Oh, this is too much (Baptists reveal their angst with Catholics)

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20610

Evangelicals do not find any biblical warrant for the office of the papacy or the elaborate structure of the Roman Catholic Church,” Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press.

“Further, the Catholic system's emphasis on merit, works salvation and veneration of Mary and the saints are issues that those committed to ‘sola scriptura’ could never endorse or affirm,” Akin continued. “While we can appreciate the moral stand on life and marriage of the papacy, we will resolutely maintain that our High Priest is Jesus Christ in whom we have direct access to the true and living God.”

“For evangelicals, the crucial question comes with the institution of the papacy itself. After all, the Reformation of the 16th century required a rejection of papal power and authority, and the Reformers soon came to understand the papacy as an unbiblical office that inevitably compromised the authority and sufficiency of Scripture

Mohler maintained that evangelicals “simply cannot accept the legitimacy of the papacy and must resist and reject claims of papal authority. To do otherwise would be to compromise biblical truth and reverse the Reformation.”

[Zen Democrat]

1. It's a no-brainer that Protestants reject the authority of the papacy.

What do you think the Reformation was about?

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Ah shit...they all bleed red. n/t

[evlbstrd]

3. It's simple. Reject it all in government...

...otherwise keep it to yourself. You have the freedom to do both.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. What do they care?

How petty and unChristian.

These fundies are such fucking hypocritical assholes.

[Zynx]

5. That's ok - they're all going to Hell.

*wonders again why right wing Catholics and fundies even speak to each other*

[ComerPerro]

6. And Catholics, as well as most rational people,

don't find any Biblican justification for the rapture.

And they probably don't believe that Jesus is returning next week.

[DBoon]

7. That's the best thing I've heard about Catholics all day

At least Catholics believe in works - that doing something real to help the unfortunate is noble and brings you closer to God. Daniel Akin seems to think there is something wrong with this, as though people who spit on the poor while proclaiming that Jesus is their savior are deserving of heaven.

And for all the misogynist crap in Catholicism, at least veneration of Mary is more one case where women are sanctified and worshipped. Does Daniel's faith have a single female role model?

[solinvictus]

8. Baptists are a cult..

A death cult at that with their obsession with the Rapture and "End Times".

[seg4527]

19. where exactly do you get off saying that?

there are plenty of decent baptist churches. my church is baptist and doesn't believe in a rapture. every denomination has churches ranging from liberal to conservative, and baptists are no different. i'll admit, we are stuck with a few more crazies than others, but there is no way you can group all baptists in to the same category.

it's like saying all atheists have no sense of morality.

[solinvictus]

43. Sorry..

I should've specified "Southern" Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention is, as far as I can tell, a death cult for Bush waiting for the next world war and the rapture.

[More Than A Feeling]

Reminder: "Baptists" covers a wide range of denominations

From the moderate/liberal American Baptists to the Southern Baptists.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. And the very liberal World Baptist Alliance

[w4rma]

9. I stopped defending the Catholic church, today.

Btw, I am a Baptist.

[V. Kid]

10. I think the first response on this

is the most reasonable. It's a well duh!

I see no need in insulting Protestants, or even all baptists, because of some right-wing fundies. It's kind of reactionary and unfortunate. All it does is reflect the reactionary attitudes of the right. Not to say they need to be treated with a velvet glove, but people need to remember that they don't speak for everyone.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

11. May I be allowed to point out there is no religion just mythology

Point One: Every society in the history of the world has had some form mythology...its human nature. Todays religion is tomorrows mythology.

Unfortunately, I know the bible better than most christians. Have any of you Christians read in Exodus about Moses going up on the mount to receive the ten commandments? Remember when he got up there God looked down and saw the people sinning and worshipping a golden idol. Ya know what god said???? First god gets mad(does this ring true..more on this later) and tells Moses that he will wipe out these stiffnecked people and raise up a new people for Moses to lead...hmmm the supreme being got mad and decided the best way to fix the problem was kill the sinners...WOW....but guess what Moses talked him out of it...YEP a mere mortal talked the supreme being out of doing something...does that ring true? Lets see...god can see time from beginning to end so he should have known not to say something STUPID and EVIL which a mere mortal could correct him on...NEED I GO ON???

