Redstate

I grew up in the Baptist Church and am now a solid Calvinist in the Presbyterian Church (the PCA variety, not the heretical PCUSA variety).

If you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, like the Pope did, you are certainly going to Heaven.

I think some Baptists, particularly the very fundamentalist, usually rural variety, have this whole "Pope as Anti-Christ" hang up.  It stems from several factors, chief among them is ignorance.

That Catholics appear to "worship Mary" and statutes of Mary and Saints throws a lot of Baptists for a loop.  Then there is the issue of communion and the creepy (to many) idea that

Catholics believe that that bread and wine really do turn to Christ's bone and blood.

If that wasn't enough, Baptists and most Protestants have a congregationlist or presbyterian church structure, where the decision flow up from the masses to the top.  The Pope is the final earthly authority in the Catholic Church and, as a result, is viewed with suspicion.

Lastly, and this is a biggie, there are many references in Revelations, etc. to Rome and how evil Rome is.  You and I may view that in light of Rome at the time of Christ.  Many fundamentalists view that as Rome at the end of days.  And, what large group happens to be in Rome?  The Catholic Church.  What figure at the end of time will pretend to be Christ?  The Anti-Christ.  Some put those together and come up with the equation: Rome+Anti-Christ=Pope.

For that, they are worse off.

I certainly disagree with many things in the Catholic Church, which I view as based as much on tradition and church history as on the Bible.  But, we cannot doubt that there are as many good Christians in the Catholic Church as there are in the Presbyterian and Baptist Churchs.  They just have, to many, a foreign way of worshipping that is suspect.

They confess to a priest, not to Jesus Christ.

They worship a man(Pope), not Jesus Christ.

They communicate to man, not to Jesus Christ.

They worship the virgin Mary, not Jesus Christ.

Fascination with Peter, not Jesus Christ.

A number of priest are openly gay, which of course, is totally against the Bible.

The Catholic religion is based on theatrics, no spirtual connection with Jesus Christ.

Catholics do not believe they need to have personal relationship with Christ, thus no personal conviction or responsibility, they worship man and symbols.  When they sin, they confess to a priest and everything is fine.  

Overall Catholics practiced idolatry, which is totally against the Bible.  The pope was a good man, but he IS or was not Jesus Christ.  The coverage of his death was repulsive.  Can't judge whether or not Catholics are hell-bound, but they certainly don't follow scripture.  May God be with them.

It would be helpful to know how you identify yourself religion-wise.

Born a Baptist...converted to Pentecost

I don't agree with the entirety of the Catholic practice, but I think you are way off base.

Catholics worship Christ.  They find the basis for the belief that Peter was the first Pope from Christ telling Peter that Peter would be the rock on which the church was built and to lead Christ's flock.

You post reeks of one who spends too much time reading third party accounts of Catholicism from a bunch of Catholic haters.  It's like trying to understand Jews by reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- a fiction and lie in and of itself.

That explains a lot of your hostility to Catholicism.

that bigot would be a useful definition here.

Religious ID: Raised Catholic, then atheist, then agnostic, then Unitarian (which is much different in Oklahoma than in the Northeast), now looking around at mainstream Protestant sects.

Several assertions you make strike me as incorrect.  Can you cite where in the Bible openly gay priests are forbidden.  Assuming they do not fornicate, they are not violating any Biblical teachings that I am aware of.

Furthermore, you dismiss the Jesus worship as if it doesn't happen.  The entire process of communion is not a worship of Mary or the Pope.  There is a definite difference of emphasis, but that alone does not make Catholic idolatarians.  At least not in my view.

...years of studying with Bob Jones textbooks I imagine.

You found us out. Two thousand years of trying to convince the world that we worship the risen Christ, and now you've pulled back the shroud.

There is no Biblical injunction about having a sexual preference, even if one is a priest -- except where Christ said, "And let not gay men be priests -- this won't make sense to you until about two thousand Roman calendar years from now -- really, a bit less, because they'll change the calendar in about sixteen hundred years from now to account for the Earth's path around the sun and to square the seasons, and they'll have changed the word "gay" -- which is in a language called English that doesn't exist yet, but wait on it -- from "happy" to mean "people who prefer relations with those of their own sex," more or less -- excepting of course transgendered folks, and don't get me started on that -- but I'm serious about this."

You big cutey. Guess we have to plead guilty as charged to each count.

They confess to a priest. Wonder where they got that idea? Oh...right..the book of Matthew.

They worship a man, communicate to man, etc and so forth eh? I think you don't know the Catholic understanding of "pray to".

I'll bet you a bajillion dollars you'll find more Scripture in a Catholic Mass than any sermon Jack Chick ever gave, friend. Yet...we call you no less than separated brethren in Christ.

I was raised as a protestant with a Christian school textbooks that offended the Catholics enrolled at my school.  However, my take on it has always been that asking whether Catholics were really Christians was about the same question as whether Protestants were really Christians.  I don't think going to either a protestant service or a Catholic mass saves your soul nor does labelling yourself one or the other.


For my part, about all of the pageantry I can take is the singing of the national anthem at a football game so I'll stick with going to protestant services.  Of course, none of my Catholic friends have ever invited me to go with them so I may not know what I'm missing.

...I too have seen some of what you speak of in your post. I was raised Seventh Day Adventist, later moved to a non-denominational Christian church, and now am a Baptist. I live in California, and the Baptist faith practiced here, I believe, is a little different than it is in other regions of the country. So, this may not be the most relevant reply to your posting, but I'll make it nonetheless.

I've never heard any of our members or pastors ever even remotely lament the Pope or Catholicism. Perhaps it is partly because of the fact that I spent a lot of time in a non-denominational Chrisitan church, that I hold this view, but I see any person who has embraced Christ as their Lord and savior and believe He was raised from the dead, as a Christian.

I think being raised as a Protestant, has lead me to think that the fewer "man-made obstacles" between one's self and the Lord, the better, but that is just my thinking. Speaking in completely general terms, it seems that many forms of Christianity empower the hierarchy of their own Church so much, that it inadvertantly takes away from the focus on Christ. One of the examples I've heard quite often used for this case are confessions made to a priest, who then bestows forgiveness. Is man, even a man of the cloth, able to bestow forgiveness?

I'm sure that last paragraph will inspire much response, but really I'm just highlighting an argument that is out there. I do not pretend to know enough about all forms of Christianity or the text of the Bible, to speak with authority to its validity.

Your reference to the "Left Behind" series is a good one. I have the entire series, and my family and I enjoyed them very much, but I did notice a few instances that could be construed as preaching against the Catholic Church. The "one world faith" was headed by a pontiff, he wore robes and headpieces, etc. I didn't allow it to take away from the rest of the message, but I could see how someone of the Catholic faith could take offense to such references.

