no such claim. Apart from any other
consideration, quite a lot of its books clearly state that they were written by
people.
Mike.
Rowan Dingle
>Richard Fontana wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, R H Draney wrote:
>>> transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
>>> http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
>>> Neo-Pagan)....
>>
>> I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
>
>I wound up matching 100% with "Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants",
>which I guess isn't too surprising, except that I didn't answer a single
>question in a way that would imply belief in Christianity.
Perhaps you ticked a lot of boxes other than 'not relevant'. As far as I
could tell, many questions expected answers other than 'not relevant' to
have been provided by any deity the box-ticker might have (or by that
deity's earthly representatives). Some of the questions/sections are
phrased ambiguously. For example, one of the sections is prefaced with
'THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS (questions 13-20) SHOULD BE PART OF THE
RELIGION OR BELIEF CATEGORY: Choose ALL that apply'. What does that
mean?
Take question 13, 'elective abortion should be accepted'. If you agree
(or disagree) with that statement for reasons that have nothing to do
with a deity or religion (if you are, say, an atheist), do you tick the
'agree' (or 'disagree') box or do you fall outside the scope of the
question - in the context of the quiz, is abortion 'not relevant'
(whether or not it's relevant to you in other contexts) because your
thoughts about it are not 'part of [a] religion or belief category'?
I know that some religious people consider atheism to be a kind of
religion or belief, but I don't (in my view, the various religions
occupy one space and atheism occupies another: they are not part of the
same system). So I marked all questions in that section as 'not
relevant'.
ObAUE: What is 'Satan's presense'?
> I was pretty
>surprised
>though that I matched only 21% with "Roman Catholic". Why, I got 70%
>for "Scientology"!!!
100% Atheists and Agnostics, 100% Secular Humanism, 86% Unitarian
Universalism, 65% Theravada Buddhism... and, insultingly, 8% New Age.
What's 8%? An arm? I'm cutting it off right now.
--
Rowan Dingle
Franke
John Seeliger wrote:
I would agree, but that is because the term, like that once wonderful word
"gay", has changed its meaning in the recent wave of evangelicalism that
has swept the USA again. If you do some research on the Web, you
will find that. These days, when any American starts talking about being
"born again", I think that most people understand the term to mean what
fundamentalist "Big-C" Christians mean and not what the Catholic Church
means.
And you are right, this is not a good forum in which to discuss the meaning
of the term.
Franke
Mike Lyle wrote:
But weren't all these people in direct communication with God?
The prophets, I thought, were not normal humans but those who
were instructed by God to communicate certain messages to
humankind. Certainly, some of the authors of the books in the
NT were too--they were personal friends and disciples of
Jesus and so had "divine authority" behind their words.
I don't know about the origins of the Koran, but The Book
of Mormon, Joseph Smith claimed, was transcribed from
golden tablets brought to him by the angel Moroni.
I think that literalists are taught to believe that whatever is
written in their version of the Bible is "the word of God" and
the original "Word", at that. The level of critical thinking at
America's fundamenalist "colleges and universities" is such
that the best students criticize anything that does not agree
with what their terachers have to say about what they like
to call "theology". I don't think they know how to spell
"Jesuit".
Barbara Briggs
"R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:tlftash...@corp.supernews.com...
I don't get it even though the term is thrown around more than a tennis
ball; what is "born again".
How are we to know what anyone means when they say cryptic sentences.
Has anyone ever played the game of gossip? It is where a group of people
sit in chairs and start with a simple phrase. The starting person reads the
phrase then whispers into the second person's ear and then the second person
whispers the phrase into the next and so on. By the time the phrase reaches
the end of the line it is so distorted from the original it is laughable.
I personally think this is what happens to written documents over the
centuries, especially when they have been hand written (try to read my
handwriting), translated from and to many languages. The margin for error
and slippage, like in the gossip game, is huge.
So when I hear the Bible quoted as if it the words are directly from the
mouth of the starting person with no variation of interpretation allowed,
carved in stone so to speak, I am very skeptical.
Maybe born again means reincarnation. It was and still is a belief in the
middle-east. :-) How do we know. We don't.
Barbara B
(putting on my flame retardant clothing)
Bill Schnakenberg
>
> The renowned Skitt <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > That's a new one on me. My wife is Catholic, and she would be devastated to
> > find out that she's not a Christian.
>
> If they are not Christian, then who the hell is that up on all those
> crucifixes?
Brian
--
Bill
Franke
Steve Hayes wrote:
> [snip]
> That is also an interesting question of word usage - Orthodox Jews call
> themselves Orthodox Jews, and sometimes Hasidic or Chassidic or various
> transliterations. But the Western secular media like to call them
> "ultra-Orthodox" - I wonder why? Could it be that the media are somewhat
> prejudiced against religion, and especially where people take it seriously?
Because they are theocrats like the Taliban/Taleban and the Puritans -- fanatic,
single-minded, narrow-minded, closed-minded, and generally minded around
the world.
> But to get back to the main topic, I think, as I said, that the reason is
> theological. If one is a Christian, then those who are closest to one's own
> theology get the epithet "Christian". Those who are further away might get it
> with reservations, and those whose theology is very different might not be
> regarded as Christians at all, or with even more qualifications and
> reservations.
>
> There was a fellow called Steve Winter who was notorious on the internet some
> years ago, who called everyone who didn't belong to his minuscule sect "false
> Christian scum".
One of the fundamentalist Xians in the eastern Sierra Nevada of California
called religions not of his sect "those other, funny religions". He was
ultimately
forced to retract his his statement. 'Bout 20 years ago.
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>
>
>
>Mike Lyle wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:01:06 +0800, in <3B57BB12...@seed.net.tw>, Franke
>> wrote:
>> >
>> [...]>Of course, Catholics do consider themselves
>> >born again as a result of being baptised shortly after birth (John
>> >3:3),
>> >but the "Capital 'C' Christians" do not accept this as adequate. "Do
>> >it our way or it ain't done" is their motto.
>> >
>> >Anyone who lives in the Bible Belt, small towns in the South, the
>> >Mid-West, or the mountains in California and Nevada knows this.
