Is Protestantism even Christian?

[metis]

Congratulation grandpa!!

We are working on our #10 to make sure we still have a human footprint on the climate change!

LOL!

And my wife says my contribution to climate change is right after I eat, especially beans. One of these days I well may be the first man to end up on Mars.

 

[RabbiO]

No, that's my IQ-- dah!

Well then you also left out the minus in front of the 10. *

* Discerning readers will note the rabbi always manages to go one better in these verbal sparring matches with metis. Discerning readers will also not be fooled if/when metis claims that he lets me win. If metis does not have a magnifier handy it may take him awhile to read this!

 

[metis]

Well then you also left out the minus in front of the 10. *

I thought the minus was in reference to your avatar? Hmmmm, I guess I looked too far back.

* Discerning readers will note the rabbi always manages to go one better in these verbal sparring matches with metis. Discerning readers will also not be fooled if/when metis claims that he lets me win. If metis does not have a magnifier handy it may take him awhile to read this!

Next time I'm gonna beat you with my cane.

Oh, better idea-- do you know what shish-kabob is?

 

[Kenny]

LOL!

And my wife says my contribution to climate change is right after I eat, especially beans. One of these days I well may be the first man to end up on Mars.

ROFL... have your grandchildren rhymed the song about beans to you?

 

[metis]

ROFL... have your grandchildren rhymed the song about beans to you?

Hey, I know how I can play the tune to that-- I'm one of the "wind instruments".

 

[EverChanging]

Warning: Lengthy rant! I apologize if my sarcasm is unbearable but it is how I talk in person as well as online; so if I am overstating my case just take it as exaggeration. My post is merely my attitude toward Protestantism but you do not have to read it and can merely respond about your own views or you can rant like me . I just thought this was a good conversation to have and I also do not hate Protestants, I just think the religions have little in common.



This brilliant quote by our RF's lovely Franky has summed up my attitude towards Protestant Christianity or what I have often been calling Protestantianity. To me the Protestant movement is a mixture of separate religions splintering from an old and more classical religion known as Christianity which has only 2 very dominant sects known as Catholicism and Orthodox. I have taken the time to study these denominations and see how they all mesh and my only opinion on it is that of scorn. I cannot acknowledge Protestantism as anything remotely Christian.

I was raised in a non-denomination house and was always taught that long ago in America came Christianity and Catholicism splintered off around 200 years ago and moved to Mexico where it has caused us trouble ever since. A 3rd grade education in history can easily solve that blunder in history right up for you. Oh boy was I shocked to find the opposite of everything I was taught by the people around me.

The protestant movement can easily be summed up by a mixture of Evangelicals and New Age woo wrapped into one low quality Taco Bell burrito. Protestantism at face value is about as hostile to Jesus as Gandhi was opposed to wielding an AK-47.

Within Christianity I find these historical establishments of faith and discipline and when looking at Protestant religions I see well . . . a different religion. Not even my college history professor would call Protestantism a Christian movement but instead called it a "multiplicity of religions that emerged from another religion." This women I should add was not even religious. When she was further asked by a student, why in all her years of studying European history she regarded Protestantism as a different religion her response was that it had no bearing in Christian theology. I was in the front row of the class so I had to contain by laughter obviously.

Every saturday I would turn on my TV and see these American ministers ramblings like stroke victims on quaaludes and all I can think to myself is, "holy****, these men must be in the wrong comedy club because nobody is laughing." It is as if they have no understanding of historical Christianity or the piety of Catholics and Orthodox Churches and how they brought their preaching into practice. Yet with Protestants all we see is men in 3 piece suits who are more interested in winning over congressmen than trying to say anything of remote religious or moral value.

Even when looking at centuries old Protestant movements all I can find is radical groups being spawned due to political motivations or the need to strategically target a group of people for reasons of greed or grandeur. Baptists, Methodists, Calvinists and Pentecostals are all a weird amalgamation of cults like spawnings that are based off some weird man's ramblings in order to stir crows and start a spiritual riot. I can literally through Scientology and the Unification Church in the same pot as Protestantism and be intellectually accurate with how I treat them all the same. Their backgrounds, theological progression and assessment in the world is no different.