I stated before what my thoughts on "what makes a Christian" are. Those tenets of faith in Christ as your only means of deliverance, the belief that He died for our sins, and the belief in His resurrection, are the ones that matter most to me. I think most forms of Christianity share those principles within their doctrine and try to emphasize them to varying degrees. I think the more, we as Christians, focus on what binds us, rather than what separates us, the better off we all are.

Re: Aren't Catholics Christians too?  If not, what is a "Christian?"

Yes, Catholics are Christians. Anyone who worships Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a Christian, period.

Re: What denominations of Christians believe that Catholics are hell-bound and why?

An unfortunate handful that have not yet gotten over the Reformation.

Re: What is the difference between fundamentalist Christians and evangelical Christians?

Fundamentalists believe that the Bible must be read in a very strict literal way (and where that causes problems they sweep them under the rug) and that salvation requires (as a necessary but not sufficient condition) following a rigid set of rules for worship and behavior. Evangelicals also stress the Bible over all other sources of religious authority, but they are less wedded to literalism and more focused of maintaining a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and as such are more tolerant of diverse forms of worship and (to some extent) of personal behavior.

Re: Are there Christians who are neither fundamentalists nor evangelicals?  If so, what are they called?

Oh good grief yes! Liberal Protestants, mainline Protestants, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and, yes, Catholics. (Maybe even the Mormons at the margins, although that's going to raise some hackles no doubt.)

Re: Are there Christians who are neither fundamentalists nor evangelicals?  If so, what are they called?

St. Paul rebuked the inter-Christian strife of his day. I would not care to face judgment with a history of fomenting divisons and contentions among those who follow Our Lord.

I didn't mean to sound so hostile or to offend.  However, I just believe in a "personal" relationship with Jesus Christ.  When you have a personal relationship with Christ, sacraments or confession to a priest is not necessary.  Man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven except through Christ.  Worshipping of idols is a sin.  Worshipping the Pope is a sin.   Traditions and routines is not what Christ was about.  He was not a complicated man and he didn't want to make eternal life in Heaven complicated.  Again I pray for all men.  Also don't get me wrong, I love all of God's children...but after studying the word for myself, I didn't understand why baptists ignored the part of the Bible that talks about the Holy Spirit...so that's when I converted to Pentecost.  Again I love everyone, sorry I came off as a bigot or Catholic hater.

Re: They confess to a priest, not to Jesus Christ.

Catholics confess to God. They tell their sins to a priest for the sake of gaining spiritual guidance.  

Re: They worship a man(Pope), not Jesus Christ.

No one worships the Pope. Why do you think this is so?

Re: They communicate to man, not to Jesus Christ.

Catholics pray to Christ. The Catholic Mass is focused on Christ and Christ alone.

Re: They worship the virgin Mary, not Jesus Christ.

If anyone worships Mary, they are off track. Catholics (and other traditional Christians like the Orthodox) venerate Mary, which means they honor her. This is no different from honoring and respecting the president or any other person of good repute and accomplishment.

Re: Fascination with Peter, not Jesus Christ.

Huh?

Re: A number of priest are openly gay, which of course, is totally against the Bible.

Strictly speaking, there is nothin immoral about just being gay. A celibate gay priest is a good deal more honorable than a heterosexual one who sleeps with his parishoners' wives.

Re: The Catholic religion is based on theatrics, no spirtual connection with Jesus Christ.

Ancient Jewish worship, as set out in Scripture, was highly liturgical too. It's quite a jump to then argue God disapproves of formal or mystical forms of worship.

Re: Catholics do not believe they need to have personal relationship with Christ, thus no personal conviction or responsibility, they worship man and symbols.  

Good grief, what do you think the Eucharist is if not a personal relationship with the Lord of the most extreme sort?

Re: When they sin, they confess to a priest and everything is fine.

If you confess your sins and they are forgiven everything is indeed fine. Does your church teach otherwise?

[Disclaimer: I am Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic]

Re: When you have a personal relationship with Christ, sacraments or confession to a priest is not necessary.

I would agree with this. But simply because something is not necessary does not mean that its is not useful, perhaps even extremely so. And Our Lord himself commended Baptism, while we traditional Christians believe that the Eucharist is very much part of our personal relationship with Christ. One problem I see with some forms of Protestantism is that it seems to be focused on salvation alone, forgetting that that is the easy part (the work was already doen for us) and the very first step only. But we aren't just invited to step inside the gate of the Kingdom and then sit down and go no further, but to grow in all ways in our relationship with God. And that does take work and effort.

FYI: I wholly accept your apology and I hope everyone else does here too.

Living a Christian life is a daily process, especially in this sin filled world.  That's why at least "The Lord's Prayer" should be prayed daily.  The motto to my life is to "repent daily", for the thoughts in my mind or for the sins I didn't even know I committed.

You don't know enough about Catholicism to offer a critique of it. What you offer is just good old fashioned garden variety bigotry that has been around since the Reformation.

In fact, your characterization of Catholic practice is so hackneyed that it was shocking to find someone who could use a computer could hold those beliefs.

I'm not really interested in a debunking of the charges of Catholicism being idolatry or anything else. I am sure that anyone who is serious about their Catholicism can either do that with ease (or even better, feel no need to do so).  

However, at this point in time I live in a deep red area where Catholics are a definite minority and the Left Behind series sells better than The National Enquirer.  There is often long and loud and public talk about Christian ideals and Christian values and who is and who isn't a good Christian, etc.  I have gotten the definite impression that these folks don't consider Catholics to be Christian - when they talk about "Christian values" and "good Christians" and, being raised elsewhere, I wondered why. And I have to say the Church's sign about the Pope being hell-bound was quite a shocker.  I have to live with these folks and I have to raise my children in this community so I really want to understand this issue.

I've gotten some answers here today.  Even though many of the non-Catholic Christians here (who frankly, seem vastly better educated than many folks in my neck of the woods) don't seem to feel that Catholics are evil; I don't think that I can afford to ignore the significant numbers of Christians who do.  Understanding why they think they way they do and trying to figure out what it means for me and my family is important.

"The pope was a good man, but he IS or was not Jesus Christ.  The coverage of his death was repulsive."

This statement is just utterly ridiculous.  Religious affiliation aside, this man, John Paul II, was one of the most important and effective political leaders of our time.  He helped to secure the freedom of millions suffering under communist tyranny.  

that the "Left Behind" series is slickly anti-Catholic. But given the dispensationalist nature of the "rapture" itself this should be no surprise to anyone who reads the back cover of one of the LaHaye books.

I don't believe Christianity is a practice, it's a way of life.  The word bigot is pretty strong, but not relevant.  I just believe your worshipping experience should be more than a "practice", but an experience grounded in "spirit and truth".  However, I pray for all men and hope we all make it to the Kingdom of Heaven.

