The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[Zwing]

Protestantism arose in opposition to the Papacy, therefore, a Real Protestant Christian, is one that Wages Total War Against the Pope and Roman Catholic Dogma.

Not exactly. There was never an intent to break from the Church; most were excommunicated. Martin Luther considered himself a Catholic until his death. The original intent was to reform within the context of the Church, not to separate. It was, however, different with King Henry, a political struggle, rather than an effort to reform, which ended in his separating utterly from the Roman Church and expelling or killing all of its officials in the realm. In a way, the Anglican Church was not even born as part of “the Reformation”. It shows, too; there is no substantial difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism in either doctrine or practice, save the question of recognition of the Pope’s absolute authority in spiritual matters.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Protestantism arose in opposition to the Papacy, therefore, a Real Protestant Christian, is one that Wages Total War Against the Pope and Roman Catholic Dogma.




It appears that a Real Protestant Christian can have alliance with Muslims in opposition to the Universal Roman Catholic Church and this has happened throughout history.

I don't think the question was what is a Protestant. It is what is a REAL Protestant -- because your use of the word REAL assumes that there is a thing that is a FAKE Protestant Christian. So perhaps the better question would be to ask you, what is a FAKE Protestant Christian?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Cutting ties with "the past", i.e. with history, in an ancient country, seems to me both futile and misguided. It's a big part of national identity and culture.

I agree. The reason that culture changes so slowly -- and in its own time -- is because who we are is at least partly because of who we were.

Perhaps more intractable is the monarchy's role, by its mere existence, in tending to perpetuate the English class system: "Did you know she's second cousin of the Equerry to the Assistant Keeper of the King's Hubcaps" etc. [snore]..... There is still a (small) class of people who get off on this sort of crap. But it doesn't really buy them power in modern Britain. These snobbish cliques exist in parallel with the cliques close to political power and the two barely interact. So I think they are a bit obnoxious but fairly harmless.

We humans don't really need a "class" system to allow people to be snobbish to those they don't perceive to be "quite the right sort." The UK has its titles, the US does it through the terribly exclusive country club, where "those people" are not even allowed to peek through the front door.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh my goodness how he tries to avoid agreeing with this Papist. LOL For instance, how many different ways do I have to say that I am not judging King Charles, that I am leaving that between God and Charles?

It doesn't appear that we are agreeing. When you use your own Personal Judgment to Judge that is Removing Elohim's/God's Objective Standard of Real Christian. The Reason why you have all the different Interpretations is that Christians are using their own Personal Judgment about Elohim's/God's Standard, otherwise they would all Objectively Agree.

For example, does Real Christian mean, Getting Baptised, Taking Eucharist, Doing Confession and Attending Church?

 

[Elihoenai]

I can hear the first British king named Charles saying "what now?!" from beyond the grave.

Charles I of England was a Roman Catholic leaning Monarch. It appears that Charles I was a Christian Martyr that Championed High Church Anglican Ecclesiastics. High Church Anglican Ecclesiastics is what the Church of England practices today.


Charles I of England

"...After his succession in 1625, Charles quarrelled with the English Parliament, which sought to curb his royal prerogative. He believed in the divine right of kings, and was determined to govern according to his own conscience. Many of his subjects opposed his policies, in particular the levying of taxes without parliamentary consent, and perceived his actions as those of a tyrannical absolute monarch. His religious policies, coupled with his marriage to a Roman Catholic, generated antipathy and mistrust from Reformed religious groups such as the English Puritans and Scottish Covenanters, who thought his views too Catholic. He supported high church Anglican ecclesiastics and failed to aid continental Protestant forces successfully during the Thirty Years' War. His attempts to force the Church of Scotland to adopt high Anglican practices led to the Bishops' Wars, strengthened the position of the English and Scottish parliaments, and helped precipitate his own downfall...."

Charles I of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Elihoenai]

Not exactly. There was never an intent to break from the Church; most were excommunicated. Martin Luther considered himself a Catholic until his death. The original intent was to reform within the context of the Church, not to separate. It was, however, different with King Henry, a political struggle, rather than an effort to reform, which ended in his separating utterly from the Roman Church and expelling or killing all of its officials in the realm. In a way, the Anglican Church was not even born as part of “the Reformation”. It shows, too; there is no substantial difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism in either doctrine or practice, save the question of recognition of the Pope’s absolute authority in spiritual matters.

That's from the point of view of the Protestant Moderates. My statement was made from the point of view of Ultra Extremist Protestant Puritans that is all about Total Separation from the Universal Roman Catholic Church.