Protestantism repulsed me from Christianity and I can easily tell you how. My minister growing up was this very charlatan:

For 10 years I went to this church every agonizing Sunday listening to Frederick KC Price and attended this football stadium . . . *cough* I mean "church" known as the Faith Dome.

I think this is a matter of opinion at least to some degree. You have chosen Catholicism and Orthodoxy as your standard of what Christianity is. Yes, they are the oldest continuous groups of Christians we have today, but why are they the standard? What about the primitive church? The book Lost Christianities was mentioned. I recommend reading it. Even in the New Testament there is evidence of early forms of Christianity that were basically Jewish and very much different from what Catholicism and Orthodoxy are today. Some other groups identifying as Christian were gnostic dating from around the second century. It was quite a while before there was a standardized canon, and even today canons of scripture differ across Christian sects. Who can say with any authority which books should really be in the Bible or not? It is merely a matter of consensus, and that consensus is not universal.

When you speak of Protestantism I am hearing about something dramatically different from what I am accustomed to in the Episcopal Church which has quite a lot in common with the Catholic Church. In fact, we also have monastics, monks and nuns: monasticism has been revived in some Anglican provinces since the 1800s and exists among some other Protestants as well. Some Christian Protestant movements such as the Methodists and Quakers also arguably lived a life similar to monasticism in their early days.

Speaking of the commonalities between the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church, the Roman rite of the Catholic Church actually incorporated quite Protestant innovations in the second Vatican Council which had Protestant contributors for ecumenical purposes. The primary rite of the Western Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo, is arguably a different rite from the old Latin Rite and is mostly said without even using the historic Roman anaphora. It resembles Protestant liturgies more so than the old Roman Rite, and that was the intention. Indeed, the Lutheran and Episcopal Churches have adopted liturgies that are so similar to the Novus Ordo in the prayers and structure that they may be considered a variant of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo can only be celebrated in the style of the old rite with much effort and additions of prayers as private prayers of the priest, and it hardly ever is celebrated that way. Many traditional Catholics perceive the Catholic Church in its Novus Ordo rite to be a Protestant sect: I do not say that I agree or disagree with that statement, but I can see the point. Doctrines that had been held for centuries in the Catholic Church were swept away with Vatican II. The new doctrine on freedom of religion in society is a notable example. Freedom of religion is now seen as a right inherent in the dignity of humans rather than a last resort to avoid a greater evil which was doctrine for centuries. The new doctrine has still not been reconciled with the older view by theologians. If Protestantism isn't Christian, well, it certainly has had a lot of influence on Roman thinking and liturgy at this point in history, and in some circumstances, contrary to older canons, some Protestants are now allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church clearly does not perceive Protestants to be non-Christians.

My position tends to be that Christianity is like the term neo-pagan: an umbrella term for a bunch of differing religions. How exactly to define the term "Christianity" I am unsure of. The line to draw is blurry and a moving target as these religions continue to evolve.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Warning: Lengthy rant! I apologize if my sarcasm is unbearable but it is how I talk in person as well as online; so if I am overstating my case just take it as exaggeration. My post is merely my attitude toward Protestantism but you do not have to read it and can merely respond about your own views or you can rant like me . I just thought this was a good conversation to have and I also do not hate Protestants, I just think the religions have little in common.



This brilliant quote by our RF's lovely Franky has summed up my attitude towards Protestant Christianity or what I have often been calling Protestantianity. To me the Protestant movement is a mixture of separate religions splintering from an old and more classical religion known as Christianity which has only 2 very dominant sects known as Catholicism and Orthodox. I have taken the time to study these denominations and see how they all mesh and my only opinion on it is that of scorn. I cannot acknowledge Protestantism as anything remotely Christian.

I was raised in a non-denomination house and was always taught that long ago in America came Christianity and Catholicism splintered off around 200 years ago and moved to Mexico where it has caused us trouble ever since. A 3rd grade education in history can easily solve that blunder in history right up for you. Oh boy was I shocked to find the opposite of everything I was taught by the people around me.

The protestant movement can easily be summed up by a mixture of Evangelicals and New Age woo wrapped into one low quality Taco Bell burrito. Protestantism at face value is about as hostile to Jesus as Gandhi was opposed to wielding an AK-47.