If not, does it concern you that millions and millions of people are reading them - and from what I can tell taking them quite seriously?

Personally, I don't know what's in them - that's why I'm asking.

than you probably care to think about, Streiff.

That has certainly been my experience.

how does your aversion to relativism work when you have to make kissy-kissy with Protestantism?  I mean, there are some elements of faith (not the critical ones, IMO) that are in clear and almost uncompromisable conflict.  You could say different faiths are entitled to different forms of worship, but oh, look at the slippery slope...

For the record, growing up with Catholics in the South, I always thought they were the good guys (relatively liberal) compared to the Baptists and other Protestants.  It's only my exposure to coastal Catholics that woke me up to the stronger conservatism out there.  But I'm Anglican Catholic, so nobody claims us anyway.

However, he was still just a man.  Do you think the Pope would have agreed with the way his death was covered?  A man of poverty, modesty, self-denial....I think not.  I think we as humans tend to become so attached to the physical, that we don't allow our hearts and minds to understand what's going on in the spiritual...

take a course sometime when you're not reading Jack Chick comic books. Or at least buy a thesaurus.

...your thread kind of got hijacked by an argument that didn't follow your request for information. I hope the information you were able to gather from all of the responses was helpful.

I tried to give an objective opinion of what a Christian is, to me. Although, a couple of tenets that I forgot to mention were, the repentance and changing of one's ways to more thoroughly align one's life to that of Christ. If they can maintain those articles of faith, then I believe salvation will find them.

I'm glad that you brought up this topic for discussion because it's one that permeates Christianity, and for that matter, all religions. I tend to dismiss a lot of what I find to be the man-made impediments of brotherhood between Christians. If we can find the common threads, and there are many, within all forms of Christianity, it's a start. If we have that start, then we bring ourselves that much closer to His will.

As I wrote in my Letter to Terri, we're all trying to stand for what we see as right, and hope to fall on the right side more often than not.

on this "faith based" salvations versus "works based" salvation dichotomy and why works-based would be so heretical to some?

"I stated before what my thoughts on "what makes a Christian" are. Those tenets of faith in Christ as your only means of deliverance, the belief that He died for our sins, and the belief in His resurrection, are the ones that matter most to me. I think most forms of Christianity share those principles within their doctrine and try to emphasize them to varying degrees. I think the more, we as Christians, focus on what binds us, rather than what separates us, the better off we all are."

When all is said and done, this is all that really matters.  Christ calls us to love our neighbors.  Condemning them, to hell is not an expression of that love.

FWIW-My grandma, who was NO fan of the Catholic church btw, once gave me a bit of advise pertaining to the salvation of others.  Her words, "Instead of worrying about which one of your neighbors is going to hell, make sure you are right with the Lord so YOU don't end up there!"

Was to renew the faith of millions while pissing a few people who never liked him anyway off, I don't think he'd mind.

time or energy to worry about who reads the book or what they believe.

There is a great deal of theology and praxis about the sundered Body of Christ. There is nothing relativist about it, nor is there anything relativist about realizing that we have much more in common than we thought we did. Google it. Enjoy.

In my experience, it's the coastal Catholics who are the squishies. Southern and Western Catholics are the ones who remember the face of their father.

The Pope was given no less than what a world leader would have been given.  Like it or not, he WAS a world leader.  

I'll assume you were old enough to remember the death of Princess Diana.  Do you feel the coverage of her death was repulsive?  

Baptist in southside Virginia and was an adult convert to Catholicism.

You seem to think I've had a pretty sheltered life.

I would be shocked if I could be shocked by very much anyone could say about the Catholic Church. My only sources of amazement here two: first, that a decision was made not to vaporize this bigot off the bat as we certainly would not allow a similar discussion of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other -ism... including Pentacostalism. Secondly, I was shocked that anyone felt comfortable enough with their bigotry to hang it out for a million or so people to see.

disregard the last question, don't want to hijack the thread.

Still, the coverage of the death of JPII was appropriate.  Enough said.

I think I am in a strange position.

I am a confirmed Roman Catholic.

Because my bishop, Louverde, is at least pro-secrecy with respect misconduct by priests, I refuse take part in Mass in his bishopric.  

I worship with the local Southern Baptist Convention church.  I don't go to their Sunday night 'black' masses where they do a version of the Eucharist, but I do go to their day service and prayer meetings which feature Biblical study.

I find a lot of misinformation about Catholics seems to cause most of the distrust.  I have (I hope) disabused several members about alleged worhip of Mary, priests, and Popes, and of course we respectfully disagree about the efficacy of sacrements and good works, but there is more similar than dis-similar.

Evangelicals & Catholics Together:

The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium

Catholic.com

New Advent

Catholic Culture



Evangelical Catholicism

Evangelical Catholic Links

with faith vs. works.  Unfortunately I am off to work so I can't write a coherent comparison for you.

Something to ponder.  The thief on the cross next to Jesus did NOTHING in terms of works to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  It was his FAITH in the one hanging next to him that got him there.

That it is a heresy to attribute the sins of the minister of the sacraments to the sacraments themselves, right?

We seriously don't want to get into a faith and works discussion here, largely because the theology gets complicated enough on both sides.

So again, how do you personally cope with strong elements within Protestantism that don't like your faith, feel the need to convert you, and general don't play nice just because there is, in fact, infinitely more common ground than division.  Or more importantly, how do you navigate the functional differences of attaining heaven?  Just pass them off as mere formalities achieving the same end?

As for squishy, I suppose it's relative how they stand politically.  The fact that Catholics drank, danced, and had fish fries(!) made them more attractive to me as people to be associated with, whatever the dogma.  I also have a great appreciation for the institution of the Chuch as the doer of good deeds on a vast scale.  But what seems moderate in Kentucky may very well be right wing in Pennsylvania or New York, for all I know.

Is there a reason why you are so hostile?  The name calling...is it really necessary?  The insults?  I'm highly educated, well-read, which led me to where I am right now in my life.  A spiritual connection with Christ does not allow me to come back at you with rude name-calling or hatred, but with trying to understand you.  Now prior to accepting Christ as my savior, I would have called you every name in the book and we would be going toe to toe...but that side of me has been vanquished by the presence of the Holy Spirit.  I will continue to pray for everyone.  May God be with you.  

for me, but I'd just as soon not have a neo-pagan remember me in their prayers.

Isn't there a difference between honest ignorance about the things a 'strange' person does and why, and a belief that a 'strange' person is less deserving of respect because of his strangeness?

I agree that some of the things written are indications of bigotry, but they are not proof of anything other than lack of education.

let's do a test.

Substitute "black" for Catholic and subsitute any false belief about blacks as a group for the litany of booshwah in the post. Then read it and ask yourself "bigot" or "ignoramus" and more importantly, "why would I bother to make the distinction?"

