Could be that I'm just out of patience, but I do think that you are bright enough to explain to Steve that Judaism and Christianity are sufficiently different that lumping them together is offensive without being offensive yourself. I really do think you could have managed that if it weren't so much more important to you to take potshots at Christianity. While I agree that Steve's comparison was offensive, it was made out of ignorance; you are deliberately offensive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit that it was on-going ignorance, and heat-of-the-moment defensiveness in the face of unexpected passion on your part, but that's just me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he failed to understand why it was offensive the first time. You get it and are insulting about about it because you enjoy insulting my religion. Big difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The back and forth about who was offensive isn't particularly interesting to me (though I can understand why people on both sides of this have felt offended by statements made by people on the other side, and feel like it's a worthwhile conversation that's being had about it), but I am interested in the word "froward". I'd seen it before, but had never really thought about it. From the Online Etymological Dictionary
quote:froward O.E. fromweard "turned from or away," from from + -weard. Opposite of toward, it renders L. pervertus in early translations of the Psalms, and also meant "about to depart, departing," and "doomed to die."
Absolutely fascinating. I'd never thought about the word "toward" either, but that completely makes sense.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It always seems to me like it shouldn't be, though. Does anyone else feel that way? As though when we are speaking of our religion or anyone else's, we should do it in reverent tones, and with the utmost of fellow-feeling, and love, and close kinship. These things are sacred. Don't we desecrate them somewhat if we become cross with one another and contend in their presence? Don't we give them the lie that way, and deny with our actions the very things we are setting about to avow with our words?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlueWizard (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
starLisa So basically, even if someone points out that it's offensive, you'll keep doing it. Understood.
No, clearly, you don't understand. While I may have minced my words a bit, I did apologies and thanked you for pointing out my error. I finished by saying 'I come away a wiser man' for you having informed me of my error.
THEN, I did what I consider a reasonable explaination of my intent and the context of my statements, which really had little to do with the Jewish Faith. And whether you like it or not, the Jewish Faith and Christianity are inextricably linked. As I pointed out, Jesus was a Jew, as was nearly everyone of any significance in the Bible.
starLisa And you just don't get that anyone could possibly see Christian, Shintoist, Hindu and Buddhist as one category, with Jews on the other side.
Yes, in a completely different context than this greater conversation, I could see that. But I think you will find much greater resistance to Christianity being disassociated with Jews, and lumped into the same caatgory as Buddhists. But, that is not this conversation, or at least it wasn't until now.
We are all sons and daughters of Abraham in spirit. We are all associated, even if our specific doctrines are very different.
quote:BlueWizard Perhaps 'Christian-associated' would have been a better choice.
starLisa How about leaving us out of it. Honestly, Steve.
Sorry, but like it or not, you and your faith are part of this. Although relative to this greater conversation, a very small part.
starLisa ...what you'd said was offensive and asking you not to do it. Rather than just nod and say "Okay", you asked why. And that was fair as well. So I explained.
Yes, you did ask me not to do it, but you also seem to fail to look for or see the context in which the statement was made, and seem to have disregarded my explanation of how the misunderstanding came about. That's fine. Call it the way you choose to see it.
Note however, that much earlier in this converstation, I said some things that by all reason would likely to have offended some Mormons. However, while I did raise a few feathers, once my explanation of intent and context was clear, we had an extremely enlightening discussion. They were willing to move the conversation beyond the misunderstanding rather than wallow in the hurt.
Your hurt, I get that. But what your hurt about really was a very insignificant part of the overal conversation. You were hurt by a poor choice of words that was an extremely minor part of the greater story. Further, the words that offended you were words that were poorly chosen, but chosen none the less to placate you. Which I think I explain in a way that was clear to everyone except you.
starLisa If intent is what's important, than it should suffice that I don't mean to offend Christians.
Do you really mean that in your heart? Because your responses seem somewhat bitter. I mean you equated us with smugglers and outlaws, while we tried to be respectful of your Faith. Maybe we/I didn't succeed, but at least we tried.
I said before and I say now -
Though, it is good to now know that this is a far more important and sensitive issue that I might have imagined. And you can be sure, I will be more sensitive in this area in the furture.