Within Christianity I find these historical establishments of faith and discipline and when looking at Protestant religions I see well . . . a different religion. Not even my college history professor would call Protestantism a Christian movement but instead called it a "multiplicity of religions that emerged from another religion." This women I should add was not even religious. When she was further asked by a student, why in all her years of studying European history she regarded Protestantism as a different religion her response was that it had no bearing in Christian theology. I was in the front row of the class so I had to contain by laughter obviously.

Every saturday I would turn on my TV and see these American ministers ramblings like stroke victims on quaaludes and all I can think to myself is, "holy****, these men must be in the wrong comedy club because nobody is laughing." It is as if they have no understanding of historical Christianity or the piety of Catholics and Orthodox Churches and how they brought their preaching into practice. Yet with Protestants all we see is men in 3 piece suits who are more interested in winning over congressmen than trying to say anything of remote religious or moral value.

Even when looking at centuries old Protestant movements all I can find is radical groups being spawned due to political motivations or the need to strategically target a group of people for reasons of greed or grandeur. Baptists, Methodists, Calvinists and Pentecostals are all a weird amalgamation of cults like spawnings that are based off some weird man's ramblings in order to stir crows and start a spiritual riot. I can literally through Scientology and the Unification Church in the same pot as Protestantism and be intellectually accurate with how I treat them all the same. Their backgrounds, theological progression and assessment in the world is no different.

Protestantism repulsed me from Christianity and I can easily tell you how. My minister growing up was this very charlatan:

For 10 years I went to this church every agonizing Sunday listening to Frederick KC Price and attended this football stadium . . . *cough* I mean "church" known as the Faith Dome.

From what I see Protestants don't consider the community that wrote and passed on the Bible. If they think they can interpret scripture outside of the community that created it they are asking for trouble. Of course divorce isn't part of God's plan, so the Catholic Church forbids divorce, but in the Bible there are excuses for divorce because people in the old days didn't always live according to God's laws. Eve was originally equal to Adam, all mankind was made in the image of God with both parts coming together as a divine union like the Father and Son "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27 RSV But since mankind's rebellion perfect relations between men and women haven't been possible, so divorce was acceptable in the Jewish law and under some circumstances in the early Christian community. The Lord gave his Holy Spirit to guide the church, interpretation of the scriptures is entrusted to the community that gave us the scriptures i.e The Church or The Roman Catholic Church that organized after Saint Peter was martyred in Rome. I don't see how you can have the Bible without the community that it came from. I'm an agnostic, I'm unsure about the existence of God, but I like to present my views on religious matters sometimes. I like what the Catechism of The Catholic Church says on homosexuals.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. - The Catechism of The Catholic Church

 

[pearl]

Well, the split from the Catholic Church, or so the story goes, was because the RCC was abusing doctrine and its authority and Luther was seen as preserving the faith.

This is correct, however, Luther would not recognize the churches of the Reformation in his name today.

 

[pearl]

From what I see Protestants don't consider the community that wrote and passed on the Bible.

As I understand it Protestants do not consider anything beyond the 2nd century as authentic Christianity. They make a leap from the 3rd cent to the 16th cent.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think this is a matter of opinion at least to some degree. You have chosen Catholicism and Orthodoxy as your standard of what Christianity is. Yes, they are the oldest continuous groups of Christians we have today, but why are they the standard? What about the primitive church? The book Lost Christianities was mentioned. I recommend reading it. Even in the New Testament there is evidence of early forms of Christianity that were basically Jewish and very much different from what Catholicism and Orthodoxy are today. Some other groups identifying as Christian were gnostic dating from around the second century. It was quite a while before there was a standardized canon, and even today canons of scripture differ across Christian sects. Who can say with any authority which books should really be in the Bible or not? It is merely a matter of consensus, and that consensus is not universal.

When you speak of Protestantism I am hearing about something dramatically different from what I am accustomed to in the Episcopal Church which has quite a lot in common with the Catholic Church. In fact, we also have monastics, monks and nuns: monasticism has been revived in some Anglican provinces since the 1800s and exists among some other Protestants as well. Some Christian Protestant movements such as the Methodists and Quakers also arguably lived a life similar to monasticism in their early days.