You talk of Catholic 'practices' as if they are no more than superstitions such as tossing spilt salt over your shoulder.

I don't believe you understand enough about the practices of the Catholic Church to comment on them.

I hate to agree with strieff, but if someone had posted a bigotted, anti-Jewish comment on Redstate I think everyone would have, rightly, jumped all over that person.  

We have had some rather "interesting" discussion about whether Islam was a religion which could co-exist with Christianity, and discussions as to whether Muslims should no longer be allowed to immigrate here, or even deported, so that's not entirely true.  Judaism seems very protected in these parts, and Hinduism irrelevant.  I could take some shots at Pentecostalism or Protestantism in general if it made you feel better :-).

For whatever reason I am most comfortable with conservatism when it comes cloaked in Catholic attire.  Couldn't explain why to you if I tried.  But I know it's true.  I fight less against it - maybe the whore of Babylon just has too much gravity for me to escape, who knows.  My grandparents think I'm a papist and I'm Anglican, for crying out loud.  Everybody has to have a religion to dislike in the big celestial rock-paper-scissors game, I suppose.

And just know that your position, as articulated in your earlier comment portrays you as ANYTHING but well read nor educated. You're recycling falsehoods, often used as no more than weapons for anti-Catholic bigotry.

Substitute anything you want-- it seems to me that the distinction is a very important one.  Someone who is ignorant can be informed.  Someone who's bigoted likely cannot be convinced.

It's a crucial distinction, in my view.

...I don't think it's necessarily a dichotomoy as I understand it. I believe they can be seen as complimentary. Once again, I'm not a scholar on all matters biblical, all I have is what my personal faith is built upon. I hope I don't overstep the limits of my spiritual knowledge here.

I think the faith portion is based on the tenets that I mentioned in my first posting. You accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you believe in His dying for your sins and in His resurrection. I believe these principles to be the firm foundation of all of the Christian faiths.

Repentance for your sins has to be a part of that process. Through repentance, your own actions must be changed to align yourself more closely with the ideal that Christ laid out for us. Through reading and understanding of the scripture one moves further on that journey. Proselytizing and good deeds would be an eventual part of this journey as well. That may be the "works based" salvation you are referring to.

I'm not sure of exactly where along that course, one is "guaranteed" salvation, but I would tend to think that it is within the faithful conversion. I'm really not qualified to get into why "works based" would be heretical to some.

The only point I would try to make on that subject would be that without the faith in Christ, one's deeds, no matter how great they may be, cannot be great enough to warrant salvation. Our redemption is through faith in the Lord, and He alone. The faithful actions and deeds following that, are the icing.

let's be serious. Surely you can see the difference.

We're not discussing whether or not Catholicism can co-exist with Pentecostalism. I'd have no problem discussing that. Muslim immigration is a valid issue or at least it should be if we're discussing Mexican immigration.

But, hey, I'm a big boy. My faith can survive any number of mouthbreathers challenging it. I just don't intend to let them do so with impunity.

that way.

But if the person claims to be highly educated, [and] well-read, assuming for the sake of argument that the statement is not an indicator that the thorazine dosage needs adjusting, what does that make them?

if in fact I may use that term.

Is a man a bigot because he is faithful to his beliefs?

I am a Christian, who identifies with Baptist theology.

My sister is a Christian, who identifies with Roman Catholic theology.

You can identify with either theology, but not be, in fact a Christian.  Example, Northern Ireland.  Identification with a culteral heritage, but no external evidence that their fallen nature has been transformed.

If I am a bigot, then I am a "bigot" who has dedicated the majority of my adult life to loving the unloved at great personal cost.

A man is a bigot if he is faithful to bigoted beliefs.

bigoted

adj : blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

but if you subscribe to the series of bon mots which were purported to describe Catholicism then I would have to seriously consider that possiblity.

The issue is not whether or not the person in question likes Catholicism, I care not a whit. I do care when very basic facts are misrepresented and those falsehoods used as a reason to disparage Catholicism.

why a "Christian" charity would stop funding a Catholic charity because it is "works based."

I don't need theology from the beginning of time I'd just like to know the gist of it.  For example, I'd like to know enough so that I can decide whether I want to make a contribution to a charity that is anti-"works based."  Is "works based" code for Catholic?

without getting glazed over would be here

I saw a lot of those as a kid, but I had enver read any anti-Catholic ones (until now of course).

Works-based is a code word for Catholic.  At least in my experience.  Usually used perjoratively.  

there are Protestant denominations that are "works based" as well.

It gets very complicated to discuss.

If you are trying to decide whether or not to contribute to a charity, you might look at overall mission as well.  Not knowing what charity you speak of, it's hard to say one way or the other.  

Sounds to me like the adminstrator of the charity is getting worked up over theology and has lost the focus of the charity in the first place.  If that's the case, I probably wouldn't give them my money.  Just my 2 cents.  

had a good point.

But your offhand comment about her being "NO fan of the Catholic church" is exactly what this diary is all about.  Since I moved into a red state, I run into those kind of comments all the time.  Of course, it's never the person I'm talking to who has problems with the Catholic church, it's always someone they know. It is interesting to me since my grandmother, who was a Catholic, never said a word to me about other religions. I have no idea if she was or was not a fan of Baptists, for example. (She was a big fan of Jewish deli - but that's cultural.)

So what I'm trying to get at here is why was your Grandmother no fan of the Catholic Church and what religion is she/was she?

as a kid.

Catholic.  I converted as an adult.

I have met many immature advocates of both faiths, just as I have met many immature atheists.

I don't post often, perhaps more than I should.  A reasoned debate or honest critique of merits intrests me greatly.  Name-calling and the like serve no good end in my opinion.

AS to whether I understand Catholicism, I was a teen lay-catechist for St Rose of Lima Parish in Simi Ca in the mid 1970's.

was NO fan of the Catholic church in as much as she saw it as the church of the Kennedy family, whom she despised.  Living in a small, rural Texas town, she didn't have much personal contact with Catholics.

She belonged to the local Church of Christ which is quite narrow in scope in most places.  Many of her church friends were of the notion that if you weren't Church of Christ, you were going to hell.  She didn't buy it and encouraged us to focus on our own faith and leave the salvation worries to God.  I often wondered why she stayed in that church.  Tradition dies hard, I guess.

she apparently had a lot of contact with the Kennedy family?

Just teasing.

FWIW my Grandmother was no fan of the Kennedy's either - common bond of Catholicism or not.  I have no idea why.

of amusement out of this particular reference, especially with Lutherans.

James 2

14. What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15.  And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: 16.  And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17.  So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18.  But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19.  Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20.  But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21.  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22.  Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

So you can see the whole faith-works argument can result in some serious number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Then I would assume that you recognize the falsity of the practices that were attributed to Catholics and so not meriting debate.

