nuts vandalize church

[melon]

I quite admire the tactic of resolute stubbornness in a debate. It's very hard to rip down. I'm considering using it the next time I'm in an argument.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

And that is all I've been getting at. Thank you for the clarification.

but was this "nut" a "fundamentalist"?

NBC: i'm not criticizing your objections; i am criticizing, or rather pushing for more information, about how we see ourselves as members of certain groups, how those groups are portrayed in the media, and how we react to such portrayals.

 

[nbcrusader]

Doug, whether you want to admit it or not, anti-Catholic sentiments are an historical, institutionalized fact of soem of the more extreme, fudementalist Protestant sects. Now, does that mean all Protestants are anti-Catholic? Of course not, just as not all Catholics are anti-Semites who believe the Jews killed Jesus, despite the RCC's historical, insitutionalized anti-semitism (saucy 'ho that she is )

From Wiki

Protestant Reformation

Some pre-Reformation writers and most of the Reformers themselves, from Martin Luther (who wrote On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin, and John Knox (who wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women) identify the Roman Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon. This opinion influenced several generations in England and Scotland when it was put into the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible. As a tradition, it continues through Scofield Reference Bible (whose 1917 edition identified "ecclesiastical Babylon" with "apostate Christendom headed by the Papacy") and pro-Reformation writings such as those of I.M. Haldeman, and it is kept alive by contemporary figures such as Ian Paisley and Jack Chick. The "drunkenness with the blood of saints and martyrs", by this interpretation, refers to the veneration of saints and relics, which is viewed by the Reformers as idolatry and apostasy. Those who accept this tradition use the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant reformers were not the first people to call the Roman Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. There was a fairly long tradition of this kind of name-calling by opponents of the Papacy. Frederick Barbarossa published missives that called the Papacy the Whore of Babylon, and the Pope the Antichrist, during the course of his protracted quarrel with Pope Alexander III. Dante equated the corruption and simony in the office of the Papacy with the Whore of Babylon in Canto 19 of his Inferno. When the Florentine tyrant Girolamo Savonarola also called the Papacy the Whore of Babylon, he meant something closer to the Reformers' usage. These claims, however, were based chiefly on social and political disagreements with Roman Catholic policy, or at their strongest accuse the Papacy of moral corruption. The Protestant reformers, by contrast, seriously considered the Papacy to be at least potentially the apocalyptic figure mentioned in Bible prophecy, and included the claim in Bible commentaries as well as polemics. They meant something more than to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of political or moral corruption; they claimed that as a church it taught a Satanic counterfeit plan of salvation, one that would lead its faithful to Hell rather than to Heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon



We can engage in an interesting and useful discussion of extremism, media and identity (I really appreciate your post Irvine!) or we can defend "our team". Up to you.

If you want to switch gears to identity, nuance, the media, etc. I'm all for it. Verte cleared up the basic issue that I raised in this thread.

The reference you've posted is very interesting to me. Having come to faith and participating in a reformed church, I've never heard the "Catholic Church = Whore of Babylon" taught - from a pulpit or in a bible study. I would think few here would rush to defend the Catholic Church of Luther's time given the political power wielded by the Papacy, and the abusive practices used to control congregants. That was a different time, so I do not see the teaching carrying through to today (though it may very well be taught in some circles).

Does this teaching carry through to today? I think I've read quite a few posts from Melon carrying an equally stinging view of the Catholic Church, but I doubt anyone would call him a fundamentalist.

I guess we can find multiple definitions of the term "fundamentalist". Based on how the term is used in FYM, sometime I think it applies, others I don't. Irvine uses the term nuance, but I think it just goes to the basic understanding of what we are talking about - and the need to use a label, if at all. The media may use the term fundamentalist, point to one aspect that applies in a situation, but use the term in a far broader way.

 

[nbcrusader]

but we're talking about an article -- not about some poster's characterization of a group. and it would be nice if FYM were the real world, but it isn't, and the real world affects how we interact here on FYM.

i'll even avoid the "theocracy watch" thread comments, since it doesn't seem as if you are capable of understanding the threat that the current religiosity of the administration and increasingly all branches of government -- since when does being a born-again christian count as a SCOTUS qualification!?!?!

or are you? i'd like to think you are.

Fully capable of understanding - don't believe it is happening to any different degree than has occured over the last 25 years. The same fear of the Moral Majority existed in the 1980's - and we saw no measurable change to our way of life due to born again Christians involvement in government.

 

[nbcrusader]

I quite admire the tactic of resolute stubbornness in a debate.