Speaking of the commonalities between the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church, the Roman rite of the Catholic Church actually incorporated quite Protestant innovations in the second Vatican Council which had Protestant contributors for ecumenical purposes. The primary rite of the Western Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo, is arguably a different rite from the old Latin Rite and is mostly said without even using the historic Roman anaphora. It resembles Protestant liturgies more so than the old Roman Rite, and that was the intention. Indeed, the Lutheran and Episcopal Churches have adopted liturgies that are so similar to the Novus Ordo in the prayers and structure that they may be considered a variant of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo can only be celebrated in the style of the old rite with much effort and additions of prayers as private prayers of the priest, and it hardly ever is celebrated that way. Many traditional Catholics perceive the Catholic Church in its Novus Ordo rite to be a Protestant sect: I do not say that I agree or disagree with that statement, but I can see the point. Doctrines that had been held for centuries in the Catholic Church were swept away with Vatican II. The new doctrine on freedom of religion in society is a notable example. Freedom of religion is now seen as a right inherent in the dignity of humans rather than a last resort to avoid a greater evil which was doctrine for centuries. The new doctrine has still not been reconciled with the older view by theologians. If Protestantism isn't Christian, well, it certainly has had a lot of influence on Roman thinking and liturgy at this point in history, and in some circumstances, contrary to older canons, some Protestants are now allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church clearly does not perceive Protestants to be non-Christians.

My position tends to be that Christianity is like the term neo-pagan: an umbrella term for a bunch of differing religions. How exactly to define the term "Christianity" I am unsure of. The line to draw is blurry and a moving target as these religions continue to evolve.

Relevant points but even with terms like neo-pagan I think contemporary pagan is so removed from paganism that it is not even something to discuss. I personally do not identify as a pagan for this very reason since I dare not be lumped up with the others.

 

[EverChanging]

Relevant points but even with terms like neo-pagan I think contemporary pagan is so removed from paganism that it is not even something to discuss. I personally do not identify as a pagan for this very reason since I dare not be lumped up with the others.

My point is not that neo-pagans are or are not legitimately pagan, but that the term Christian is similarly an umbrella term. Some sects that identify as Christian may well be considered different religions. Between other sects the boundaries are more permeable.

 

[Sha'irullah]

My point is not that neo-pagans are or are not legitimately pagan, but that the term Christian is similarly an umbrella term. Some sects that identify as Christian may well be considered different religions. Between other sects the boundaries are more permeable.

Oh I understand what you are trying to say but my own view is that Protestantism move away from the original contexts of Christianity which was much more humble and human centered.

Neo Pagans are so fixated on earth worship that they fail to realize that so many polytheistic communities gave little to no care about the earth the way we do. Much of these cults were to worship the state and human power while nature was a the poor man's afterthought.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Neo Pagans are so fixated on earth worship that they fail to realize that so many polytheistic communities gave little to no care about the earth the way we do. Much of these cults were to worship the state and human power while nature was a the poor man's afterthought.

Well of course Pagan religions have a different emphasis now. Not only is humanity's understanding of the world much greater than, say, 2000 years ago, we're beginning to appreciate and understand the impact our own species is making and will continue to make in future. If there's a tendency among Neo Pagans to focus on Earth worship, it's because we're beginning to appreciate just how sacred and special the Earth truly is, and the sheer amount of harm we're doing to Her.

 

[EverChanging]

Oh I understand what you are trying to say but my own view is that Protestantism move away from the original contexts of Christianity which was much more humble and human centered.

What do you mean that original Christianity was more "humble and human centered?" Do you think Catholicism and Orthodoxy have not diverged from the early roots of Christianity when Christians still worshipped in the synagogues and some even kept the Jewish law? You speak about Protestantism as if it is one thing. It is not, and some Protestant sects are much closer to Catholicism than others, and Catholicism itself in the Western Rite has been deeply impacted by Protestantism since Vatican II.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

As I understand it Protestants do not consider anything beyond the 2nd century as authentic Christianity. They make a leap from the 3rd cent to the 16th cent.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) accepts the Nicene Creed A.D. 325 and the Apostles Creed. They also accept seven other confessions of faith. They see the faith as growing and adapting to each generation. The church that Christ established wasn't supposed to be a faith centered around one book. The teachings of the Bible need to be interpreted by the church in accordance with modern circumstances. Christ told his apostles "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19 RSV

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I like Unitarian Universalist Association

 

[illykitty]

I haven't got much to say about this subject, I'm not Christian, never have been, and only know a little about the early formation of the church and the reformation... But Luther did open up a can of worms, for better or worse, when he started it.