That particular scripture had never been brought to my attention in this context, but I had nevertheless always seen faith and works as complimentary. Thank you for offering such an enlightening and pertinent post. Both are required for salvation.

One of the duties of a Christian, is not only to make sure he or she doesn't go to hell, but to also ensure no one else does.  You cannot be a Christian and not worry about the soul of your brother, sister, neighbor....

I was born in the south and lived there for a great portion of my life.  I was raised in  Southern Baptist churches, attended Protestant military chapels and even some Catholic chapels with friends, married a Methodist and now attend church at a Presbyterian church.  Denimonations aside, I am first and foremost a Christian, bought with the spilled blood of a risen Saviour.  The rest is just noise.

I have encountered many non-christians sitting in the pews next to me in each denomination, as I'm sure we all have.

My mother was in the Air Force and then later the AANG.  Because of her military service, we did live outside the south for a while and I was exposed to a great deal of Catholics.  Some of my best friends are Catholics and I have a dear cousin who married a Catholic and converted as an adult.

The Catholics are not Christian BS that is being spouted right now really pisses me off.  I would never question the Christianity of any of my Catholic friends who are faithful, much like I wouldn't question my Protestant friends.

An addition to my above post-As for Grandma, she was my dad's mother.  A great Republican, God rest her soul.  

Be careful Streiff

with the Left Behind books, if you mean do I think they are in any sense accurate models for interpretting Biblical prophesies. Their pre-millennialist view is largely an American Protestant view dating back only to the 19th century when a bankrupt preacher hit on Rapture-preaching as a means of packing in the rubes at his revival shows. My own church keeps a healthy distance from Revelations (it was never fully acepted in Eastern Christendom) and though we certainly do believe in a Final Judgment/Second Coming/New Heaven-and-Earth to come, we don't think there are any exact roadmaps out there.

However, as long as these LaHaye books are treated as religious fantasy fiction, the Christian equivalent of, say, Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings, I am not concerned that there's anything very wrong with them.

Her whole point in saying worry was in regards to judgement.  Good ole southern women "worried" most when they were "judging" others, because it would not be polite to "judge."  Hopefully you get my drift.

Of course we reach out to the unsaved, but frankly, it isn't "our" responsibilty to save them.  Only the power of the Holy Spirit can do that.

Somehow I don't think publicly condemning millions of followers of Christ to hell because they loved the Pope is going to allow the heart of an unbeliever to be open to the power of the Holy Spirit.  Your above post condemning the traditions of the oldest Christian church probably won't either.    

The Pope was a man of God...not a secular figure like Princess Diana or Ronald Reagan...he would rather his good works be continued in remembrance of him...

she was a Republican and that alone made her despise the Kennedy family.  

would you even know what his thoughts were?  From the sounds of your above post, you believe him to not even be Christian.

You? Give me a break.

I recognise error by protagonists on both sides.  The Anabaptists of Muenster committed grave injustices as did the Auto-de-fe's.

To tar every adherent of "Baptist", "Catholic", or any other faith, by the actions of a vocal group is wrong.

I once did innercity person work in Newport News VA.  A group of immature "believers" got involved.  Rather than trying to reach out, they started harrassing people.  They were warned, admonished, etc.  They ended up "martyrs' in jail.  We did not condone or authorise their actions, but they were allowed to define our actions by their misdeeds.

"A local Baptist Church in my red state is garnering a lot of attention for putting up a sign which says "No Truth, No Hope, Following a Hell-Bound Pope."

I'm wondering if you could explain the local reaction. Are the other churches commenting.. the local press reporting?

but it still doesn't speak to sitting idly by while your, or any other, religion is falsely represented.

I am doing?

I believe in speak the truth, but with the scriptural admonition to do in in love.

"speaking the truth to power" I leave to others who are apparently incabale of civilized discourse.

I guess I just got a lttle incensed at the broad-brush treatment of "Baptists".

Typos.  My bad.  :(

you but now I just don't know.

Who made any comment about Baptists? Other than the sole comment of being puzzled why you guys don't recognize the Holy Spirit?

to strong willed.  Perhaps I must understood you.

The tone of my initial comment was over the top...but b/c I grew up around Catholics, who have since converted...and myself studying their beliefs, I stand by what I said.  No one has contested the lack of a personal connection to Christ.  My personal story is one of a heroin addict, adulterer, racist, etc.  However over 12 years ago, I got on my knees cried to Christ and my life has never been the same.  I say this to everyone in this room...I know what a bigot is, I use to be one.  I know what ignorance is, I use to be it.  Every since I confessed to Jesus Christ, my outlook, my opinions have been changed.  Only the personal relationship with almighty God could soften a harden heart like mine.  Again, to all the Catholics, Jews, Muslims...God loves you and so do I....

You don't need to bring in other issues...I'm not even  upset with you brother.  lol...I'm not here to fight with anyone.

Okay Mr. Calvin, I attend one of the 30 fastest growing PCUSA churches in the US.  I am not Presbyterian by birth (see thread below).  We attend here because we love the worship music and the pastor is an unbelievably gifted man who shares his passion for the Lord with us in ways I have never experienced.  No other church in the area offered what this one does.

So, why are they heretics?  I'm not trying to be snide, just trying to understand.

We PCA'ers are just more fundamentalist.

On a serious note, though, I think the PCUSA is in some serious doctrinal dangers.  It is becoming increasingly liberal.

We can debate the Biblical merits for women preachers, but the PCUSA nationally is also moving towards a greater acceptance of homosexuality in its doctrine.  In the 70s, the Presbyterian Church had an influx of liberals who percipitated the breakup between the PCA and PCUSA.  The PCA group did not want the Westminster Confession of Faith tweaked and the PCUSA group did.

As a result of that and several other actions, the PCUSA on a national level (though local congregations vary) has set itself up for Biblical and moral relativism.

Deals with theology, not politics. Abortion=ok is squishy Catholicism. Cafeteria Catholicism is, too.

As to the rest: this is a good place to start.

This is a rather helpful piece from Christianity Today.

And I thought it died its final death around the Black Death.

Redstate reaches the Jack Chick demographic.

Wasn't Donatism everywhere visible in the reaction to the priestly abuse scandal?

More posters should read that instead of caring about the amateur banterings on here (mine included).

At least to show what's out there.  The diary author pretty much invited a response like strongwilled's.  It does show his ignorance, but I think the poster wanted to know what people thought... and she got it.

The other side of the sign says "False Hope in a Fake Pope."

An assistant pastor is trying to back track some by saying all that's meant is to not put all your hope in the pope alone.  A pretty dishonest response given the plain wording of the sign.

The local catholic response was to turn the other cheek and say Catholics agree that Catholics shouldn't put their hope in the pope alone.