>> >
>> This reminds me of a perhaps inflammatory question which has been lying about in
>> my brain for years. What's the origin of the idea that God is the author of the
>> Bible? The Bible itself, AFAIK, makes no such claim. Apart from any other
>> consideration, quite a lot of its books clearly state that they were written by
>> people.
>
>But weren't all these people in direct communication with God?
No, very few of them make that claim.
Mike.
Richard Fontana
> Has anyone ever played the game of gossip? It is where a group of people
> sit in chairs and start with a simple phrase. The starting person reads the
> phrase then whispers into the second person's ear and then the second person
> whispers the phrase into the next and so on. By the time the phrase reaches
> the end of the line it is so distorted from the original it is laughable.
In my native region that was called "Telephone", IIRC.
Barbara Briggs
"Rowan Dingle" <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aXp46bB+...@wickenden.demon.co.uk...
> In alt.usage.english, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >Richard Fontana wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, R H Draney wrote:
>
> >>> transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
> >>> http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
> >>> Neo-Pagan)....
> >>
> >> I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
> >
> >surprised
> >though that I matched only 21% with "Roman Catholic". Why, I got 70%
> >for "Scientology"!!!
>
> 100% Atheists and Agnostics, 100% Secular Humanism, 86% Unitarian
> Universalism, 65% Theravada Buddhism... and, insultingly, 8% New Age.
>
> What's 8%? An arm? I'm cutting it off right now.
>
> --
> Rowan Dingle
Although raised as Catholic, I matched 100% Unitarian Universalism and 80%
Quaker which is interesting as my Grandmother was Quaker.
Barbara B
R H Draney
news:tlgha88...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Rowan Dingle" <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aXp46bB+...@wickenden.demon.co.uk...
> > In alt.usage.english, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> > >Richard Fontana wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, R H Draney wrote:
> >
> > >>> transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
> > >>> http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
> > >>> Neo-Pagan)....
> > >>
> > >> I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
> > >
> > > I was pretty
> > >surprised
> > >though that I matched only 21% with "Roman Catholic". Why, I got 70%
> > >for "Scientology"!!!
> >
> > 100% Atheists and Agnostics, 100% Secular Humanism, 86% Unitarian
> > Universalism, 65% Theravada Buddhism... and, insultingly, 8% New Age.
>
80%
> Quaker which is interesting as my Grandmother was Quaker.
When I pointed out this site on another newsgroup last year, we observed a
few things about the results that I should probably mention here to save AUE
the trouble of discovering them gradually:
(1) it says so at the top of the results, but a lot of people miss the
statement that you will be given a 100% match to whatever matches most
closely...this does not mean that 100% of your answers agree with the
"official" position of that religion....
(2) almost everybody gets Unitarian Universalist among their top five
scores...this appears to reflect the "ecumenical" attitude of UU....
(3) most of the major "organized" religions appear in both "liberal" and
"conservative" form...they've added a few categories since I first took it
(I was surprised upon retaking the test that the newly added "Taoism" only
placed seventh), but I'd like to see "Islam" divided up into "Shi'ite" and
"Sunni" for the sake of symmetry....r
Skitt
"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3B57D8B7...@math.ucla.edu...
> Mike Oliver wrote:
>
> > The UCC was formed by the merger of the
> > Congregationalists with the Disciples of Christ.
>
> Now that I think about it, I think the Disciples are
> still separate, though they have talked about joining
> the UCC.
Yes, they are separate. My erstwhile boss belonged to them.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Gene Wirchenko
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure whether it's rooted in anti-Catholicism or whether
>> it's just a natural narrowing of the meaning of "Catholic".
>
>Sorry, I meant "...of the meaning of Christian".
Given the meaning of "catholic", I wondered if you didn't mean
your original remark.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Mike Barnes
"Chinese whispers" here.
Send three and fourpence. We're going to a dance.
--
Mike Barnes
Aaron J Dinkin
> "Rowan Dingle" <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aXp46bB+...@wickenden.demon.co.uk...
>> In alt.usage.english, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >Richard Fontana wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> >>> transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
>> >>> http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
>> >>> Neo-Pagan)....
>> >>
>> >> I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
>> >
>> >I was pretty surprised though that I matched only 21% with "Roman
>> >Catholic". Why, I got 70% for "Scientology"!!!
>>
>> 100% Atheists and Agnostics, 100% Secular Humanism, 86% Unitarian
>> Universalism, 65% Theravada Buddhism... and, insultingly, 8% New Age.
>>
>> What's 8%? An arm? I'm cutting it off right now.
>
> Although raised as Catholic, I matched 100% Unitarian Universalism and 80%
> Quaker which is interesting as my Grandmother was Quaker.
My 100% score was in Reform Judaism, which I suppose is reasonable in that
although I'm a traditional/conservative Jew, I'm not very observant. There
doesn't seem to be a category for Conservative Judaism.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Skitt
Hi, Brother! Me too.
Gary Williams
> > What do you consider to be a "mainline Protestant sect"? Are you
> > implying that Baptists would not be considered Christians or that Baptists
> > would not be considered a "mainline Protestant sect"?
> I can't find any definitive online definition of "mainline
> Protestant". It seems clear that it includes the following denominations:
> Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of
> Christ. Some web pages indicate that at least the "American Baptists" are
> mainline, while others treat Baptists as "non-mainline".
"Mainline" was, I think, in its original use more of a social than a
theological construct. My desk dictionary has it as "in a principal
or well-established position". My impression of who is "mainline"
corresponds pretty much with Richard's; that indicates that the term
was in use mainly in the North Central and/or Northeastern United
States. "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream".
> I'm not sure that's what "evangelical" means in the common modern use of
> "evangelical Christianity". It doesn't refer to missionary work, but, it
> seems to me, a particular sort of style of religious worship or a
> particular sort of religious culture.
"Evangelical" has several overlapping applications, but the
contemporary tendency to make "evangelical" a synonym of
"evangelistic" is erroneous.
Gary Williams
Mike Oliver
> My 100% score was in Reform Judaism, which I suppose is reasonable in that
> although I'm a traditional/conservative Jew, I'm not very observant. There
> doesn't seem to be a category for Conservative Judaism.
I think I heard somewhere that Conservative Judaism is in fact a
branch of Reform Judaism. Those Reformists, I suppose, who were
uncomfortable with the extent or pace of reform. But you should know
better than I.