Puritans

"...Puritans were dissatisfied with the limited extent of the English Reformation and with the Church of England's toleration of certain practices associated with the Roman Catholic Church. They formed and identified with various religious groups advocating greater purity of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and corporate piety. Puritans adopted a Reformed theology, and in that sense they were Calvinists (as were many of their earlier opponents). In church polity, some advocated separation from all other established Christian denominations in favour of autonomous gathered churches. These Separatist and Independent strands of Puritanism became prominent in the 1640s, when the supporters of a presbyterian polity in the Westminster Assembly were unable to forge a new English national church...."

Puritans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How to be a Puritan Atheist

Puritanism (an overview)

What Is a Puritan?

 

[Elihoenai]

I don't think the question was what is a Protestant. It is what is a REAL Protestant -- because your use of the word REAL assumes that there is a thing that is a FAKE Protestant Christian. So perhaps the better question would be to ask you, what is a FAKE Protestant Christian?

Puritans are REAL Ultra Extremist Protestants while FAKE Protestants, from the point of view of Puritans, would be the Moderates embracing and tolerating the practices of the Universal Roman Catholic Church: The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Charles I of England was a Roman Catholic leaning Monarch. It appears that Charles I was a Christian Martyr that Championed High Church Anglican Ecclesiastics. High Church Anglican Ecclesiastics is what the Church of England practices today.

And the relevant point I was getting at: he was tried, convicted and executed. Apparently, he did not have sovereign immunity (though at some points during the trial, Charles refused to participate in his own defense because he thought he did).

 

[Zwing]

My statement was made from the point of view of Ultra Extremist Protestant Puritans that is all about Total Separation from the Universal Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, I know all about them; they were the first settlers in my part of the U.S., where their churches dominated until the large influx of Irish during the famine (must’ve galled them to see those Irish building Catholic Churches which dwarfed theirs, and seizing political power through sheer numbers). They didn’t only want to separate from the Catholics, but from the Anglicans and Merhodists, as well. They were quite radical minded people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Puritans are REAL Ultra Extremist Protestants while FAKE Protestants, from the point of view of Puritans, would be the Moderates embracing and tolerating the practices of the Universal Roman Catholic Church: The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

Are you saying that YOU think mainline Protestants are not real Protestant Christians?

 

[Kathryn]

Oh my. I am sitting here reading these and eating popcorn! LOL

 

[2ndpillar]

Yes, I know all about them; they were the first settlers in my part of the U.S., where their churches dominated until the large influx of Irish during the famine (must’ve galled them to see those Irish building Catholic Churches which dwarfed theirs, and seizing political power through sheer numbers). They didn’t only want to separate from the Catholics, but from the Anglicans and Merhodists, as well. They were quite radical minded people.

Some of the earliest settlers were socialist, as everyone was to own everything equally, as in the early days of Peter's socialist experiment, but quickly changed their political minds when that type of institution brought death and destruction. The Catholics and Protestants are just different flavors of the "daughters of Babylon". Like mother, like daughter.

 

[Zwing]

…they were the first settlers in my part of the U.S., where their churches dominated…

They were also the eventual founders of Unitarianism in the U.S., though, which (the doctrine of the trinity being absolutely asinine) redeems them in a manner of speaking.

 

[Zwing]

The Catholics and Protestants are just different flavors of the "daughters of Babylon". Like mother, like daughter.

Sure…all Xianity is nonsensical. That goes without saying.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sure…all Xianity is nonsensical. That goes without saying.

I wouldn't say "nonsensical" .. perhaps misguided..

 

[Zwing]

I wouldn't say "nonsensical" .. perhaps misguided..

Well, my opinion is that supernaturalism in the utter absence of supporting evidence is nonsensical; there is no better word for it, except maybe “delusional”, to channel Mr. Dawkins.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, my opinion is that supernaturalism in the utter absence of supporting evidence is nonsensical..

Yeah .. somebody just "invented" G-d, and claimed He exists .. why should we believe that?

 

[Zwing]

Yeah .. somebody just "invented" G-d, and claimed He exists .. why should we believe that?

Because nobody alive has ever had any objective evidence of any God’s existence. It is reasonable to assume, by extension, that nobody who ever lived has ever had any objective evidence of a God’s existence. In the absence of objective evidence, “God” must, instead of being an ontological fact, simply have been somebody’s idea. “God” is purely conceptual. The two broad categories of things are real things and conceptual things. The fact that there are many different “Gods” supports this: each originator of a “God concept” has conceived a different concept.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah .. somebody just "invented" G-d, and claimed He exists .. why should we believe that?

As a monotheist, you should find this easy: don't you believe that all of the other thousands upon thousands of humanity's gods were made up? It should be trivial to recognize that humans can invent and then believe in gods.

The only stumbling block - and admittedly, it's a big one, since ego comes into play - is letting go of the idea that the god you believe in is special, different from every single other god humanity has ever had, and immune to the forces that created every other god.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because nobody alive has ever had any objective evidence of any God’s existence..

What objective evidence would you expect, if God exists?