A local Baptist preacher in a larger nearby city disavowed it as "pretty strong language" and says he knows some Catholics he thinks are going to heaven (and some Baptists who aren't).  Fair enough.

A Southern Baptist Convention Spokesman out of Nashville reportedly said "It's highly presumptuous for any person or church to assume they know for certain the eternal destination of any person." Which I think is pretty darn nonresponsive to the issue at hand.

I would just say that the Catholic understanding and belief in the Eucharist is, in our opinion, the ultimate personal relationship, intimate beyond all others.

Thanks for calling all of us who believe that Revelations is a part of the Bible "rubes".

That's not the way I read that post.  But Alek is a big boy and I won't speak for him.

I think bigotry is an overused word in the religious context.  If I forcefully disagree with the beliefs or practices of a certain religion, what's so wrong with expressing that disagreement?

Maybe you are rubes and maybe you aren't, but I don't think it's "bigotry" to suggest that someone's religious beliefs are wrong or foolish.  It may be impolite or insensitive, but that's different.

And you used about 700 less words than it would take me.  Thanks.

However, as long as these LaHaye books are treated as religious fantasy fiction, the Christian equivalent of, say, Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings, I am not concerned that there's anything very wrong with them.

I think it is very unlikely that they will be treated this way.  The whole point of the Left Behind books, as I understand it, is to suggest that the world they are describing is our world.

Tolkien didn't believe in Middle-Earth.  Rowling doesn't believe in Harry Potter.  But the authors of the Left Behind series believe in the Rapture and want their readers to do the same.  

he said.

There is no doubt we are not to place any hope in a "false pope."

Like these imposters.

:)

"According to authorities, the fake Pope can be recognized by his high top sneakers and extremely foul mouth."

Re: Thanks for calling all of us who believe that Revelations is a part of the Bible "rubes".

I did no such thing. Please re-read my post.

The truly ignorant do not know of what they lack.

I don't believe the Mass in Arlington to be defective.

I believe that I cannot be in grace when confronted with that clergy.  

But not on the level of heresy.

The bishop may be a jackass and there may well be some very sinful priests in his diocese. But do you really think every last priest in the diocese is a child abuser or some other grievous sinner?

I admit I was appalled when stats suggested the abuse scandal may have involved more than 1% of all priests (I had thought maybe 1 in a thousand, if that) but even so that leaves 99 priests out of a 100 who are blameless.

seems like a pretty good idea right about now.

The whole Catholic v. Protestant debate with a ten foot pole.  But I am reminded of a wedding in which the groom was Greek Orthodox and the bride was Maronite; it required two priests and, from what I gathered (the Maronite portion of the ceremony was largely in Arabic), there was quite a bit of theological bickering during the wedding ceremony.

Fun.  

(In fact, once the priests finished their work, the wedding was a blast.)

Thanks redstatesoccermom.

I believe in the lavender mafia.

to assume that people (especially clergy) are guilty until proven innocent?

And you know there have been some pretty raunchy scandals involving Protestant clergy too. How do you know the preacher where you attend church isn't out partying with the fishnet stocking gals in some no-tell motel at night? (No, the guy is probably a very good man, and I do wrong in impugning him like that. But ditto for Catholic clergymen too!)

comments.  I don't really care if a denomination allows women to be ministers or not.  It is not a "hot button" issue for me.

As for homosexual acceptance, that is big issue, especially for my husband.

A few years back, the church we attend had to show it's colors regarding homosexual activity.  Let's just say that the head pastor isn't politically correct and he calls a spade a spade.  It upset a lot of people and caused a few parents of homosexuals to leave the church after being long term members.  They were looking for biblical justification for homosexuality and the pastor basically just told them that it was not biblical.  That may not be the view of the higher ups in the PCUSA, but it is our pastor's view.  He must be doing something right.  The church has quadrupled in size in his 17 year tenure there.

My husband was raised United Methodist and although we attend a PCUSA church where we now live, we still maintain membership in the church we attended in Illinois.  We follow UMC issues and the homosexual debate is pretty hot within the church.  I see a split in the next ten years between the UMC in the South and that of the church in more liberal areas.

Fortunately the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) are going to posthumously baptize all of us and store the record of this generous act  here.  

No need to worry about who's right or wrong.  We're all Mormons in the end.

Hooray.

Truly great stuff. Once again, your ability to diffuse the most serious of topics, is absolutely awesome! I love it! Why are you a liberal anyway? We get along way too well, for us to be on opposite sides!

I'm coming into this discussion way too late, but what interests me about US political/religous debate is not what occurs on the surface, but what occurs down inside.

Why do we have the views that we do? Why do we reflexively align ourselves with various groups on various issues? Are we political first, and let our politics drive our religion, or does our religion drive our politics? Do we turn to religion for guidance, or for justification? Or validation?

I am Catholic, and live in a very Catholic city (Omaha). My brother lived for a while in Memphis and was truly astonished at how different it was. It had never occured to him that he would ever experience religous bigotry, but he did. (Not anything particularly flagrant or outrageous, of course. Just a few mild incidents here and there).

I personally know a family that used to live in Utah. Their child of 10 was having a hard time making friends in school (they had recently moved from Portland). They decided to have a party for the kids in the class. They sent invitations to every boy in the class. Several parents called them to inquire why they were never in church on sundays. They responded that they were not members of that particular church. NOT ONE kid came to the party. This happened in 1999.

It shocks that that sort of thing goes on. But that is less about religion than it is about the meta-philosophy that people bring to religion, and life.

First off, thank you for your appreciation.  It is ALWAYS nice to hear.

As for the basis for my liberalness, I could ask you the converse.  

That is a big question you know.

Generally, I believe in cooperation (and I don't mean bipartisanship) in that I find that the pooling of resources (what some call socialism) is more efficient.  On the converse, I find a lot of classic conservative policy to be pennywise and pound foolish.  Freeways pay off.  Public Schools pay off.  Treating mentally ill people pays off.  All that stuff.  

I have no issues with paying taxes (I do like to see them well spent of course).  I am socially progressive in that I am for gay rights, freedom from and of religion, freedom of the press etc.

I could go on and on.  I consider myself to be quite sane, and I appreciate coming here and seeing that you all are quite sane as well (well most of you, <cough> <cough> brightwinger <cough>)  

I think the stregth of the internet, though it is often used to isolate groups, is to foster a conversation.  That is often what I am trying to do here.  I also like to not take things too seriously.  So when I see a joke, I will usually run with it.  

Anyway, gotta get back to work.  Have a great tomorrow.  

redstatesoccermom -

Not for nothing, but is moving an option?

Cheers -

...mutual admiration society once again, I thank you for your input.

I could offer you the converse, as to my position of being a strident conservative, but it would probably only serve to divide us.

I won't even get into arguing against the points that you've stated, because it might serve to divde us once again.

Just know that I respect you and your positions and I appreciate all of your thoughts, whether I agree or disagree, within this forum.

