OT? - hatred of Roman Catholics
Terry Rigby
ask the question
that has been puzzling me. I have noticed over the past year that many of
those who profess
to be Christians (TM) seem to think that their particular sect, and no
other, is in possession
of the Truth (TM) and that everyone else is going to Hell.
Apart of the sheer arrogance of this view, which surely is a form of
blasphemy, are they totally
sure that little voice whispering in their ear is not that of Meneer de
Duivel?
Even more so, I have noticed they save their venom, in a most un-Christian
way, for that
largest single group of Christians, Roman Catholics. I have seen that Jack
Chick exhibits this
same tendency, only he is almost rabid.
Can anyone explain why this seems to be such a universal view, and from
which wellspring of
pananoia it comes from. The Rev Paisley comes to mind on this side of the
Atlantic as another
example and the Wee Frees would be hilarious if they weren't so deadly
serious.
Terry Rigby
----------------------------------
Beyond the dreaming place,
I watch from my darkness.
All the stars I know
Steeleye Span: Beyond the dreaming place
Bobby D. Bryant
<fam....@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> ...Can anyone explain why this
> seems to be such a universal view, and from which wellspring of
> pananoia it comes from.
I ass-u-me that it's pedigree envy. Catholicism goes back c. 17
centuries, vs. 4 for the *old* protestant sects, and often much less.
I know first-hand that at least some of the fundamentalist sects would
like to pretend that they represent an unbroken tradition of 20
centuries, but history doesn't support those claims.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, texas
Greedo Buck
"Terry Rigby" <fam....@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:000e01c12485$7952bbc0$b4aa49d5@terencer...
> I have noticed over the past year that many of
> those who profess
> to be Christians (TM) seem to think that their particular sect, and no
> other, is in possession
> of the Truth (TM) and that everyone else is going to Hell.
> Apart of the sheer arrogance of this view, which surely is a form of
> blasphemy, are they totally
> sure that little voice whispering in their ear is not that of Meneer de
> Duivel?
Because it is those who have influence (ie power) that dictate who is 'the
enemy'.
Since Catholicism is such a large group, they are considered a 'danger' to
other Christians.
I must add that it only seems to be the fundamentalists who are
insulting/hating towards such groups. (which, ironically, is the antithesis
of Christian teaching)
Richard Harter
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
Protestants aren't real Christians. They are heretics, the lot of
them.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
I get my irony at K-mart.
It may be cheap but I can get it in quantity.
--
Posted from mail.sbtc.net [137.118.129.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
amc...@aol.com
Historically speaking, I would say that the bad blood goes both ways. Remember
there was that little thing called the inquisition following all of those
heritics who broke off from the mother church.
When looking over a lot of religious conflicts, it seems as though some of the
worst venom is reserved for apostates. Salmon Rushdie come to mind, as well as
the current Taleban threat of death to anyone who converts from Islam to another
religion.
This would explain the initial reaction of the Catholic church, and anomosity
from the Protestants would follow for at least two reasons: Reaction to the
inquisition, itself and the issues about the Catholic church that related to the
breakup were left largely unresolved.
The farther afield one goes from, in this case Catholicism also is probably a
major factor. At least today, I don't seem to detect much antipathy from the
Anglicans, for example. And when the Anglican church recently started ordaining
women, several of their priests even bolted back to the Catholic church.
I'd be curious myself to know to what degree general animosity against
foreigners back in the mid to late 1800s stirred up anti-Catholicism what with
the large wave of people coming in from traditionally Catholic countries like
Ireland and Italy. Was it always there, but didn't show itself because of few
Catholics to rally against? The history of Maryland comes to mind here. Or did
the large influx of Catholics stir up what resentment there was, as a starting
point, and it just built up from there?
Percieved threats to ones own identity and security has got to play a role here.