But you seem determined to take offense, so you make a choice as well.
Abondoning this subject, I have a question for DKW.
dkw Also Eastern Orthodox. And the Anglican church and it's offshoots
So, enlighten me, because I really don't know. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox and Anglican are not Protestant religions with some foundation in Martin Luther's teachings? I could perhaps see that of Eastern Orthodox which I always assumed was vaguely Catholic, but it doesn't seem quite right for Anglican which I always took to be a variation of the Protestant Episcopal Church?
posted
Eastern Orthodox has absolutely nothing to do with Luther's teaching. It dates back as a separate entity from the Roman Catholic Church to 1054 and claims apostolic succession back to Christ.
Anglican is different case. I think it'd be mostly accurate to say some Anglicans are Protestants arising out of Luther, and some are "catholics" whose doctrine has its own line of of descent from Roman Catholicism. The Anglican communion allows for both, I believe. (I'm much fuzzier on the Anglican than the EO stuff).
Also, LDS is not the only church that calls itself restorationist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't we desecrate them somewhat if we become cross with one another and contend in their presence? Don't we give them the lie that way, and deny with our actions the very things we are setting about to avow with our words?
It really depends on what you're 'avowing' doesn't it?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a point at which all interfaith discussions break down when so many of the individual faiths include the teaching that they alone have it right and everyone else is wrong to a greater or lesser extent. It can be enlightening to explore the differences in doctrine, but, again, when it comes down to the things that define a denomination or religion as "truly different from all others" at least some of the adherents aren't going to discuss and are simply going to assert.
What it takes to have these discussions at all is constant maintenance of an attitude of mutual interest and respect. Not everyone is capable of approaching all parts of the discussion that way. And some of us have bigger toes than others.
And sometimes we catch each other just the wrong way.
But I have yet to see a religious discussion here at Hatrack that didn't include offensive things. People choose whether or not to take offense, and having chosen to take offense, they choose whether or not to react, and if reacting, how strongly (and offensively).
I hope for people to have long slow fuses all the time here. I don't expect it in discussions where people are passionate about the topic (religion, abortion, current hot topics, whatever). I also don't expect it from some people.
Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by a person or a long friendly discussion.
It makes up for the disappointments of when things turn out the way they usually do.
My advice: live for the good moments and be glad the bad ones take at least two people getting upset before they really propagate.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, enlighten me, because I really don't know. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox and Anglican are not Protestant religions with some foundation in Martin Luther's teachings?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And there are others.
To begin with Anglicans: the Church of England broke off from the Catholic church in a separate schism, not related to Luther, triggered by the King’s political arguments with the Pope. At the time it was a “schism without heresy” because theologically the CoE was still Catholic. (Except for the rather crucial matter of papal authority.) There were, however, protestant theologians who wanted it to become theologically protestant, King Henry resisted. After his death, in the squabble between his heirs, the CoE wavered between Catholic and Protestant in theology. Eventually Queen Elizabeth brought some stability by commissioning the Book of Common prayer and declaring that either Catholic or Protestant beliefs were acceptable, as long as worship and prayer were held in common. The Epsicopal, Methodist, Holiness, and Pentecostal churches and the Salvation Army are branches off this part of the tree, although most of them are now protestant in theology. The churches in the Anglican communion are still a blend of Catholic and Protestant theology.
The Eastern Orthodox churches have no ties through Luther whatsoever. Neither do the Waldensians, the Moravians, or the Uniate Churches. Or the Anabaptists such as Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish, etc. Luther was as strongly against those groups as the Catholics were.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No, he failed to understand why it was offensive the first time. You get it and are insulting about about it because you enjoy insulting my religion. Big difference.
I disagree, but clearly you think you know better than me what my intent was.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was impossible to say just that Judaism and Christianity were, from your point of view, so very different that Steve was wrong to lump them together? You couldn't explain the differences in theology without being perjorative? It was impossible to make your point without sprinkling in the "shudders" at the thought of being associated with us, without using words like "warped" and "distorted", without references to the Creature from the Black Lagoon, without referring to us as butchers and outlaws? Did it occur to you to try?