[Clark2008]

13. There is faith, though. n/t

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

15. How can you have faith in something that isn't logical? n/t

[theboss]

44. I have faith that the Democrats know what they are doing

That would seem to be in contradiction with all logic.

[patcox2]

47. I believe in a lot of things that aren't logical.

But which science has proven.

I have found that most people who think that the great divide in the world is between "reason/logic" and "faith/belief" have no idea what logic is, and no idea of the relation between logic and science.

Simply put, the opposite of "faith" is not "reason," it is "empiricism." And empiricism dictates that truth is determined by observation, not logic. We might use logic in making guesses at the early stages of the sicentific method, but truth is determined by whether something is observed, not by whether its logical.

Much of the universe and the rules which govern it is not "logical." What is logical about the fact that an accelerating object gains mass, or that an object moving through space, viewed from another object, will decrease in length along the direction of motion, while time as it passes relative to that object will appear to slow to the observer? Evolution as a process is logical, but there is nothing logical about its results. They are random. Why is it again that we have legs and not wheels, which, because of their efficiency, would be so much more logical?

Meanwhile, much that is considered magical or mythical is actually very logical, within the framework of limited factual knowledge. A miracle is anything that happens that you cannot explain; as your ability to explain increases, the incidence of miracles decreases.
Religion attempts to answer the age-old questions which only come to us because of our "logic." Why do bad things happen to good people, will bad people get their come-uppance, do good people just die forever and it was all just for nothing? Why do we even ask these questions? Because it goes against "logic" for the world to be this way. Religion is really an attribute of the thirst for justice, in a just world bad people would be punished and good people would prosper (that would be logical, right?) The problem is we look around and see that this is not so. How to explain the disparity between the world as we think it ought to be and the world that we see? (thats our logic again, we have decided that logically, the world should be just, so we go looking for an explanation that explains why it isn't). The pagans decided that there were numerous gods who squabbled among each other, and thats why bad things happened (they were also petty and nasty) Thats logical; not the best explanation, certainly not one supported by evidence, but logical. Nowadays, the popular theory is that its only THIS world that is unfair, and that ou loving god makes it all better in the next world. Perfectly logical, see, there is justice after all, thank god.

But anyway, despite the grand phrase "the age of reason," the scientific age should be called "the age of empiricism." The essence of science is not logic, it is observable data. Nothing is scientifically accepted simply because it is logical, whereas many things are accepted by science because they are observable, whether logical or not.

Ever hear the expression "counter-intuitive?" Comes up a lot in science. Logic can lead you astray just as easily as religion can. Empirical observation is the diametric to faith, not logic.

Whats the point of all this? Don't fool yourself into thinking that religious people are stupid or illogical, thats not the deal at all.

[V. Kid]

17. Point being?

I haven't really explored this site very well but is this something that goes on all the time? These religious flame wars? "I'm an atheist -- I'm smarter than you"....it's not very appealing.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not stupid. I know there have been improper translations within the bible. And as a progressive I find it strange that some parts of the bible are used to argue things that haven't even been discussed like birth control (gee being fruitful and multiplying has been one thing humans have sure done huh?). That being said I find it quite presumptious that Athiests continiously suggest the uniform stupidity of Christians.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

27. I never said I was smarter than anyone....even smart people

can be duped though. I know plenty of smart christians and conservatives....even smart people can be fooled. If a person wants to believe something bad enough then they will....facts at that point are totally useless.
Do you believe a supreme being would get mad and kill? Do you think a supreme being could be corrected by a man? I grew up in a Christian house hold and believed until I read the bible. The bible disproves both Judism and Christianity...its all there in black and white. Did it hurt me to find it out...yes,cuz like most people I wanted to live forever in a paradise but I can face facts and put away childish things. The bible is a bunch of fairy tales.