I like to think we learn from each other

 

[Irvine511]

Fully capable of understanding - don't believe it is happening to any different degree than has occured over the last 25 years. The same fear of the Moral Majority existed in the 1980's - and we saw no measurable change to our way of life due to born again Christians involvement in government.

"we saw."

you might amend that to "i saw."

i'd say that much of American life is significantly different than in was in the 1980s, i don't think we've had a 20th century president who invokes God and higher purposes and scriptural references than Bush, the rise of the mega-churches and their political influence, the direct-marketing of political ideas via the pulpet at the grassroots level as was seen in Ohio and WVa in the 2004 election, the basic litmus test that must be passed (i.e., one is a born-again Christian) to be a SCOTUS nominee that makes James Dobson happy ... and i could go on and on.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess we can find multiple definitions of the term "fundamentalist". Based on how the term is used in FYM, sometime I think it applies, others I don't. Irvine uses the term nuance, but I think it just goes to the basic understanding of what we are talking about - and the need to use a label, if at all. The media may use the term fundamentalist, point to one aspect that applies in a situation, but use the term in a far broader way.

do you think that a group defines itself in the most favorable terms possible?

do you think those favorable terms are always deserved?

do you think the media might portray a group in an unflattereing light that might be closer to reality than that which we tell ourselves, and especially others who are not members of our group?

do you think people sometimes feel a burden to have to "represent" their group and adhere to unrealistic standards?

do you think that we go to great lengths to distinguish ourselves from the negative stereotype that's part of the media narrative for whatever group?

do you think we might to that to such a degree that, to make a point, we become dishonest about both ourselves and our group?



i will add that i could very easily ask myself every one of these questions.

 

[deep]

Fully capable of understanding - don't believe it is happening to any different degree than has occured over the last 25 years. The same fear of the Moral Majority existed in the 1980's - and we saw no measurable change to our way of life due to born again Christians involvement in government.

you were kind enough to help me with one of my post

let me assist you

and I saw no measurable change to my way of life due to born again Christians involvement in government.

 

[nbcrusader]

Irvine, this all happened in the 80's as well. The belief that a SCOUTUS nominee must be born-again, the rise of mega churches, the support garnered in the churches. It all happened before.

And the US is as secular as ever.

 

[Irvine511]

And the US is as secular as ever.

this is opinion, not fact.

i do disagree. quite strongly.

and based upon some casual conversations i've had with friends who have been born-again or who's families are born-again, religious ferver and the need to identify as Christian is stronger now than it's ever been.

 

[deep]

As it affects me

Where is the empathy?

One person is NOT the center of the universe.

Decisions should be based on how all are affected.

 

[nbcrusader]

do you think that a group defines itself in the most favorable terms possible?

It would be hard to say otherwise. But that implies that self-definition is driven by external marketing goals, instead of internal self expression.

do you think those favorable terms are always deserved?

Many definitional terms will be subject to a bias of perspective. Someone may consider themselves centrist to slightly left of center in the US, but in Europe be considered right wing. I guess I question what you mean by "deserved"? Is is simply a matter of accuracy? Or is it addressing how someone answers to a particular set of beliefs? And who is in a position to declare something "undeserved"?

do you think the media might portray a group in an unflattereing light that might be closer to reality than that which we tell ourselves, and especially others who are not members of our group?

Since this deals with a relavatistic discussion, I'd have to say "who's reality?" A presentation of facts will be able to dull the glossy coating some groups use to describe themselves. Other times, as you've acknolwedged, the media will portray a group for purposes of a sensation grabbing headline. So, no, I don't see the media, in an of itself, as the source of reality - but as a means to convey factual background and/or sensationalistic headlines.

do you think people sometimes feel a burden to have to "represent" their group and adhere to unrealistic standards?

Sadly, yes. I think there are plenty of people who strongly identify with a group, but have little idea of the true meaning of the group. Perhaps cultural or societal influences force this identifiation.

do you think that we go to great lengths to distinguish ourselves from the negative stereotype that's part of the media narrative for whatever group?

That will vary by the closeness with which we identify ourselves with a group, the granularity which which we identify the group, and the degree the stereotype misses the mark when identifying the group.

do you think we might to that to such a degree that, to make a point, we become dishonest about both ourselves and our group?

I guess, but I think I've lost the specific meaning behind your question here.


As I thought about this thread, I wondered what would have happened had I not questioned Verte's description of the accused as a "fundamentalist" instead of a "nutjob". Would we get another thread peppered with

assholes

? After a couple of hours, the thread would be on page 2.

 

[nbcrusader]

this is opinion, not fact.

i do disagree. quite strongly.

and based upon some casual conversations i've had with friends who have been born-again or who's families are born-again, religious ferver and the need to identify as Christian is stronger now than it's ever been.