I apologize to the rest of you. I know that this is neither interesting nor comfortable. I am, however, really tired of being insulted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be interesting, now that we have strayed so far, if people went back to the context, and looked at the difficulty of what I was trying to say, because it really was a difficult thing to phrase in a context that didn't run off on a long drawn out distracting tangent.
What I orginally said was -
Though naive and foolish boy that I am, it never really occurred to me that their could be a Christian or Christian-like faith outside of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. (I say 'Christian-like' to allow for the inclusion of Jews.)
As I explained, I said 'Christian-like' to make the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. If I has said 'non-Christian' that would imply the inclusion of Shinto, Hindu, and Buddhist, and they clearly have no part in the broader discussion.
So, how do I make a quick clear concise statement of my mistake, which whether some like it or not, does validly include the Jewish faith? Not an easy task.
I do thank starLisa for pointing that out the potential for offense to me. It's nice to be warned that this is such a touchy subject. I take it as very worthwhile information. But, as the saying goes, 'discretion is the better part of valor'. While I applaud her purpose, I'm put off by her method.
Lest my intend not be clear, in the paragraph after the 'offending' statement, I did clarify my intent by saying -
I, obviously, mistakenly assumed that if you were not Catholic or Jew, then you were automatically Protestant.
Clearly the information, context, and intent where there if you chose to see them.
We are all making a choice, some chose to continue the conversation, which when closer to the central point, has actually been interesting. Yes, I was aware of the many minority religious mentioned by dkw, and thank him(?) for that information...
Neither do the Waldensians, the Moravians, or the Uniate Churches. Or the Anabaptists such as Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish, etc. Luther was as strongly against those groups as the Catholics were.
Again, I come away a wiser man. Like I said I was aware of most of these religions, but was not so fully aware that they had developed so independantly of both the Catholic Church and the teaching of Martin Luther. Whether they followed Luther or not, I had assumed he had influenced them to break away from any influence by the Catholic Church.
To some extent, on Europe proper, I have assumed that the Catholic Church dominated everything; society, religion, and politics, and that all permutations were either for or against that dominant core. The primary force against the dominant core was Martin Luther. So, on a very broad scale there might be some general foundation to my belief, though I now find that there are many exceptions to the rule.
Still, I will note that the Anabaptists were a radical movement of the 16th century Reformation, and that Luther is generally considered the leader of the Reformation. So there is some connection there. While they may not have formed around Luther, they saw and seized the opportunity he created.
A great thanks to all who responded on this last issue. Once again, though straying far from BlackBlade's original framework, it has been an interesting and informative conversation.
posted
Interestingly enough Luther was trying to create an opportunity to purge the catholic church of false teachings. A purification if you will. He was very much against creating competing church's as the importance of legitimate authority was not lost on him. It was close to the end of his life and mostly after his death that we see this sudden immergence of protestant churches, completely seperate from the catholic church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only if by "close to the end of his life" you mean "20 years before he died."
Luther originally wanted to reform the Catholic church, not start a new church, but he was quite firmly on the "new church" path by 1523.
And the majority of his support of "legitimate authority" was the secular authority of Germany. He argued quite fiercly against the authority of the pope.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
going to have to disagree with you at least in part DKW on the question of authority.
One of Luthers biggest concerns when he formed his new church was that he felt he was both unworthy and lacked the authority to perform some of sacrements of the church, such as communion.
Unfortunately I can't complete this thought (Ill try to do so tomorrow morning, but I can see where you draw your points from dkw)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where on earth are you getting that information? Have you readany of Luther's writings?!?
quote:From The Smalcald Articles by Martin Luther, 1537
1] That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show.
[Articles 2-9 elaborate on this]
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.
My apologies to the Catholics, btw. There were a few Catholics in my first Historical Theology class in sem, and Luther was a hard two weeks for them. This is somewhat less insulting (really!) than some quotes I could have chosen.
As for not considering himself to have the authority to celebrate the sacraments, he not only did consider himself to have such authority but also wrote instructions on the proper way to celebrate them, their true meaning, and a new order of service for the German church.
"Would members of the regrettable outlaw sect known as Christianity please not offend my religion by describing it with terms I personally dislike?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Where on earth are you getting that information? Have you readany of Luther's writings?!?
quote:From The Smalcald Articles by Martin Luther, 1537
1] That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show.