I could care less what religion my political representative is (as long as they
keep their religion and politics separate), but in Northern Ireland, religion
has everything to do with how the country will be run in the future, and by
whom. In this light, because Ian Paisley would find himself and his
constituents being shifted from the majority to an extreme (literally) minority
if Catholics were to gain power and be able to reunite with Ireland. I can see
where he sees a threat. People all over seem to always fret over being
inundated by one group or another, and the world they know and love being taken
from them in some way. This is fertile grounds for hatred and prejudice to
develop. The anti-Catholic Know-Nothings became a force to be reaconed with
during the immediate aftermath of the huge waves of Catholic immigration, as the
KKK became more anti-Catholic over the same period as well.
There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel, though. From my perspective
judging only from where I grew up (in the NW), being Irish or Italian doesn't
seem to matter much at all anymore. In the circles that I travel, I can't
remember the last time someone inquired about someone else's ethnic background.
The same does not hold true when it comes to religion, though, but it also
doesn't strike me as being anywhere near as critical of an issue as it used to
be. As we get better acquainted with each other, and some of the old stalwarts
die off (unfortunately, that is what it takes sometimes), issues of tolerance
are simply bound to improve. Since these issues appear to be a generational
one, changes take a while. My grandma may have been a racist, but she
eventually had to learn to at least shut up about it ;) And the image of a
black fireman trying to revive her by giving her mouth to mouth after she
suffered from a heart attack actually gave us younger generation kind of a
chuckle that somewhat eased the pain of her passing.
William Mc Hale
: Having now found a way to post after lurking for about a year I can at last
: ask the question
: that has been puzzling me. I have noticed over the past year that many of
: those who profess
: to be Christians (TM) seem to think that their particular sect, and no
: other, is in possession
: of the Truth (TM) and that everyone else is going to Hell.
: Apart of the sheer arrogance of this view, which surely is a form of
: blasphemy, are they totally
: sure that little voice whispering in their ear is not that of Meneer de
: Duivel?
: Even more so, I have noticed they save their venom, in a most un-Christian
: way, for that
: largest single group of Christians, Roman Catholics. I have seen that Jack
: Chick exhibits this
: same tendency, only he is almost rabid.
: Can anyone explain why this seems to be such a universal view, and from
: which wellspring of
: pananoia it comes from. The Rev Paisley comes to mind on this side of the
: Atlantic as another
: example and the Wee Frees would be hilarious if they weren't so deadly
: serious.
Well I think it would be fair to say that most Christians get along
reasonably well. Indeed it is not uncommon these days for the local
Catholic and Mainline Protestant churches to work together on social
programs and the like. Unfortunately, among some (and I stress some, not
all) evangelical groups there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what
Catholics and Protestants really represent. More than once I have had
Evangelicals tell me that they didn't think Catholics worshipped Jesus as
God. In addition, unlike the Catholic and Protestant Churches, where most
of the worshippers were born into their religion, evangelicals most likely
have converted to the individeal beliefs of their local church and hence
exhibit a converts zeal.
regarding Mr. Paisley; well I think his hatred of Catholics has more to do
with the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland tend to be Irish
Nationalists and the Protestants tend to be British Unionists. In other
words it essentially becomes a nationalistic issue not a fundamentally
religious one.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Follow your dream! Unless its the one where you're at work in your
underwear during a fire drill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
TomS
stated..."
[...snip...]
>regarding Mr. Paisley; well I think his hatred of Catholics has more to do
>with the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland tend to be Irish
>Nationalists and the Protestants tend to be British Unionists. In other
>words it essentially becomes a nationalistic issue not a fundamentally
>religious one.
I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, but, if
I understand your analysis, it also applies to anti-evolutionism
(AKA creationism).
That is, that the opposition is "not a fundamentally religious
one", but the creationists make it into one.
Tom S.
wally
and why would anyone hate catholics?,sher anent they only the enemies
of free men everywhere?
Richard Uhrich
Terry Rigby wrote:
>
> Having now found a way to post after lurking for about a year I can at last
> ask the question
> that has been puzzling me. I have noticed over the past year that many of
> those who profess
> to be Christians (TM) seem to think that their particular sect, and no
> other, is in possession
> of the Truth (TM) and that everyone else is going to Hell.