Civil discussion and debate is the foundation of any democracy, and I thank you for your contributions.

for that link. Very much what I was looking for.

I was raised Baptist, but consider myself a Protestant first, Baptist second. Also, I'm not sure I like the "versus" tag in this discussion, but so be it.  But I post to point out a Southern Baptist theological view on John Paul's death and the Papacy (HT: Hugh Hewitt blog, 4 Apr 2005) Link

Ya know, I don't know what Bro Bob does after service.  It doesn't matter as much to me.

I was raised Catholic.  I was abused at home by my father.  When I confessed about it to a priest he told me to take it with grace.  I did for a while, but not as long as I should have.  I was denied communion for defending myself instead of honoring my father as I should have done.  Finding out as an adult that the reason Father supported Dad was at least partly because all the decent men in the clergy had been ruthlessly excised by a cabal of gay predators and their apologists was enraging.  Father S** may not be gay or an apologist, but Bishop L** protects his lavender clergy, and I will not be under Bishop L***'s roof, ever.  The Catholic lavender clergy are part of a nationwide conspiracy to protect child predators and foster homosexuality amongst the priesthood.

Now, Bro Bob may be buggering every baptist boy for miles and miles, but he doesn't have a board of Deacons who would cover for him if they found him out. Protestant 'clergy' are not part of a church sponsored conspiracy.

More importantly, I don't have to ask Bob for forgiveness because he doesn't offer the Eucharist, even if they do have a bread and grape juice dinner on Sunday night after the sermon. (which I don't take anyway)

If it means burning in hell forever or dying completely when death comes, it is better that than I should ask one of the people who made as much of my life as they could to help me in any way.  Amen.

I will take my chance without benefit of clergy.

Re: The Catholic lavender clergy are part of a nationwide conspiracy to protect child predators and foster homosexuality amongst the priesthood.

Something to bear in mind: the abuse scandal dealt mainly with incidents years if not decades old. By all accounts the Church has since gotten its house in order. By the way, when you say that there was some sort of conspiracy to eliminate decent men from the ranks of the clergy, exactly how was that accomplished? Were decent priests being murdered or something? And if the Catholic clergy is merely "part" of this conspiracy, where's the rest of it? In Protestant churches? Among us Orthodox? The Jews? Where, exactly?

You obviously have some issues with your Church that you need to work through, and some of them are of course painful. But I hope I won't come across as cold-hearted if I say that you are tarring with a very broad brush, indicting the innocent majority as well as the guilty minority.

Finally, if you no longer believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, then by all means go elsewhere. I did, years ago. But if you believe Catholicism is true, then you should be fighting tooth and nail to regain your faith, and to peredition with lavendar mafias and the like, because none of that should matter next to the glory and majesty of God..

The Baptist faith, or at least the Southern Baptist variation, doesn't do a good job of passing itself on with any degree of rigor, in my experience. I grew up in a Southern Baptist family, attending a Southern Baptist church on an irregular basis, and going to a school run by a different Southern Baptist church. Although I went to the same school for twelve years, I don't think there was ever a particularly deep discussion of, say, the underpinnings of the faith, or what distinguished Baptists from Methodists or Catholics (except for some really awful education regarding practice, which I'll come to in a second, and some much better stuff regarding church history, which ended shortly after the Reformation) or anybody much more mainstream than, say, the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

The general understanding of Christianity stuck to roughly the generalities of Lewis' Mere Christianity, really. Baptists do not have a catechism. Education regarding other sects and denominations was equally poor, especially as regards Protestant groups (Baptists aren't technically Protestant -- that wasn't brought up, either, though) who were all covered with a very broad brush during our encounters with church history. This is probably partially due to the students at said private school drawing from all over the area's churches, which tend to be either SB or Roman Catholic, but also include fair numbers of Presbyterians (PCUSA, mostly), Lutherans, and Methodists (and at least one Greek Orthodox church and a Unitarian church, though I didn't know anyone from either of those growing up), in addition to various 'non-denominational' churches. There are a number intermarried Catholic and Southern Baptist couples about town, too, which also adds to the confusion and vagary.

The Roman Catholic church received more coverage due to its larger historical role (I actually remember that we covered the selection of the pope at one point), but we never discussed any of the dogma or doctrine underlying, say, the role of canonised saints in the Catholic church. Not that I recall, anyway. I still don't know what that role is, entirely, and I know I've had it explained at least twice. :/ Somewhere along the way, I picked up a certain amount of anti-Catholic bias, which I have rapidly unlearned. Not that I plan on converting.

I suspect that the pope is actually a major stumbling block for many Baptists in their understanding of the Catholic Church, especially with regards to papal infallibility (which I didn't understand except as a trivial strawman until it was explained to me during college -- by a lapsed Catholic). The Catholic Church is a top-down hierarchy, the Baptist Church is entirely bottom-up (or so I'm told: like I said, I didn't get much in the way of the Baptist church's approach to things from my education): the Southern Baptist Convention has surprisingly little power over individual churches. A congregation may ratify statement of the Baptist Faith and Message on a very fine granularity -- or simply not adopt it at all. There are several Baptists churches in the area which have not adopted the most recent statement -- some have not updated theirs in longer than I've been alive (granted, I'm only twenty-five). This tends to breed a Christian not entirely fond of centralised temporal authority (again, it varies widely!), and certainly untrusting of anyone who speaks 'infallibly' about anything.

Finally, there is a certain unease about Catholic dogma, which is not often immediately self-evident from its scriptural basis (if its basis is strictly scriptural--some is philosophically derived from the General Revelation, right?). AFAIK, dogma takes precedence over doctrine in the Catholic Church. Given that Baptists adhere, ostensibly, to some variation of Sola Scriptura, you can probably see where that will rub some the wrong way.

Such is my opinion, anyway. I'm sure that there is, in some quarters, some lingering anti-Catholic bias. In this case, though, I think it's more a matter of ignorance, and bad taste. In general, the opinion of Catholics from non-Catholic Christians will vary. Around here, it's actually pretty neutral (or so it seems to me): the Catholic archdiocese teamed up with the SB seminary to do a comparative study of the two faiths, and there's quite a bit of travel in membership between them. As for what constitutes a believer, that will vary from person to person. I subscribe to something closer to Lewis's Mere Christianity, and assume most anything past that is, if not irrelevant, not strictly pertinent to the question. Some will tell you that it's anything outside their denomination. I've seen both, and even within the same denomination.

Other bits: Christians who aren't fundamentalist or evangelicals? ... Catholics, most main-line Protestants, Mormons, Unitarians are all neither Fundamentalist, nor evangelical. Those are very fuzzy terms in the common usage, though, and seem to mostly refer to Protestant churches of a particularly conservative bent, or which might be loosely identified with, say, the Baptists (IMHO, YMMV, etc). A Fundamentalist, technically, belongs to a Fundamentalist church (I have a buddy in Chicago who attends such a church, actually). I think Fundamentalism could be construed as a subset of evangelicalism, but the latter does not necessarily imply any particular denomination or religious movement.