Aaron J Dinkin
> If we simply call outselves Orthodox, without the "Christian", some people
> think we are Jews, because there are Orthodox Jews as well, though in the
> Western media at least Orthodox Jews usually have the prefix "ultra".
>
> That is also an interesting question of word usage - Orthodox Jews call
> themselves Orthodox Jews, and sometimes Hasidic or Chassidic or various
> transliterations. But the Western secular media like to call them
> "ultra-Orthodox" - I wonder why? Could it be that the media are somewhat
> prejudiced against religion, and especially where people take it seriously?
I would say, it's because the Orthodox Jews who show up in Western secular
media most frequently are in fact ultra-Orthodox. The mainstream Orthodox
Jews, of whom there are plenty in the United States as well as in Israel,
are just less frequently doing newsworthy things (in the judgment of
Western secular media), or at least when they do, their religion (or
denominational affiliation within their religion) is less likely to be
relevant and mentioned.
R J Valentine
Same here.
Aaron J Dinkin
It probably was originally. (If it had originally split off from Orthodox,
I imagine it would call itself Liberal, not Conservative.) But at any
rate, it's a separate entity now.
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
Perhaps, but the very concept of 'Eretz Israel' depends on it.
Raymond S. Wise
[snip]
>
> "Evangelical" has several overlapping applications, but the
> contemporary tendency to make "evangelical" a synonym of
> "evangelistic" is erroneous.
>
> Gary Williams
But it can't be _erroneous_ if it is a widely understood and used
meaning for the word. You may certainly object to the usage, and press
for a reform. You may argue that the "several overlapping
applications" of the word _evangelical_ may lead to confusion. You
cannot, however, claim that _evangelical_ used where you would use
_evangelistic_ is wrong.
I object to certain usages, myself, and have called for reforms. The
metaphorical use of _schizophrenic,_ for example, has the unfortunate
side-effect of misleading people about the nature of the disease
schizophrenia, causing them to confuse it with multiple personality
disorder (or dissociative identity disorder). The metaphorical use of
_schizophrenic_ may have originated out of an erroneous analogy with
schizophrenia, but the usage itself is established, and cannot be said
to be "wrong."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Tony Cooper
> I rather doubt this is what happened, but is it possible she meant
their
> beliefs were "catholic", with a small "c"?.
No. We did pursue this enough to make that clear.
> If you think certain groups exclude the Catholic church from the
rubric of
> "Christian", you should see what happens to the Mormons...and
they've got
> the name "Jesus Christ" right in the long name of their church!...r
There's a bit on the newswires today about the Catholic Church and the
Mormons. I'll not cite it since this thread has gone too far into the
sectarian already.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Rich Franzen
> Disclaimer: This post is intended to one on word usage, and not
> religion.
>
> ...
>
> I am nominally Catholic. I've never thought of myself as not being
> Christian.
This is already a big thread; sorry if someone else made the
point about the word "catholic" itself. The word is virtually
a mirror image of the way some non-Catholic Christians seem to
exclude Catholics.
Doesn't "catholic" mean universal? -- E.g. the "Catholic Church" is
the "Universal Church". Does the Universal Church include Baptists?
If so, the Baptists would be quite surprised. If not, then there
is no real difference in the way some conservative Christian groups
view Catholics, and the way the Catholic church views them.
-- Rich
-- http://rocq.home.att.net
Tony Cooper
Tony Cooper wrote:
> > Some time ago I was on an airplane idly conversing with my
seatmate
>
> Not heard "seatmate" before. Got a certain logic to it.
>
I hope you do understand that we were not sharing the same seat. She
was a bit large, and she was overlapping a bit, but we weren't really
sharing.
Michael J Hardy
> But this notion of "born again" necessarily excludes most Catholics;
> it's an evangelical Protestant religious concept that is foreign to
> mainstream Catholicism.
-Where- are you getting this information? I think "born again" is
directly from the New Testament -- words attributed to Jesus -- and so
would be part of Catholic dogma. The Catholic New Testament does not
differ from the Protestant one; only the Old Testament differs, and that
only in that Catholics include six books that Protestants exlude, written
by "Hellenistic" Jews of Alexandria.
I was surprised to read that "Christian" is -generally- understood
as excluding Catholics, and I disbelieve any claims of generality
attributed to such a usage.
> If someone raised Catholic decides he is "born again", it's understood
> that he's no longer identifying as a Catholic
Perhaps in colloquial usage, but that doesn't mean Catholics
don't accept that biblical phrase.
I think the RCC holds dogmatically that all Christians owe
obedience to the pope, and construes "Christian" as including
not only Catholics, but also Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and
various others. It's taken to mean everyone who's been baptized,
and baptisms by most sects claiming to be Christian are considered
valid. There are doubts among Catholics about whether Mormon baptism
is valid, so Mormons who convert to Catholicism get "conditionally
baptized."
Obaue: According to the spell-checker on this machine, the
British write "baptise" with an "s", whereas we write "baptize"
with a "z".
(BTW I am an atheist.)
Mike Hardy
Earle D Jones
haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote:
[...]
> One topic leads to another, and this leads to one that I haven't seen on the
> list of skunked words, but ought to be - "cult".
*
No. A 'cult' becomes a 'religion' when it receives its tax exemption
from the IRS. (See: Scientology)
earle
*
Earle D Jones
"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010720...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, R H Draney wrote:
> >
> > > transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
> > > http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
> > > Neo-Pagan)....
> >
> > I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
>
> Hi, Brother! Me too.
> --
> Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
*
I am a post-Christian humanist.
earle
*
Earle D Jones
wrote:
[...]
> but the "Capital 'C' Christians" do not accept this as adequate. "Do
> it our way or it ain't done" is their motto.
>
> Anyone who lives in the Bible Belt, small towns in the South, the
> Mid-West, or the mountains in California and Nevada knows this.
>
*
For the "real" truth, midwestern style, go to the website of the
Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas:
Then try another Baptist church website:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Then try to answer this question: Which one is real?
earle
*
Simon R. Hughes
[snip]
> My 100% score was in Reform Judaism, which I suppose is reasonable in that
> although I'm a traditional/conservative Jew, I'm not very observant.