> Apart of the sheer arrogance of this view, which surely is a form of
> blasphemy, are they totally
> sure that little voice whispering in their ear is not that of Meneer de
> Duivel?
> Even more so, I have noticed they save their venom, in a most un-Christian
> way, for that
> largest single group of Christians, Roman Catholics. I have seen that Jack
> Chick exhibits this
> same tendency, only he is almost rabid.
> Can anyone explain why this seems to be such a universal view, and from
> which wellspring of
> pananoia it comes from. The Rev Paisley comes to mind on this side of the
> Atlantic as another
> example and the Wee Frees would be hilarious if they weren't so deadly
> serious.
>
> Terry Rigby
Martin Luther started it at the very beginning of the reformation. He
decided the Pope was the anti-Christ of revelations. He also thought
Jews should be exterminated.
J Forbes
-snip-
> There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel, though. From my perspective
> judging only from where I grew up (in the NW), being Irish or Italian doesn't
> seem to matter much at all anymore. In the circles that I travel, I can't
> remember the last time someone inquired about someone else's ethnic background.
> The same does not hold true when it comes to religion, though, but it also
> doesn't strike me as being anywhere near as critical of an issue as it used to
> be. As we get better acquainted with each other, and some of the old stalwarts
> die off (unfortunately, that is what it takes sometimes), issues of tolerance
> are simply bound to improve. Since these issues appear to be a generational
> one, changes take a while. My grandma may have been a racist, but she
> eventually had to learn to at least shut up about it ;) And the image of a
> black fireman trying to revive her by giving her mouth to mouth after she
> suffered from a heart attack actually gave us younger generation kind of a
> chuckle that somewhat eased the pain of her passing.
I think you're right, that things are
changing....neat story, thanks!
Jim
J Forbes
> regarding Mr. Paisley; well I think his hatred of Catholics has more to do
> with the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland tend to be Irish
> Nationalists and the Protestants tend to be British Unionists. In other
> words it essentially becomes a nationalistic issue not a fundamentally
> religious one.
Sounds like what was going on in Scotland c. a few
hundred years ago....
Jim
William Mc Hale
: Martin Luther started it at the very beginning of the reformation. He
: decided the Pope was the anti-Christ of revelations. He also thought
: Jews should be exterminated.
Well I think it needs to be balanced. Luther did not start off hating the
Catholic Church, or the Pope, that came later. The Inquisition of the
Catholic Church precedes the reformation by several centuries though in
reality the inquisition had only a small roll in battling the Reformation
(a much larger role in Spain though).
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Reality Is A Nice Place, But I Wouldn't Want To Live There.
William Mc Hale
: "On 14 Aug 2001 08:59:00 -0400, in article
<9lb7aj$1a7$2...@news.umbc.edu>, William
: stated..."
I am not sure I follow? I think most creationists oppose evolution
because they are fundamentalists (people who believe in the literal
interpretation of the Bible) so for them opposing evolution is opposing
something that undermines the Bible (in their mind), so for them it is, I
believe fundamentally Religious. In Northern Ireland religion is more a
symbol of National Identity; the vast Majority of Catholics trace their
roots to before Cromwell and William of Orange while most Protestants came
in after William of Orange in an attempt to pacify the country.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Reality Is A Nice Place, But I Wouldn't Want To Live There.
Ken Cox
> Protestants aren't real Christians. They are heretics, the lot of
> them.
In case anyone thinks Richard is joking, the Catholic Encyclopedia's
article on "Heresy" is at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm .
You'll find the material on Protestantism in the section on "Spread
of Heresy", with Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and so forth.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
William Mc Hale
: William Mc Hale wrote:
Well the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland trace their roots
back to Scotland : ).
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Reality Is A Nice Place, But I Wouldn't Want To Live There.
ReidRover
>
>J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: William Mc Hale wrote:
>
>:> regarding Mr. Paisley; well I think his hatred of Catholics has more to do
>:> with the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland tend to be Irish
>:> Nationalists and the Protestants tend to be British Unionists. In other
>:> words it essentially becomes a nationalistic issue not a fundamentally
>:> religious one.