[V. Kid]

32. Intresting point however...

...I believe the bible was written (and translated) by people and does have mistakes in it. One example of this is the "red sea" that Moses led the people out of Eygpt to the holy land in. I remember seeing something on Discovery Channel or A&E or TLC about the secrets of the Bible. It could've been the show "Secrets of the Bible". Anyways...that basically refered to the fact that the translation from the original language was wrong, and that it wasn't the red sea that was crossed it was the reed sea as in a Saxaphone reed. I think that proves that the yeah the Bible does contain mistakes since it was written by Humans (imperfect beings)!

Nonethless I still have faith. It's not logical. And I admit that. But are humans completely logical? No not really. The faith is helpful to me. I'm not a perfect Christian by any means, but still it's important to me and even with some of the things the Church has done to dissapoint me I won't loose my faith. That's why I don't think it's particularly relevent to answer your question as to whether a supreme being would get mad and kill, because I don't know that humans have done the Bible justice over the years. Like I said it's based on faith, you have it or not I believe in God regardless of, and it's not "logical" but meh that's life.

[Solomon]

38. It's no use NoMoreMrNice Guy. I'm a "christian" and I totally agree

with you. I could go on and on and on about the nonsense that's in the bible. But it won't help. Notice I put quotation marks around the word christian. That's because things have gotten so bad even I have to admit my brand of christianity bears absolutely no remsemblance to what is passed off as christianty these days.

Like you, I could go on and on about the stupid translations of things in the bible. But it ain't gonna help because people can always cop out with the "God works in mysterious ways" bullshit.

I'm amused at your example of Moses and the ten commandments because I once asked my fundy brother-in-law whether God could change his mind. I admit it was a trap question. After all, how can he be God if he can't change his mind? On the other hand, if he can change his mind, what's to stop him from saying from now on only Buddhists will be saved.

Well, my brother-in-law, bless his heart, couldn't bear the thought that God can change the rules on him, so he hollered that God can't change his mind because then that would make him a liar. To which I replied, well then, the Bible is really God then, and not God, since he's stuck with whatever the bible says. I didn't have the heart to point out the many instances, including the one you gave, where he did indeed change his mind.

The funny thing about the ten commandments, go back and look at what they originally were. They bear little resemblance to the version we accept toady as the official ten commandments.

[Clark2008]

12. Maybe it's time Catholics reveal their angst with Baptists

As in, "You stupid, idiot. YES - we ARE Christian and were so long before your dinky religion was ever heard of." And "NO, you dolt, there is no Rapture and Jesus ain't coming back tomorrow."

Sorry - my Dad was a Southern Baptist and I know some great ones, but these fundies aren't like any I grew up knowing.

[Lars39]

14. *This* is the article that expresses the sbc's goals::

http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20618

Conservatives applaud new pope's views on social issues

ROME (BP)--Those wanting a more liberal pope likely will be disappointed by the election of German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger April 19 as Roman Catholics' new pontiff.

The 78-year-old Ratzinger, who took the name of Pope Benedict XVI, is seen as one of the more conservative cardinals who entered the conclave April 18. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was in charge of enforcing Catholic orthodoxy.

On issues from abortion to homosexuality to female priests, Ratzinger is seen as a staunch conservative.

Pro-life Catholic groups applauded Ratzinger's election.

"We thankfully recognize the staunch pro-life commitment of Cardinal Ratzinger during the whole of his episcopacy and we are confident that as Pope Benedict XVI, he will continue his strong defense of the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life," Thomas Euteneuer, president of the pro-life Catholic group Human Life International, said in a statement<snip>

http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20618

-----------------------------------------------------
They'll meet in the middle and figure out how to screw humanity.