Dunno about the particular charity; I hadn't heard anything of the sort, but I'm not too plugged into this stuff. The general criticism comes out of I John, I think, and is, again, a matter of misunderstandings surrounding Catholic (versus, say, Baptist) practice. Catholicism is perceived as emphasizing works over faith in salvation. The answer to this comes out of the same book (possibly the same chapter -- been a while since I've been in my Bible). Sola scriptura does not mean us evangelicals are well-versed, I am afraid.

Apologies for the huge comment. I tend to ramble.

134 comments in this thread and nobody thought to suggest reading a little history.  Maybe crack open an encyclopedia and look up the Protestant Reformation or Martin Luther.  

There will be plenty of other articles linked, like the Catholic Counterr reformation, the Spanish Inquisition, St. Bartholmew's Day Massacre, etc.

One thing these articles probably won't point out is that a big reason most of us can read and write is because of Protestants who thought there should be no intermediary between a person and God so everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves.  

I believe in the teachings of the Church.  Innocent until proven guilty isn't one of them-- that is British law, I think.  

All men are guilty through their own actions and inactions is more like it.

The problem is not a few priests.  It is structural within the church. I believe the some Bishoprics have been captured.  Bishop L happens to be part of the problem.

http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/reviews.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-dreher042202.asp

is indeed a handful of priests (1-2% at max) and a handful of bad bishops, more concerned for the reputation of the Church than the souls of their parishoners, who enabled them.

And with respect for difficulties you have had, I find your notion of an organized conpiracy a bit like the theories of the Black Helicopter crowd.

And in the end it makes no matter at all. The Eucharist consecrated by the hands of St Peter is no more holy than that consecrated by the hands of Alexander Borgia (to name a REALLY bad bishop of yore!), and God is greater and vaster than mere human sin can possibly limit.

a big reason most of us can read and write is because of Protestants who thought there should be no intermediary between a person and God

Just because history took one particular path, it does not follow that there were not other paths that could have been taken.

What was Gutenberg's religious affiliation?

Things like this should be taken with a grain of salt:

Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces."

The first is not true; the second is lost on me; and the third is extraordinary hyperbole.

Re: Baptists aren't technically Protestant -- that wasn't brought up, either, though

It depends on the definition of "Protestant". If you limit it to the only those churches which broke away from Rome directly in the 16th century, then you have only the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the several Calvinist churches (like the Presbyerians) and a small number of relict Anabaptist sects. But the term as generally used includes churches that broke away from other Protestant bodies at later times too insofar as they did not tear everything up and start from scratch (as, say the JWs or Christian Scientists did).. The Baptists are a amalgamation of groups that broke away from the Church of England or the Puritan churches in the New World.

But I believe that Baptists do not describe themselves as Protestant.

I have a strong Baptist heritage and I can assure you they all consider themselves Protestant as well.

Re: One thing these articles probably won't point out is that a big reason most of us can read and write is because of Protestants who thought there should be no intermediary between a person and God so everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves.  

The main reasons most of us can read and write are:

1)    The ancient Phoenicians invented an alphabetic form of writing that was far easier to process mentally than the cumbersome convnetions of either heoiroglyphics or cuneiform.

2)    The Greeks adoped the alphabet and added vowels

3)    The Romans took it over from the Greeks and modified it somewhat

4)    Christian missionaries passed the Roman or Greek alphabets on (with modification) to the various Germannic and Slavic people they converted. (For the Slavs they added a bunch of extra symbols, hence constituting a new alphabet, Cyrillic; for the Germannoi they added only "w" and "j" and a couple more letters that have been lost save in Iceland)

5)    The Chinese invented cheap paper, an invention which was paseed on to Europe by the Arabs

6)    Gutenberg invented the printing press making books and written materials far more affordable.

7)    The needs of a commercial economy requires some basic literacy from almost everyone particpating actively in it.

8)    18th and 19th century rulers and leaders realized that a literate citizenry is good for the nation, the economy and everything else, and so instituted universal education.

The theory that Rome deliberately kept everyone ignorant in the Middle Ages is poppycock. Given the expenses of written materials in that era after the Arabs cut off the supply of Egyptian papyrus very few people could afford literacy, and most people were occupied with the tasks of immediate survival which left no time for education beyond the memorization of prayers and folk tales. Note however that it was the Church which established the great medieval universities for educating those who could afford the time and expense.

Re: But I believe that Baptists do not describe themselves as Protestant.

Some don't, because they limit the definition to the Reformation churches.

I have also heard a bizarre pseudo-history of how the Baptists are a survival from Apostolic times of an underground True Church, usually with references to groups like the Ebionites, the Paulicans, the Bogomils and the Cathars as examples, though if the proponents of this idea knew what these groups preached and practiced (everything from homosexual marraige to suicide by self-starvation) they'd backtrack a bit on that.

That's my primary ground of familiarity.

I do appreciate the correction.

I started to mention Gutenberg but it goes without saying that without the printing press there would not have been enough books available to actually read.

Still if you read a history of the Scotch-Irish (can't get much more red state), you can see how John Knox and the Presbyterian Church promoted reading and Bible study for all not just a select few.  Many other Protestant sects did the same.  But neither the Catholic Church nor The Church of England did it until much later.

Of course there were other influences and (snark) maybe even parallel universes where it happened differently.   But anyone who is a descendant of the British groups who originally settled North America can be thankful they were so interested in learning and thinking for themselves.

This is a distorted understanding of both the vehicles of universal literacy and the Catholic Church's approach to the same. It's nice agitprop, though.

It's precisely the relict part that's at issue. Baptists (or the Southern Baptists, at least) trace themselves back to the Anabaptists, who aren't Protestant, per se, and trace themselves back as far as the early church (this seems disputable). Granted, I can't think of too many Baptists who don't identify themselves as Protestants in the usual sense, but if popular usage is the sole definition of correctness, we can pretty give up on precision in language, eh? Besides, pedantry would be dead, and who wants that?

in this discussion of Baptist history the following link may be helpful.

http://www.baptisthistory.org/who.htm

Southern Baptists and General Association of Regular Baptists is my experience.  And yeah, they consider themselves Protestant.  Now, down thread, Canthros makes a valid point.

IMO-Baptists consider themselves Protestant in that they certainly aren't Catholic.  One could quibble that they truly aren't, but average Joe baptist would 9 times out of 10 call himself Protestant.

FWIW-I quizzed my teaching partner about this today (she is GARB)and she answered yes, she was Protestant.

Clear as mud?  :)