>
>: Sounds like what was going on in Scotland c. a few
>: hundred years ago....
>
>Well the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland trace their roots
>back to Scotland : ).
>
Yes i think it goes back (in Scotland) further than the Protestant
reformation..basically it is the clash of two very different cultures that of
the Celtic "Highlanders and Islanders"( though at one time 90% of Scotland was
celtic in nature) and the lowland Scottish culture( more anglo in nature )
.When the reformation came a long and most lowlanders adopted Presbyterianism
, religion was used in place of culture as a reason for strife.
It continued this way until the '45 after that there was still some prejudice
towards gaels right up until the middle of the 20th century..slowlly things
are improving, though it may be too late to save the gaelic language and
culture.
Terry Rigby
"J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B794894...@yahoo.com...
> William Mc Hale wrote:
>
> > regarding Mr. Paisley; well I think his hatred of Catholics has more to
do
> > with the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland tend to be Irish
> > Nationalists and the Protestants tend to be British Unionists. In other
> > words it essentially becomes a nationalistic issue not a fundamentally
> > religious one.
>
> Sounds like what was going on in Scotland c. a few
> hundred years ago....
>
>
More like Scotland a few decades ago, or less. Only recently a Scottish
personage (details are hazy)
was forced to resign after being found singing anti Catholic songs in a
club.
Rev. I. Paisley seems to foam at the mouth at mention of the Pope
(describing him as the
Anti-Christ more than once) which suggests that his hatred of Catholics is
after all religion based.
Terry Rigby
TomS
stated..."
>
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
>: I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, but, if
>: I understand your analysis, it also applies to anti-evolutionism
>: (AKA creationism).
>
>: That is, that the opposition is "not a fundamentally religious
>: one", but the creationists make it into one.
>
>I am not sure I follow? I think most creationists oppose evolution
>because they are fundamentalists (people who believe in the literal
>interpretation of the Bible) so for them opposing evolution is opposing
>something that undermines the Bible (in their mind), so for them it is, I
>believe fundamentally Religious. In Northern Ireland religion is more a
>symbol of National Identity; the vast Majority of Catholics trace their
>roots to before Cromwell and William of Orange while most Protestants came
>in after William of Orange in an attempt to pacify the country.
I really don't want to get into a discussion of Northern Ireland
politics.
I have no doubt that the fundamentalist-young-earth-creationists
believe that their objections to evolution are strictly Biblical.
And a lot of them also believe that their objections are also
scientific.
However, it is a fact that the Bible has less to say against
common descent than it has to say about the flatness of the earth
or the development of the fetus. And practically nobody thinks
that those are a matter of Biblical concern.
My tentative hypothesis is that there are other-than-Biblical
reasons (as there are other-than-scientific reasons) for
creationism.
Just as you suggest, there are other than religious reasons
for the Northern Ireland problems, altough these have been
projected upon the two varieties of Christianity. Even though
the participants may rationalize to themselves that it is a
matter of religion, whether Protestant or Catholic.
Tom S.
J Forbes
In a way, kind of like what happened here in the US
over the past few hundred years. I think religion
was used as one effective argument against the
native "heathens". Sad.
Jim
Zaph'enath
Ha ha! Cool.
- Zaph'enath
--
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw
Zaph'enath
> In article <000e01c12485$7952bbc0$b4aa49d5@terencer>, "Terry Rigby"
> <fam....@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > ...Can anyone explain why this
> > seems to be such a universal view, and from which wellspring of
> > pananoia it comes from.
>
> I ass-u-me that it's pedigree envy. Catholicism goes back c. 17
> centuries, vs. 4 for the *old* protestant sects, and often much less.
The Catholic Church is older than the Byzantine
Empire. Constantine brought the Church out
of hiding; he didn't start it. (Note, though, that in
the truest sense the RCC only became a separate
entity from the Eastern Church in 1054 AD.)
That aside, however, I think you have something.
I think one of the most important things to note
is the fact that Protestantism was born in enmity
with the RCC. That "pedigree envy" to which
you refer has lead the proddies to make more
and more extreme accusations and name-calling
the more time has gone by. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli,
etc. never called the Church the "Whore of Babylon"
as I have heard some blaspheme these days...