[snip]
Don't put yourself down. 100% isn't so bad a score.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Richard Fontana
I don't think it's the same thing, but maybe it depends on what you
mean by "the Catholic church". We were really talking about usage by
individuals (especially Americans) and not by official religious bodies.
When ordinary people call themselves "Catholics", it's just a common
synonym for "member of the religion that for purely historical
reasons is called 'Roman Catholic'". It is not an assertion that "we are
the universal church, and you aren't". Sure, the official voices high up
in the RCC may use "Catholic" that way (though I imagine they might prefer
to just say "the Church"), but that's not especially relevant.
Most people in fact are unaware that "catholic" can mean
"universal" (perhaps it's a "skunked word").
I think in fact that many Protestant sects or denominations do officially
believe as a doctrinal matter that there is no such thing as a "universal
Church", at least in some temporal sense. If so, then "Roman
Catholic" just means, even officially, "a religion based in Rome that
happens to officially believe in this notion that there can be, concretely
and non-spiritually speaking, a universal Church". I don't really know
enough about how this matter of "universality" is viewed by the various
sorts of Christian religions, but I thought it was one of the divisive
issues during the Reformation era.
Richard Fontana
> Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.010719...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>...
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > Disclaimer: This post is intended to one on word usage, and not
> > > religion.
> > >
> > > I was talking to a Brazilian today that made the comment that Brazil
> > > is 60% Christian. I asked him what the other 40% is, and he replied
> > > "Catholic".
> > >
> > > Some time ago I was on an airplane idly conversing with my seatmate; a
> > > total stranger. She had been doing missionary work in Canada with a
> > > tribe of Indians with the intent of converting them to Christianity.
> > > I asked her what form of religion the Indians practiced before
> > > conversion, and she said they were mostly Catholic. (Meaning most of
> > > them, and not most of each)
> > >
> > > I am nominally Catholic. I've never thought of myself as not being
> > > Christian.
> >
> > I have attempted twice to start a thread with this subject but no one's
> > been interested in discussing it. I have noticed this
> > too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US, assuming it
> > ever did. I've been at schools where there were "Christian" student
> > organizations which were understood to exclude Catholics, and I think in
> > common usage today if you describe someone as a "Christian" you imply
> > stronly that he or she is not Catholic and that probably he or she is not
> > even a member of a mainline Protestant sect.
> >
> > I think it's true that Catholics themselves sort of naturally think of
> > themselves as being Christian, and that the exclusion is a bit
> > jarring. I'm not sure whether it's rooted in anti-Catholicism or whether
> > it's just a natural narrowing of the meaning of "Catholic".
> >
> > I think the narrower use of "Christian" may mean, in particular,
> > "Evangelical Christianity in general", which might explain both your
> > Brazilian and you Canadian case.
>
>
> The people who are using the word _Christian_ in the manner indicated
> above have a rationale for doing so (as others in this thread have
> explained), and will continue to do so no matter what anyone else
> says. Those of us who do not share their views should learn to
> recognize this usage when we encounter it, in the same sense that we
> learn to understand the word _gentile_ as used by a Mormon, or
> _English_ as used by a person of the Amish faith.
Except that this restricted sense of "Christian" has creeped into standard
American usage. I don't think a Catholic American can safely identify
himself or herself as a "Christian" anymore without it being assumed that
he or she is instead a fundamentalist or evangelical Protestant
Christian. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that now "Christian" has
two widely understood and potentially confusing meanings.
This may be further advanced in politics for various reasons. But I
mentioned that in the mainstream Northeastern college and Midwestern
graduate school I attended there were "Christian" student organizations
where it was generally understood that "Christian" meant "non-Catholic",
not "fundamentalist or evangelical", even though such organizations did
not explicitly exclude Catholics. It was just sort of culturally
understood that a group with "Christian" in its name did not warmly
or at least primarily embrace Catholics (definitionally at least; I am
sure however that the people in such groups would not have excluded
Catholics from membership). It may be that such organizations, even
though they warmly embraced members of mainline Protestant denominations,
were dominated by people with a sort of evangelical-direction (I don't
know what else to call it). I honestly can't tell you what a student
organization that is supposed to definitionally embrace Catholics as well
as non-Catholic Christians *should* be called so as not to communicate the
message "Catholics not welcome"; maybe the word "Ecumenical" should be
employed. (Note that these schools I attended did not have separate
organizations for Catholics.)
Tony Cooper
I don't think a Catholic American can safely identify
> himself or herself as a "Christian" anymore without it being assumed
that
> he or she is instead a fundamentalist or evangelical Protestant
> Christian.
As a Catholic, I don't think of myself as a Christian. However, I
don't think of myself as non-Christian either. (This probably makes
more sense to me than it does to the reader.)
Given the choice of checking "Catholic", "Protestant", or "Other",
I'll check "Catholic". Given the choice of checking "Christian",
"Jewish", "Muslim", or "Other", I'll check "Christian" with the
assumption that "Christian" includes Catholicism and that I am not
"Other".
I mentioned earlier that I am only nominally Catholic. Catholic by
habit. To prove this, I came across the word "Ultramontane" in the
definition of Catholic. I'd never heard of this word. It means
"relating to the supporting Papal power or supremacy in the RCC". It
is listed as a similar word to Catholic in Wordsmyth.
If I were an actively practicing Catholic, should I have known this
word?
Richard Fontana
> I mentioned earlier that I am only nominally Catholic. Catholic by
> habit. To prove this, I came across the word "Ultramontane" in the
> definition of Catholic. I'd never heard of this word. It means
> "relating to the supporting Papal power or supremacy in the RCC". It
> is listed as a similar word to Catholic in Wordsmyth.
>
> If I were an actively practicing Catholic, should I have known this
> word?
Probably not. I suspect that few actively practicing Catholics are
familiar with the term.
Alan Jones
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> > I don't think a Catholic American can safely identify
> > himself or herself as a "Christian" anymore without
>> it being assumed that he or she is instead a fundamentalist
> As a Catholic, I don't think of myself as a Christian ...