[EC]

16. Pretty soon,

we'll just be another Ireland, the division between the Catholics and the followers of Luther (be it broken down to drivel, they call the "true" believers)

On edit: are they afraid of looking back and turning into salt? Is that why they are so insistent on subverting (saving) us all?

[seg4527]

18. i'm a baptist. they are right about this.

i go to a very liberal baptist church, though. probably about as liberal as you can get. anti-war, pro-glbt rights, etc. we don't believe in the rapture either, for the record.

but if you people read the bible, you would find that there IS nothing in scripture that says anything about how structure of the roman catholic church. it has nothign to do with bigotry. it's just the truth. there is NOTHING in the bible about the papacy. or mary worship, or saint worship. and lots of the new testament speaks of "grace through faith alone". there are places in which it talks about having to do good works too. but it says that if you have faith, you will want to do good works, and the good works won't save you, it's your faith.

i don't want to start a flame war or anything. i don't have anything against catholics. but there are obviously some principals of theirs which are not based on the bible. that's all that they are saying, and they are entirely correct on that point. there are a great many things i disagree with conservative baptists on. this isn't one of them, though.

[Lars39]

20. The standard KJV doesn't have all the books.

[roguevalley]

21. Actually, someone on another thread said that the fundies are

milking this pope already and we look bad and lose people by disagreeing with his stuff. Doesn't sound like they are behind him. Sounds like the same old schism to me.

[Hardrada]

31. Actually Rheims-Douay doesn't either to carry your point

a bit further. We have the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha and the Lost Books of the Bible and so forth and so on. Take your pick!

[fishwax]

34. Well, the Septuagint were around in the 1st Christian Bibles and were

widely quoted by the apostles in the New Testament, so it's a little disingenuous to compare them to, say, the Gospel of Thomas.

[Hardrada]

46. My point, one of them, is the selection process seemed arbitrary.

They could, for instance, have done very well by junking Revelations and I wish they had. Also if you rely on tradition the so-called apocryphal books are as "traditional" as anything else and are just as "reliable" as the tales of the saints. And then we have the Gnostic Bible (see E. Pagels) and that tradition. A lot of what got included in the official canon seemes to have gotten there though imperial and political backing.

[fishwax]

48. I can understand that point

particularly about the political maneuvering and all. But my point is that when Lars39 said "The Standard KJV doesn't have all the books" he's discussing a dispute over specific books that have a much greater tradition of acceptance than anything of the dozens of Acts, Gospels, Apocalypses, Epistles, etc. that weren't included. The books included in the Catholic Bible but left out of the KJV (which is what I took Lars39 to be referring to) were part of the Old Testament tradition in Greek texts well before the establishment of the New Testament Canon.

Dismissing them as nothing more than similar to a myriad of other apocrypha ignores historical realities about their significance and acceptance. Of course, that's not to say that there's no room for argument on the legitimacy and/or causes of those decisions of inclusion/exclusion. Am I right that the last is the point you're making?

[fishwax]

24. Mary worship? Saint worship?

Catholic theology doesn't really say anything about worshipping Mary, either. Catholics consider saints intercessors, whom they ask to pray on their behalf, rather than objects of worship.

[Hardrada]

30. The exaltation of the BVM

came largely through the Church Fathers, e.g., St. Augustine. The RC church regards tradition as embodied in writers such as Tertullian and Augustine as being on a par with the Bible, a fact which DOES get overlooked in these discussions. The saints are also a part of tradition but not on as elevated a plane, more of a folk tradition in some cases. Protestants regard tradition as extraneous to Scriptural revelation and truth and, in this regard, Sola Scriptura, are correct.

[seg4527]

36. according to the bible, i'm quite capalbe of praying on my own behalf.

don't need no saint of popo to intercess for me. :-)

to each their own though.