> I know first-hand that at least some of the fundamentalist sects would
> like to pretend that they represent an unbroken tradition of 20
> centuries, but history doesn't support those claims.
Most fundamentalists don't even know whence
came Fundamentalism. I always find it amusing
to ask if they have ever read "The Fundamentals,"
that spawned their movement at the end of the
nineteenth century -- or how much they know
about Millenarianism, the movement from which
they descended. I haven't personally met one of
them who even knew what I was talking about.
Paul J Gans
I think it is also daddy envy. All that the fundamentalist
groups know about Jesus they learned from catholic sources.
----- Paul J. Gans
John Wilkins
But it *is* a heresy. Really. Protestants fail to accept the
transsubstantiation of the Mass.
Zaph'enath
Good point. I've tried to make it to them
in the past. Never works.
William Mc Hale
Well just to point out but the online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia
was published in 1913. While technically the Protestants might still be
considered Heretical (in the sense that they have doctrinal and dogmatic
differences with Rome) the relationships between most of them and the
Catholic Church are reasonably cordial.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.
Andrew Glasgow
"Terry Rigby" <fam....@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> Even more so, I have noticed they save their venom, in a most
> un-Christian way, for that largest single group of Christians, Roman
> Catholics. I have seen that Jack Chick exhibits this same tendency,
> only he is almost rabid.
s/almost//. The man is insane by any rational standard.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Paul J Gans
>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>: Richard Harter wrote:
>:> Protestants aren't real Christians. They are heretics, the lot of
>:> them.
>: In case anyone thinks Richard is joking, the Catholic Encyclopedia's
>: article on "Heresy" is at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm .
>: You'll find the material on Protestantism in the section on "Spread
>: of Heresy", with Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and so forth.
>Well just to point out but the online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia
>was published in 1913. While technically the Protestants might still be
>considered Heretical (in the sense that they have doctrinal and dogmatic
>differences with Rome) the relationships between most of them and the
>Catholic Church are reasonably cordial.
So are relationships between the Jews and the Catholic Church,
except that most Jews have given up waiting for the Catholics
to come to their senses and return to the Judaism of their
founder.
----- Paul J. Gans
Richard Uhrich
William Mc Hale wrote:
>
> Richard Uhrich <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : Martin Luther started it at the very beginning of the reformation. He
> : decided the Pope was the anti-Christ of revelations. He also thought
> : Jews should be exterminated.
>
> Well I think it needs to be balanced. Luther did not start off hating the
> Catholic Church, or the Pope, that came later. The Inquisition of the
> Catholic Church precedes the reformation by several centuries though in
> reality the inquisition had only a small roll in battling the Reformation
> (a much larger role in Spain though).
>
> --
> Bill
I certainly do not disagree. Religion and hatred have historically been
inseperable.
William Mc Hale
: I certainly do not disagree. Religion and hatred have historically been
: inseperable.
Only to the extent that any strong idea tends to raise the passion of men
and those passions tend to lead to hate. Nationalism and Communisim are
modern examples of hate arising independent of religion.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Attempt to get a new car for your spouse -- it'll be a great trade!
KazamaSmokers
> > only he is almost rabid.
>
> s/almost//. The man is insane by any rational standard.
Yes, but he is colorfully insane, in the same entertaining way that
Pat Buchanan and Bob Smith are gonzo loonies.
Adam Marczyk
news:9lgg74$ok$2...@news.umbc.edu...
> Richard Uhrich <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : I certainly do not disagree. Religion and hatred have historically been
> : inseperable.
>
> Only to the extent that any strong idea tends to raise the passion of men
> and those passions tend to lead to hate. Nationalism and Communisim are
> modern examples of hate arising independent of religion.
Clearly, the only cure is to make sure nobody is passionate about anything.
If I weren't too lazy, I'd declare a National Apathy Day.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
KazamaSmokers
to talking it seriously.