[Articles 2-9 elaborate on this]
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.
My apologies to the Catholics, btw. There were a few Catholics in my first Historical Theology class in sem, and Luther was a hard two weeks for them. This is somewhat less insulting (really!) than some quotes I could have chosen.
As for not considering himself to have the authority to celebrate the sacraments, he not only did consider himself to have such authority but also wrote instructions on the proper way to celebrate them, their true meaning, and a new order of service for the German church.
Why yes, yes I have read some of Luther's Works. I also worked with my friend when he wrote his masters thesis on Luther. But hey I don't pretend to be a Lutheran scholar.
Luther disagreed with the Pope putting himself between people and God in terms of salvation. He never said "Any Joe Schmo (or more appropriately klaus schmlaus) can lead the church and perform sacrements therein."
Just because you think the current head of a church is bogus does not mean you think there need not be a head.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm seriously appreciating the opportunity presented here for me to learn, so BlackBlade, could you then post selections of Luther's writings that you think speak to your position, as dkw has done?
This is extremely interesting to a little ole self-taught protestant like myself. I find the history of the Reformation fascinating, but don't have near enough knowledge and expertise to really participate in the discussion.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luther very clearly stated, in numerous writings, that the head of the church is Christ and there need be no other head. Not just need be, but should be no individual claiming that position.
Not just that the (then) current pope was corrupt but that the whole idea of a supreme pontiff was wrong.
And it is a far cry from "not any Joe Schmoe" to the idea that Luther didn't consider himself to have the authority to perform sacraments. He obviously did.
Edit: in fact, he claimed that any Joe Schmoe could legitimately celebrate communion, if in a situation where no priest were available the community of the faithful declared Joe to be their priest. Authority to ordain rests in the church, defined as the community of believers, not in the pope.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. But it is the theological reason why Protestant churches do not have a pope-analogue. (Which, to tie back to the earlier topic, is another example of how the LDS church is not theologically Protestant.)
Although for years there was a woman who presented a petition at every United Methodist General Conference that we needed to elect a pope.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dkw (your edit): I fully agree that Luther believed as you did in this circumstance. But again this is a situation where neccesity supercedes the need for uniformity. It reminds me of David (as in goliath's slayer) running from Saul and being offered the shew bread that was only for the priests to consume.
Luther certainly felt the masses could appoint a priest if there was none available. But I do not think he was saying "Let everyone be a priest, and let everyone be the laity."
Also in response to your earlier assertion that Luther was firmly on the "seperate church bandwagon." I should have been more specific when I said that Luther wanted to have 1 universal church, and was very much opposed to a church being called after his own name:
""Let us abolish all party names and call ourselves Christians, after him whose teaching we hold . . . I hold, together with the universal church, the one universal teaching of Christ, who is our only master." "
but back to authority:
I think I can concede that Luther certainly agreed that the congregation as lead by the Holy Ghost could do all things as expediency requires. But he certainly believed in a system of leadership that made decisions based on the ultimate authority, "The Scriptures."
Luther from what I understood felt that a leadership was important and that order prevail in the church, yet he believed that no one person was above the gospel, and had the write to go against what the scriptures said. Hence his very strong words against the Pope who he felt was disregarding the scriptures.
^^ A few of Luthers remarks on authority. Again it seems he is saying that in his day because of the oppressive nature of the catholic church it was partially expedient that how one is called as a preacher be temporarily modified.
But Luther also makes it very pointed that there must be order in all things.
To be honest, I should like to do more research as it appears Luther has said that any congregation could simply elect a preacher and that that would suffice so long as the preacher uses the scriptures are their guide when preaching.
This does not satisfy me as a way to setup a "Universal Church." Ill need to read more particulars about how Martin Luther viewed authority, Ill concede though that as far as an organized priesthood is concerned althout Luther certainly submitted to the authority the leadership of the catholic church at first, the pendulum seems to be in your favor dkw.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing (just in case anyone is curious) we didn't always have a Pope. The bishop of Rome had no more authority than the bishops of the other apostolic churches. And bishops used to be elected by the laity.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Where did you get that? 