[fishwax]

39. Catholics are capable of it too.

:shrug:

The Bible doesn't condemn asking others to pray for you. :)

[LoZoccolo]

22. Uh, well, I would expect them to say this.

Do you think all those different denominations formed just for fun? Different religious groups disagree with each other. It's a fact of life. What's the big deal?

[NAO]

23. Matthew 16:18 is the (alleged) Biblical Mandate for the Pope

Of course the Baptists dispute it, but the passage where Jesus appoints Peter to be the first Pope is Matthew 16:18:


Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Mat 16:14 And they said, Some John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[Zen Democrat]

29. Seems to make a case that the disciples had been taught reincarnation!

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Mat 16:14 And they said, Some John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

[V. Kid]

33. Yeah defenetly alleged...

...another example of interpretation. And how it's really dumb for people to fight over interpretation. Debate, argue -- fine -- but fight and kill? No.

BTW as a non-Catholic I don't think it's particularly clear but whatever to each his own.

[Lexingtonian]

25. Scylla vs Charybdis

'Sola scriptura' is an authoritarian idiocy too.

[NVMojo]

26. I was raised Catholic but went to one year of college at a Lutheran Bible

college (I know, don't laugh). While there I met a young lady who was a Baptist who flat out told me the Catholic Church was the "Whore of Babylon" straight out of the Book of Revelations and had killed millions of "real" Christians throughout the Centuries. She told me to read some old book called "Fox Book of Martyrs". Years later I got ahold of a copy of that book. If all Baptists and other types of Christians read it, I guess I can see why they say the things they do ...

Religion scares the hell out of me!!!

[Voltaire99]

28. Rabbi Michael Lerner: Ratzo sides with the "anti-humane and repressive"

"Joseph Ratzinger has distinguished himself as a man who can be counted on to side with the most anti-humane and repressive forces and in opposition to those who seek to give primacy to a world of peace and justice," Lerner said in a statement.

Quoted here:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/04/20/1113854233152.html?from=top5&oneclick=true

My view: Ratzo will waste little time imposing his reactionary fiats. When a world steeped in misery needed a decent leader for its one billion Catholics, they and we got a living nightmare.

[patcox2]

35. "works salvation," anyone know what this means?

To me this is the wierdest thing. The Baptists believe in something called "justification by faith," which is the belief that all you have to do is worship and believe to be saved. The catholics believe that you must also do good works, you must perform acts of charity and mercy, in order to be saved.

Note that to the baptists, this idea that you must actually DO something good to be good is anathema, one of the totally unacceptable tenets of catholicism.

So thats where you get the basis for much of fundamentalist hypocracy. Its a fundamental tenet of their belief system that you don't have to walk the walk as long as you talk the talk.

Its about the only admirable thing about the Catholic church, their belief that you do in fact have to walk the walk as well as talking the talk.

Protestants, and particularly calvinists, have a general tendency to believe "I am so great, that god loves me." Catholics are definitely taught "God is so great that he loves you, even though you don't deserve it."

[lastliberalintexas]

45. Not quite

The Baptist faith tells us that works *alone* will not get you to Heaven, that faith is required *as well*. And we're also taught that we're not worthy of God's love/salvation/whatever, but that He loves his children anyway.

Although I grew up in the much more liberal Southern Baptist Church of the 1970s, I am no longer very religious at all. But I do remember the Sunday School lessons very well. It's nice for a "godless Commie" like me to be able to quote the Bible to the repub fundies in my area. :)

[Ganja Ninja]

37. I don't need the Pope or the Baptists.

But if I had to choose between the two I'd take the Pope. I've never heard him or any Catholic clergy bad mouth the Baptist faith and I went to Catholic school from grades 1 through 8.

[Walt Starr]

41. Hmmm, Joratz I says the Protestants are defficient

and Protestants say Catholics are defficient.

Sunnis don't dig Shias and vice versa.

Keep 'em all divided, I say. The world will be a safer place!

[theboss]

42. This is a revelation?

Of course, Baptists reject the Pope. That's why they are not Catholic.