This is startling stuff as seen from across the Atlantic. In this
small country town, the ministers/priests/pastors of all the various
churches or denominations meet regularly as leaders of the Melksham
Family of Churches, including the Roman Catholics, Baptists and
several kinds of evangelical congregation. They publish a weekly joint
programme of services and join together for the Good Friday procession
through the streets. They all think that they, and the others, are
"Christians", though people who specifically make that claim are, it's
true, usually from the intense and even obsessive end of the spectrum
in any of the churches. "Fundamentalism" in the fierce US sense is
uncommon in England, and seems to be entirely absent in our local
churches.
I write as the agnostic choirmaster of a rural Anglican parish. My
devout organist plays for our Sunday Eucharist, and at the Methodist
chapel in her own parish for the Sunday evening service. We sing "RC"
music in Latin - a Palestrina Mass, Elgar "Ave verum Corpus"... No
one thinks any of this is particularly odd.
Alan Jones
Mike Oliver
>
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9jb6o1$6d2$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> This is startling stuff as seen from across the Atlantic.
I found it a little startling too, on this side of the Atlantic.
I don't think any of the Catholics I know think of "Christian"
as not including "Catholic". In fact I suspect that not a few
of them, deep down, *equate* "Christian" with "Catholic".
> I write as the agnostic choirmaster of a rural Anglican parish. My
> devout organist plays for our Sunday Eucharist, and at the Methodist
> chapel in her own parish for the Sunday evening service. We sing "RC"
> music in Latin - a Palestrina Mass, Elgar "Ave verum Corpus"... No
> one thinks any of this is particularly odd.
Well, I've argued before on this group that Anglicans are not really
Protestant. AFAIK They never rejected the notion of the apostolic succession
nor accepted the priesthood of all believers. To my mind they're just
barely not Roman Catholic. I don't mean that as an attack, just
descriptively to say why I'm not surprised they would play Latin masses.
I wonder if your Methodists in the UK would do the same thing. My
Congregational church would have no hesitation about it, of course,
without it implying any particular nostalgia for Rome.
Steve Hayes
>will...@ahec.edu (Gary Williams) wrote in message news:<9af8cc96.01072...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>> "Evangelical" has several overlapping applications, but the
>> contemporary tendency to make "evangelical" a synonym of
>> "evangelistic" is erroneous.
>>
>> Gary Williams
>
>
>But it can't be _erroneous_ if it is a widely understood and used
>meaning for the word. You may certainly object to the usage, and press
>for a reform. You may argue that the "several overlapping
>applications" of the word _evangelical_ may lead to confusion. You
>cannot, however, claim that _evangelical_ used where you would use
>_evangelistic_ is wrong.
"Evangelical", while not as skunked as "cult", has a number of different
meanings, and can be misunderstood.
It is often defined by what it is contrasted with:
Evangelical versus Reformed" (mainly German, I believe).
Evangelical versus Catholic (mainly Anglican, I believe).
Evangelical versus Ecumenical (mainly US Protestant, I believe.
And then there is "evangelical" as an adjective referring to the written
gospels or the lifestyle they are believed to espouse (evangelicval poverty,
evangelical counsels).
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
>The people who are using the word _Christian_ in the manner indicated
>above have a rationale for doing so (as others in this thread have
>explained), and will continue to do so no matter what anyone else
>says. Those of us who do not share their views should learn to
>recognize this usage when we encounter it, in the same sense that we
>learn to understand the word _gentile_ as used by a Mormon, or
>_English_ as used by a person of the Amish faith.
>
>However, while I would have little problem when speaking with a Mormon
>and using the word _gentile_ as he uses it, or speaking with an
>Amishman and using the word _English_ as he uses it, if I were to
>speak with an evangelical Christian I would not use _Christian_ in the
>restrictive sense given above. I would consider it to be an offense to
>other Christians, and couldn't bring myself to do it.
All religious groups are sub-cultures and have their own jargon and
terminology. The terminology sometime escapes from the group and becomes a
popularised technicality (eg "charismatic", "Muslim fundamenalists").
In this case it is a theological point, the belief in the necessity for
"making a decision for Christ", which is also called "accepting Jesus Christ
as your personal saviour" and "becoming a Christian".
This view is sometimes called "decisional regeneration", as opposed to
"baptismal regeneration". The former means being born again through making a
decision, the latter means being born again through baptism. Decisional
regeneration is taugfht by many Protestant groups. Baptismal regeneration is
taught by Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, and some Lutherans, I
believe, and a Protestant group called the Church of Christ (which makes it a
major distinctive point of doctrine).
So one group will define as "Christian" those who have made a "decision for
Christ" while the other will define as "Christian" those who have been
baptised. And others will definne it as anyone who thinks Jesus was a nice
guy.
Lecturer: In what sense was Jesus divine?
Seminary Student: He had such *gorgeous* shoulder-length hair.
Steve Hayes
>In article <3b57cee8...@news.saix.net>,
> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> One topic leads to another, and this leads to one that I haven't seen on the
>> list of skunked words, but ought to be - "cult".
So have the Elvis and self-esteem cults received tax exemption yet? And what
about the cult of St Constantine and St Helen?
Franke
Alan Jones wrote:
> [snip]
> "Fundamentalism" in the fierce US sense is uncommon in England,
> and seems to be entirely absent in our local churches.
You are lucky indeed
Rich Franzen
>
> I don't think it's the same thing, but maybe it depends on what you
> mean by "the Catholic church". We were really talking about usage by
> individuals (especially Americans) and not by official religious bodies.
> When ordinary people call themselves "Catholics", it's just a common
> synonym for "member of the religion that for purely historical
> reasons is called 'Roman Catholic'". It is not an assertion that "we are
> the universal church, and you aren't". Sure, the official voices high up
> in the RCC may use "Catholic" that way (though I imagine they might prefer
> to just say "the Church"), but that's not especially relevant.
>
> Most people in fact are unaware that "catholic" can mean
> "universal" (perhaps it's a "skunked word").
>
> I think in fact that many Protestant sects or denominations do officially
> believe as a doctrinal matter that there is no such thing as a "universal
> Church", at least in some temporal sense. If so, then "Roman
> Catholic" just means, even officially, "a religion based in Rome that
> happens to officially believe in this notion that there can be, concretely
> and non-spiritually speaking, a universal Church". I don't really know
> enough about how this matter of "universality" is viewed by the various
> sorts of Christian religions, but I thought it was one of the divisive
> issues during the Reformation era.