And I don't know *ANYONE* who can possibly take Jack Chick tracts
seriously.
PhilWoch
etc. never called the Church the "Whore of Babylon"
as I have heard some blaspheme these days... >>
Just for a correction. I don't know if Luther called them that, but he called
them plenty of other things. He did call the Pope, or the Papacy the
AntiChrist. And it was quite common in the 1500's and 1600's to call the Roman
Catholic Church the WHore of Babylon.
Luther did acknowledge that Bernard of Clairvaux, along with certain other
medieval Catholic saints, had the Holy Spirit.
A Pagano
Pagano replied:
In a letter to Pope Leo X Luther declared the Catholic Church to be "the
jaws of Hell, kept wide open by the anger of God." Luther did describe
the Pope as the antichrist in terms similar to St John's depiction of
the red bride of Babylon in Revelation. Luther made sure that even the
illiterate could be told this horrible and caustic tale by preparing a
pictorial. And since the Papacy is inseparable from the visible Church
on earth Luther might just as well have declared the Church the whore of
Babylon.
Robin Levett
news:3B970971...@fast.net...
Hold on, folks; do we actually have here an example of Mr P admitting he was
wrong. You may recall that back in January this year, he was saying:-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
> >I don't doubt that there exists someone (who is also fundamentalist) who
> >claims that Catholicism is antiChristian. If one searches hard enough
> >one may find someone who holds every hairbrained idea that one could
> >possible hold. But that's a trivial claim. So the assertion that
> >someone on the planet exists who makes this claim is trivial. Wf3h may
> >have backpeddled to this trivial position, but his previous one was far
> >more broad and sweeping.
> >
> >What I disputed was wf3h's over-generalization that all, or most, or
> >even some signficant minority of fundamentalists (in general or
> >creationists in particular) make this characterization. Last time I
> >checked "Bob Jones University" is an entity not a person capable of
> >holding a position.
> >
> >I offer the challenge again: What writings from even some small
> >minority of fundamentalists contains the claim that Catholicism is
> >antiChristian? Certainly wf3h read this somewhere. Or is there a good
> >chance that in his disdain for both groups (fundamentalists and
> >Catholics) he chose whatever derogatory comments came to mind to foment
> >discord between them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
He rejected all vidence then presented that the larger part of
fundamentalist protestantism took the view he now attributes to Luther - or
will he say that calling the Catholic Church "the jaws of hell, kept wide by
the anger of God" merely expresses a doctrinal disagreement within a general
ecumenical tolerance of respect for the other party's point of view?
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmattglobal.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Steven J.
Fundamentalism is distinguished by adherence to biblical inerrancy and
the substitutionary atonement (and Luther would agree with this, of
course), but also by a premillenial, dispensationalist stance on
Biblical prophecy (unknown in Luther's day, and not accepted by him).
Fundamentalism is also self-consciously a reaction to theological
modernism, and its acceptance of biblical errancy. Lutheranism was a
self-conscious reaction to Roman Catholicism, and its acceptance of
church tradition as authoritative alongside the Bible. It did not
differ from Catholicism on its stance toward science and the accuracy
of the Bible. Thus Luther was not a Fundamentalist, and Pagano is not
forced to concede that any Fundamentalist sect regards Catholicism as
"the jaws of hell" or "the whore of Babylon."
I grant you that the theological stance of Bob Jones University
probably reflects the actual views of some actual, flesh-and-blood
fundamentalists who wrote its position papers, but Martin Luther
probably wasn't one of them, even if he would have approved.
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Robin Levett
> rle...@ibmattglobal.net
> (address munged by addition of Big Blue)
>
> Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
> Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
> Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
> ___________________________________________________
-- Steven J.
...who feels I should be especially scrupulous in dealing with Tony
these days,
Robin Levett
news:127ccf2e.01090...@posting.google.com...
I take your point - but this establishes that the father of Lutheranism, one
of the more mainstream denonimations nowadays, held this view. This leaves
Pagano having to argue that the fundamentalists are less anticatholic than
the mainstream; which might be a little difficult, with brother Paisley
about to point at.