I think you'd be interested in Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast episode 48 (it's free). It's about how bad things got in the city of Munster in Germany after Luther's criticism of the Catholic Church. It's long but it's so gripping! I listened to it a few weeks ago, and it was so interested how Luther's words got taken by the masses and it resulted in a siege by some deluded prophets.

 

[pearl]

Christ established wasn't supposed to be a faith centered around one book.

Very true. Christian faith is centered on Christ. The 'book' is a product of this community centered on Christ.

The teachings of the Bible need to be interpreted by the church in accordance with modern circumstances.

True again. The Catholic church does not interpret from the intent of the author, but for what is means for the life of the Church today. While we believe that Revelation is finished our understanding of Revelation is never finished.

 

[Repox]

What if Catholics and Protestants both got it wrong? Assuming Jesus was not the son of God, who was he? Well, how about Jesus was God? That makes Christian theology a messy stew of false ideas.

 

[Milton Platt]

Warning: Lengthy rant! I apologize if my sarcasm is unbearable but it is how I talk in person as well as online; so if I am overstating my case just take it as exaggeration. My post is merely my attitude toward Protestantism but you do not have to read it and can merely respond about your own views or you can rant like me . I just thought this was a good conversation to have and I also do not hate Protestants, I just think the religions have little in common.



This brilliant quote by our RF's lovely Franky has summed up my attitude towards Protestant Christianity or what I have often been calling Protestantianity. To me the Protestant movement is a mixture of separate religions splintering from an old and more classical religion known as Christianity which has only 2 very dominant sects known as Catholicism and Orthodox. I have taken the time to study these denominations and see how they all mesh and my only opinion on it is that of scorn. I cannot acknowledge Protestantism as anything remotely Christian.

I was raised in a non-denomination house and was always taught that long ago in America came Christianity and Catholicism splintered off around 200 years ago and moved to Mexico where it has caused us trouble ever since. A 3rd grade education in history can easily solve that blunder in history right up for you. Oh boy was I shocked to find the opposite of everything I was taught by the people around me.

The protestant movement can easily be summed up by a mixture of Evangelicals and New Age woo wrapped into one low quality Taco Bell burrito. Protestantism at face value is about as hostile to Jesus as Gandhi was opposed to wielding an AK-47.

Within Christianity I find these historical establishments of faith and discipline and when looking at Protestant religions I see well . . . a different religion. Not even my college history professor would call Protestantism a Christian movement but instead called it a "multiplicity of religions that emerged from another religion." This women I should add was not even religious. When she was further asked by a student, why in all her years of studying European history she regarded Protestantism as a different religion her response was that it had no bearing in Christian theology. I was in the front row of the class so I had to contain by laughter obviously.

Every saturday I would turn on my TV and see these American ministers ramblings like stroke victims on quaaludes and all I can think to myself is, "holy****, these men must be in the wrong comedy club because nobody is laughing." It is as if they have no understanding of historical Christianity or the piety of Catholics and Orthodox Churches and how they brought their preaching into practice. Yet with Protestants all we see is men in 3 piece suits who are more interested in winning over congressmen than trying to say anything of remote religious or moral value.

Even when looking at centuries old Protestant movements all I can find is radical groups being spawned due to political motivations or the need to strategically target a group of people for reasons of greed or grandeur. Baptists, Methodists, Calvinists and Pentecostals are all a weird amalgamation of cults like spawnings that are based off some weird man's ramblings in order to stir crows and start a spiritual riot. I can literally through Scientology and the Unification Church in the same pot as Protestantism and be intellectually accurate with how I treat them all the same. Their backgrounds, theological progression and assessment in the world is no different.

Protestantism repulsed me from Christianity and I can easily tell you how. My minister growing up was this very charlatan:

For 10 years I went to this church every agonizing Sunday listening to Frederick KC Price and attended this football stadium . . . *cough* I mean "church" known as the Faith Dome.

It all depends upon your particular definition of Christianity, doesn't it?