You are probably right about most Americans not knowing that
"catholic" means "universal". But the leadership of the Christian
colleges and denominatios probably do know. Perhaps these people
teach the way they do because they view the very name of the
Roman Catholic church as a sin of presumption.
It's like the Orthodox bishops have been telling "the Bishop of Rome"
for 900 years -- "hey, man, drop the attitude, and we'll talk."
-- Rich
--- rocq.home.att.net
Skitt
>
> Except that this restricted sense of "Christian" has creeped into standard
> American usage.
You gotted something wrong there ...
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Harvey V
said: [snip]
>
> Well, I've argued before on this group that Anglicans are not
> really Protestant. AFAIK They never rejected the notion of the
> apostolic succession nor accepted the priesthood of all believers.
But surely that point isn't really arguable at all: Anglican churches
(or the ones I know of in England and Canada) have always used the
creed which clearly states "I believe in one holy, catholic and
apostolic church". (I understand this is also used in my local
Methodist church in Hampshire.)
No ambiguity there: it's most definitely *NOT* a Roman Catholic
church, but it is clearly a catholic and apostolic church.
Harvey
Aaron J Dinkin
> Most people in fact are unaware that "catholic" can mean
> "universal" (perhaps it's a "skunked word").
Not unless there are people who'd tell you that using the word to mean
'Roman Catholic' is illiterate.
Earle D Jones
haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote:
[...]
> So one group will define as "Christian" those who have made a "decision for
> Christ" while the other will define as "Christian" those who have been
> baptised. And others will definne it as anyone who thinks Jesus was a nice
> guy.
*
In my experience, Christians were those who subscribed to the Apostles'
Creed, which we mumbled dutifully every Sunday in the Methodist Church
in northern Alabama.
"I believe in God the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and
in his only son, Jesus Christ our Lord. He was born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. On the
third day he arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at
the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
I believe in the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the
resurrection of the body, the forgiveness of sins, (something
something), and life everlasting."
It has been about sixty years since I repeated that in church.
At the time, I even believed it!
earle (post-Christian humanist)
*
"I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that
every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on
the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. I regard it as
belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development
which we are outgrowing."
--Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Michael J Hardy
> > As a Catholic, I don't think of myself as a Christian ...
>
> This is startling stuff as seen from across the Atlantic.
It is startling stuff here too. But the "Catholic" who wrote
those words was only nominally Catholic, according to what he wrote
later in that posting. I.e., he was raised Catholic and ceased to
practice the religion. I doubt you'll find a practicing Catholic
in the USA who doesn't consider himself Christian.
Mike Hardy
Tony Cooper
> It is startling stuff here too. But the "Catholic" who wrote
> those words was only nominally Catholic, according to what he wrote
> later in that posting. I.e., he was raised Catholic and ceased to
> practice the religion. I doubt you'll find a practicing Catholic
> in the USA who doesn't consider himself Christian.
>
I'm the "Catholic" you are referring to. Why the quotes? You either
are, or are not, Catholic. You can be lapsed, but you still are and
the quotes would not be used. I have not ceased to practice; I have
ceased to attend masses very frequently. I only attend when my wife
drags me.
You also kind of imply that I'm one that doesn't consider myself
Christian. The point of my post was quite the opposite. It's "them"
that don't consider me Christian.
Raymond S. Wise
[snip]
>
> All religious groups are sub-cultures and have their own jargon and
> terminology. The terminology sometime escapes from the group and becomes a
> popularised technicality (eg "charismatic", "Muslim fundamenalists").
>
Was _Muslim fundamentalist_ ever a technical term among Muslims? It
seems unlikely:
From
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104062.htm
[quote]
The Question of Terminology
To begin with there is the thorny question of terminology. Many
Muslims are uncomfortable with the term "fundamentalism" used in
conjunction with Islam. Originally applied to a current of thought in
Protestant Christianity that accepts and interprets Scripture
literally, the term is often misapplied to Islam by outside
commentators, as Muslim "fundamentalists" have interpreted the Qur'an
in a variety of ways. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible
is the divinely inspired word of God. In this sense, however, all
Muslims are "fundamentalists," as it is an article of faith that the
Qur'an was revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Jibril
(Gabriel).
Other terms widely used to refer to " fundamentalist Islam" are also
problematic. "Revivalist" or "resurgent" implies that Islam was
somehow dead or moribund before, when in fact there have been repeated
calls for reform from both liberal and conservative Muslim thinkers
throughout the years. "Radical" Islam is also somewhat unsatisfactory:
tactics used by some Islamic activists in the Mideast are indeed
radical, but the basic ideology of these activists is very
conservative, and even reactionary.
[end quote]
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Rich Franzen
news:47dd044c.0107...@posting.google.com...
> Was _Muslim fundamentalist_ ever a technical term among Muslims? It
> seems unlikely:
>
Was "fundamentalist" ever a technical term for any religion? To me it is
meaningless buzzword having a different interpretation to everyone who uses
it.
Some conservative Christians are happy to use the term to describe
themselves. Others are offended by it.
If one _were_ actually part of a fundamental religion, it would be
nonsensical to refer to yourself as being "like the fundamental", or "having
traits similar to the fundamental". You would simply be fundamental --
referring to yourself as fundamentalist or having other people refer to you
with this term is a downgrade from your true nature.
A flower which is roselike is less than a rose.
Gertrude Stein: "a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose"
-- Rich
--- http://rocq.home.att.net
Truly Donovan
<earle...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <9j9n6s$ktv2h$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010720...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
>> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, R H Draney wrote:
>> >
>> > > transom", but that would have explained it too...(checking
>> > > http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/, it appears I'm actually a
>> > > Neo-Pagan)....
>> >
>> > I turn out to be a "Secular Humanist".
>>
>> Hi, Brother! Me too.
>*
>I am a post-Christian humanist.
Can I put a sign on my door saying "I scored zero for
Jehovah's Witnesses -- do not ring bell"?
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
Mike Oliver
> Can I put a sign on my door saying "I scored zero for
> Jehovah's Witnesses -- do not ring bell"?
Well, I imagine you can. What would stop you? Are
your legs broken?