I guess this is a product of our different perspectives. And just like your observations, based on my own observations, rejection of Jesus Christ has grown, not declined.

As far as religious influence goes, GWB is not really different than Reagan.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess this is a product of our different perspectives. And just like your observations, based on my own observations, rejection of Jesus Christ has grown, not declined.

so it's an either/or situation? either you're accepting or rejecting?

As far as religious influence goes, GWB is not really different than Reagan.

well, i was eating oreos and watching The Cosby Show in the 80s, so i can't speak from personal experience, but the reading i've done and the conversations i've had with those who were politically astute in the 80s would lead me to disagree with you.

 

[deep]

I guess this is a product of our different perspectives. And just like your observations, based on my own observations, rejection of Jesus Christ has grown, not declined.

here are some stats

As far as religious influence goes, GWB is not really different than Reagan.

I am ten years older than you

and remember Reagan and W's references to God and religion quite differently.

Yes, Reagan did mention the Almighty
but, so did Clinton.

 

[nbcrusader]

here are some stats

Interesting, it shows the smallest increase in Christianity, with substantial growth in other religions and secularism.

Yes, Reagan did mention the Almighty
but, so did Clinton.

That was when he was with Monica

 

[anitram]

Interesting, it shows the smallest increase in Christianity, with substantial growth in other religions and secularism.

But is that a result of people rejecting Jesus more and more as you claim, or is it a result of recent immigration patterns and the consequent birth rate of those populations?

 

[nbcrusader]

But is that a result of people rejecting Jesus more and more as you claim, or is it a result of recent immigration patterns and the consequent birth rate of those populations?

Are they mutually exclusive? Someone can reject Christ no matter where they are from.

 

[Irvine511]

Are they mutually exclusive? Someone can reject Christ no matter where they are from.

as a passionate agnostic, have i rejected christ under your definition?

 

[anitram]

Are they mutually exclusive? Someone can reject Christ no matter where they are from.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that a couple recently immigrated from Afghanistan who say has 6 kids in the USA, and the children are all under the age of 12, you have an objection to my argument that those children are inflating the numbers of non-Christians?

To you, they are rejecting Christ, and that's how they should be classified? I guess I just don't get it.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

That was when he was with Monica

.

*Sits and watches this very interesting debate continue to unfold*

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

as a passionate agnostic, have i rejected christ under your definition?

You've received the message of Jesus Christ.

What are legitimate responses? Yes? No? I don't know?

Only you know the true answer to your question (I'm surprise we've turned to "classification" of people). If I had to guess based on the body of your posts, it would be somewhere between 2 & 3.

 

[deep]

You've received the message of Jesus Christ.

yes

I got the message

of

Jesus of Nazareth


and it is nothing close to what the fundamentalists are pushing

 

[BonosSaint]

Deep said exactly what I feel.

 

[Irvine511]

You've received the message of Jesus Christ.

What are legitimate responses? Yes? No? I don't know?

Only you know the true answer to your question (I'm surprise we've turned to "classification" of people). If I had to guess based on the body of your posts, it would be somewhere between 2 & 3.

i agree with deep.

you initially framed the choice as either acceptance or rejection of Christ.

my reality, of course, is far more complicated than one thing or the other.

 

[verte76]

Some fundamentalists are anti-Catholic. Does this mean they don't like the Catholic Church, or that they don't like Catholic people? I don't care that some people don't like my church. I do care that some people are prejudiced against me because I'm in it.

 

[melon]

Some fundamentalists are anti-Catholic. Does this mean they don't like the Catholic Church, or that they don't like Catholic people? I don't care that some people don't like my church. I do care that some people are prejudiced against me because I'm in it.

And, yet, as long as they're anti-gay and anti-abortion, the Catholic Church is perfectly happy to sell its soul to these kinds of nuts.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

yes

I got the message

of

Jesus of Nazareth


and it is nothing close to what the fundamentalists are pushing

Actually, you got a "different" Gospel (or is it "another" Gospel, I forget how the commercials frame it).

So it is obviously different than what fundamentalist Christians (and others) believe.

 

[nbcrusader]

i agree with deep.

you initially framed the choice as either acceptance or rejection of Christ.

my reality, of course, is far more complicated than one thing or the other.

Then I will leave it with you to answer the question (as we all get to give our "final" answer at some point ).

 

[Irvine511]

Then I will leave it with you to answer the question (as we all get to give our "final" answer at some point ).

you made a cultural classification -- people who reject Christ.

i want to know the criteria upon which you created this classification.