Mike Oliver
> From
> http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104062.htm
>
> "Radical" Islam is also somewhat unsatisfactory:
> tactics used by some Islamic activists in the Mideast are indeed
> radical, but the basic ideology of these activists is very
> conservative, and even reactionary.
It's absurd to restrict the political use of "radical" to
mean "left-wing". Anyone who wants to restructure society
at the root, rather than making incremental changes, is
a radical. Radicals can be left, right, or none of the
above.
Mike Oliver
>
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:47dd044c.0107...@posting.google.com...
>> Was _Muslim fundamentalist_ ever a technical term among Muslims? It
>> seems unlikely:
>
> Was "fundamentalist" ever a technical term for any religion? To me it is
> meaningless buzzword having a different interpretation to everyone who uses
> it.
The origin of the term, as I understand it, was a collection of
essays called "The Fundamentals" published early in the 20th Century,
with the aim of stemming various liberal trends in Christianity.
This appears to be a reference: <http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/>.
The few I glanced at are dense and scholarly, hardly the stuff
of rabble-rousing.
Padraig Breathnach
Robert E. Lewis
Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3B5A7E78...@math.ucla.edu...
Didn't William F. Buckley, Jr. describe himself as a radical?
--
Robert
Robert Lipton
Must have scored low on Christian Science, too.
Bob
Robert E. Lewis
Truly Donovan <tru...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:F3daO5mszo+B7v...@4ax.com...
If a Jehovah's Witness appears on your doorstep, just invite him/her in for
a piece of birthday cake.
R H Draney
news:9jep2t$1...@netaxs.com...
> > Jehovah's Witnesses -- do not ring bell"?
>
> If a Jehovah's Witness appears on your doorstep, just invite him/her in
for
> a piece of birthday cake.
Or to help you hold the goat still while you carry out the necessary blood
sacrifice...some times they leave skid marks....r
(Credit where credit is due: the punchline above was blatantly stolen from
Rita Rudner)....
Don Aitken
wrote:
There are. Members of that Church (or at least the more knowledgeable
ones) prefer to be decribed as "Catholics", rather than "Roman
Catholics", and some find the term "Roman Catholic" offensive. OTOH
some Anglicans (and others) reagrd their own Churches as equally
Catholic and regard the appropriation of this term by the Roman Church
as exclusive to themselves as equally offensive. So you can't win.
--
Don Aitken
M. Ranjit Mathews
> I'm the "Catholic" you are referring to. Why the quotes? You either
> are, or are not, Catholic. You can be lapsed, but you still are and
> the quotes would not be used. I have not ceased to practice; I have
> ceased to attend masses very frequently. I only attend when my wife
> drags me.
>
> You also kind of imply that I'm one that doesn't consider myself
> Christian. The point of my post was quite the opposite. It's "them"
> that don't consider me Christian.
Then, they're not catholic, what?
Steve Hayes
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<3b5922f3...@news.saix.net>...
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>> All religious groups are sub-cultures and have their own jargon and
>> terminology. The terminology sometime escapes from the group and becomes a
>> popularised technicality (eg "charismatic", "Muslim fundamenalists").
>>
>
>
>Was _Muslim fundamentalist_ ever a technical term among Muslims? It
>seems unlikely:
No.
It's a popularised technicality among some non-Muslims.
Fundamentalists are a group of Christians (not Muslims) who agreed with the
contents of some doctrinal tracts published in the 1920s, and called "The
Fundamentals".
Muslims have never accepted them, and are unlikely to do so. But that doesn't
stop non-specialists from speaking of "Muslim Fundalmentalists".
I've even heard the supporters of Hindutva being called "Hindu
fundamentalists."
Steve Hayes
>"Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:47dd044c.0107...@posting.google.com...
>> Was _Muslim fundamentalist_ ever a technical term among Muslims? It
>> seems unlikely:
>>
>
>Was "fundamentalist" ever a technical term for any religion? To me it is
>meaningless buzzword having a different interpretation to everyone who uses
>it.
FUNDAMENTALISM:
a movement in various Protestant bodies which began at the turn of the
19th-20th cent. and developed after the 1914-18 war esp. in the USA.
Apparently in reaction against the evolutionary theories and Biblical
criticism of the 19th cent., series of Bible Conferences of Conservative
Protestants were held in various parts of America; that of Niagara in 1895
issued a statement of belief containting what later came to be known as the
'five points of fundamentalism', viz. the verbal inerrancy of scripture, the
divinity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, a substitutionary theory of the
atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ. The term
'fundamentalism', howeever, derives from a series of 12 tracts entitled _The
Fundamentals_, of which the first appeared c. 1909. They were written by
eminent evangelical leaders and widely distributed in the English-speaking
world with the aid of American money. In 1919 the World's Christian
Fundamentals Association was founded. It organized rallies in many American
cities and during the following decade nearly all the Protestant Churches in
the U.S.A. were divided into Fundamentalist and Modernist groups. The
controversy attracted widespread public attention in 1925 when William
Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), the American Democrat leader, assisted in the
prosecution of J.T. Scopes, a school teacher of Dayton, Tennessee, who was
convicted on the charge of violating the state law by teaching the doctrine of
biological evolution. In a wider sense the term is applied to all profession
of strict adherence to (esp. Protestant) orthodoxy in the matter of Biblical
interpretation.
(The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
It was (and is) therefore a techical term in Christianity, especially the US
Protestant variety.
Its application to Muslims and Hindus is therefore an example of a
"popularized technicality".
Steve Hayes
I have a book on my shelf called "Militant Islam".
But then Anglicans used at one time to pray for "the church militant here on
earth".
M.J.Powell
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> writes
>Skitt wrote:
>
>> > I have noticed this
>> > too. "Christian" no longer includes "Catholic" in the US,
>assuming it
>> > ever did.
>>
>> That's news to me.
>>
>But not news to students and graduates of Bob Jones University.
>Despite Bob Jones III backing down on the Larry King show, their
>position is adamantly that Catholics are not part of Christianity.
Is it true that the BJU is not recognised by the US educational system?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Robert E. Lewis" <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote in message
> news:9jep2t$1...@netaxs.com...
> >
> > If a Jehovah's Witness appears on your doorstep, just invite
> > him/her in for a piece of birthday cake.
>
> Or to help you hold the goat still while you carry out the necessary
> blood sacrifice...some times they leave skid marks....r
In my last place of residence, across from the door was a bookcase
which contained, among other things, various bibles, a Koran, a Book
of Mormon, _The Korean Approach to Zen_ (a book of works by Korean Zen
master Chinul), George Smith's _Atheism: The Case Against God_,
Hubbard's _Dianetics_, and a book whose name I forget but which I was
given by a very nice young man in funny robes at the old Denver
airport. Picking the correct one when missionaries came to the door
could make for some interesting conversations. (No, I haven't read
_Dianetics_, but I could pretty much count on them not having done so
either.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |government wastes vast amounts of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth.
|Enormous effort and elaborate
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this
(650)857-7572 |much money
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Tony Cooper
> Is it true that the BJU is not recognised by the US educational
system?
I think what you mean to ask is if it accredited. The answer is "no".
As I understand it, they don't apply for accreditation. The spin they
put on it is shown at
http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/special_articles/index.asp?section=credit
The only real result of lack of accreditation is that a graduate
cannot transfer credits to an accredited university to either continue
his/her education (sic, in this case) or go on to a graduate program.
Some other school of religious bigotry may accept the credits, though.
Franke
"M.J.Powell" wrote:
There is no US educational system, only a series of state systems.
Colleges, universities, and specialist schools can apply for accreditation
by one or more of a host of private accreditation agencies. I just
checked the BJU web site and they do not list any accreditation
anywhere. They *do* say, however, that BJU was established and
is maintained by God, so perhaps they feel they don't need any
other accreditation.
Franke
Tony Cooper wrote:
Some of this is worth reproducing here:
Should Christian Parents Be Concerned About Accreditation?
An accrediting association is an organization that sets up criteria for
judging the quality of training offered by an educational institution,
determines the extent to which the institution meets these criteria, and
publishes a list of the institutions found to be of acceptable quality.
Members voluntarily join and agree to meet the criteria for holding
membership as defined by the accrediting association.
. . .
In recent years, we find an eroding public confidence in the process of
accreditation. . . .
Christians are commanded in Scripture not to be unequally yoked together
with unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14). Thus it is impossible for a Christian
institution to obey the Lord and voluntarily align itself with an
accreditation
association where unsaved men and women sit as "peer reviewers" on the
purpose, philosophy, objectives, and programs being carried on by the
Christian institution.
. . .
Yes, you as a parent should be concerned about the accreditation of the
Christian college your child plans to attend. Has the institution
surrendered
itself into the hands of unsaved men and women who will attempt to dictate
the manner in which its program is to be carried out? Bob Jones University
can justly lay claim to what other educators have termed it, "The World's
Most Unusual University."
Aaron Davies
> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> > Aaron J Dinkin wrote:
> >
> >> My 100% score was in Reform Judaism, which I suppose is reasonable in that
> >> although I'm a traditional/conservative Jew, I'm not very observant. There
> >> doesn't seem to be a category for Conservative Judaism.
> >
> > I think I heard somewhere that Conservative Judaism is in fact a
> > branch of Reform Judaism. Those Reformists, I suppose, who were
> > uncomfortable with the extent or pace of reform. But you should know
> > better than I.
>
> It probably was originally. (If it had originally split off from Orthodox,
> I imagine it would call itself Liberal, not Conservative.) But at any
> rate, it's a separate entity now.
The story I heard was the sometime in the nineteenth century, the main
Reform seminary held their graduation dinner on Yom Kippur. And served
shrimp. Many people in the denomination thought this was just too rude,
and started their own instead.
--
__ __
/ ) / )
/--/ __. __ ________ / / __. , __o _ _
/ (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__</_/_)_
Aaron Davies
> That is also an interesting question of word usage - Orthodox Jews call
> themselves Orthodox Jews, and sometimes Hasidic or Chassidic or various
> transliterations. But the Western secular media like to call them
> "ultra-Orthodox" - I wonder why? Could it be that the media are somewhat
> prejudiced against religion, and especially where people take it seriously?
Ultra-Orthodox seems to refer specifically to the various isolationist
sects (if living in Brooklyn can be called isolation)--mostly branches
of Hasidism, I think (there're others besides the Lebovitchers, tho most
people have never heard of them). There are indeed plenty of "normal"
(unqualified) Orthodox, but they don't make the news.
Aaron Davies
> "R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > "Robert E. Lewis" <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote in message
> > news:9jep2t$1...@netaxs.com...
> > >
> > > If a Jehovah's Witness appears on your doorstep, just invite
> > > him/her in for a piece of birthday cake.
> >
> > Or to help you hold the goat still while you carry out the necessary
> > blood sacrifice...some times they leave skid marks....r
>
> In my last place of residence, across from the door was a bookcase
> which contained, among other things, various bibles, a Koran, a Book
> of Mormon, _The Korean Approach to Zen_ (a book of works by Korean Zen
> master Chinul), George Smith's _Atheism: The Case Against God_,
> Hubbard's _Dianetics_, and a book whose name I forget but which I was
> given by a very nice young man in funny robes at the old Denver
> airport. Picking the correct one when missionaries came to the door
> could make for some interesting conversations. (No, I haven't read
> _Dianetics_, but I could pretty much count on them not having done so
> either.)
A simpler solution: keep some Crowley around. That should do for just
about everyone.
Aaron Davies
> Most people in fact are unaware that "catholic" can mean
> "universal" (perhaps it's a "skunked word").
>
> I think in fact that many Protestant sects or denominations do officially
> believe as a doctrinal matter that there is no such thing as a "universal
> Church", at least in some temporal sense. If so, then "Roman
> Catholic" just means, even officially, "a religion based in Rome that
> happens to officially believe in this notion that there can be, concretely
> and non-spiritually speaking, a universal Church". I don't really know
> enough about how this matter of "universality" is viewed by the various
> sorts of Christian religions, but I thought it was one of the divisive
> issues during the Reformation era.
It's still in the Apostles' Creed.
"I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the
forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life
everlasting."
I don't *think* it's generally capitalized, but as I haven't set foot in
a church for anything other than an architectural tour for at least
three years, I couldn't swear to it.
Aaron Davies
Completely seriously, the best way to get rid of them is to tell them
you used to be one but came to your senses. They're not supposed to even
talk to apostates, let alone evangelize them.