the top parliamentarian of our time?
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
In Bloom said:
Its definitely not literal--the Beast of Revelation is a bit hard to take literally--and its truth is certainly debatable. I suppose you could say that all prophecies are self-fulfilling, the state of Israel being the classic example. That doesn't invalidate them though.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
I beg to differ. He may not be a "lunatic" in the conventional sense of the word but he is a vile, bigoted demagogue.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Paisley, iirc, is not a member of the Church of Ireland, he is a Presbyterian. He is Calvinist rather than Episcopalian.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
You left out all the others who attended the Council at Chalcedon.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
mmm, bollocks. that maybe how he is now written up, but it's shit.HarrisonSlade said:
He was often regarded as a rather poor speaker, certainly not an eloquent one! Full of repetition and filler.
And it does strike me as a bit odd that the 'best parliamentarian' would be someone who had the bloody place firebombed!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
sorry but when did messrs Williams, Carey or Runcie say that?phildwyer said:
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
nino_savatte said:
Not quite. In the fine tradition of ultra-Protestants, Paisley sees even the most hardline of the mainstream Christian denominations as too soft for him particularly on the all important issue of how evil Catholicism is and so he runs his own sect, the Free Presbyterians. Those of you who follow far left politics but find religious belief incomprehensible can file this kind of behaviour under Spartacist League.
Similarly, I think that the Protestant attitude towards the Catholic church and the compilation of the bible can be understood by leftists as being along the same lines as the Trotskyist attitude towards the Soviet Union and its Stalinist degeneration. Just think of the phrase "first four Congresses of the Communist International".
Personally I've never really seen the appeal of Anglicanism. I can see the attractive things about the certainties and relatively strong internal logic of Catholicism on the one hand and the harder line Protestants on the other, but Anglicanism just sort of fudges everything. Surely if you want some kind of politically helpful compromise in your belief system, religion isn't the place to go looking for it?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
What are you on about, phil? Anyway, what does it matter? The point of Chalcedon was to establish orthodox Catholic doctrine; to declare Monophysitism heresy blah, blah blah. I probably meant Nicea.
Would you care to:phildwyer said:
1. Substantiate this claim*
2. Explain what the Church of Ireland has got to do with Paisley
*the claim that "the pope is the anti-Christ and the church the whore of Babylon" is in the articles of the Church of Ireland.
Here's a link that might just help you: http://www.ireland.anglican.org/geninfo/pandc.html
or maybe this one: http://www.ireland.anglican.org/resources/articles.html#nineteen
TeeJay said:
1. Here you go, scroll down to article 80: http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/romerejectedbyconfessions.html
2. I was placing Paisley's belief that the Pope is the Antichrist in the context of the Irish Protestant churches, to show that this belief is not eccentric, far less "lunatic," but conventional in that context.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
1. A view can be both conventional in certain circumstances and lunatic.
2. In the context of Irish Protestant churches today the view that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon is not conventional. In fact, outside of the fringe churches of some Northern Protestants (most obviously but not only the Free Presbyterians) you would never hear such a view expressed. Were you to suggest that the Pope was the Anti-Christ at for instance a Church of Ireland parish event you would be regarded as (a) a dangerous bigot (b) a lunatic or (c) both. It can be taken for granted that the CoI and for that matter the Irish Presbyterian Church once held views none too distant from those Paisley holds today. Those views are simply not held by the mainstream of Irish Protestantism these days.
3. The link you provided was to a Free Presbyterian site, not perhaps the most reliable source for anything pertaining to other Christian denominations. The rather milder expressions of fraternal disagreements TeeJay linked to are from the official site of the Church of Ireland itself. And one of them quite clearly points out that:
"Historic documents often stem from periods of deep separation between Christian Churches. Whilst, in spite of a real degree of convergence, distinct differences remain, negative statements towards other Christians should not be seen as representing the spirit of this Church today."
2. In the context of Irish Protestant churches today the view that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon is not conventional. In fact, outside of the fringe churches of some Northern Protestants (most obviously but not only the Free Presbyterians) you would never hear such a view expressed. Were you to suggest that the Pope was the Anti-Christ at for instance a Church of Ireland parish event you would be regarded as (a) a dangerous bigot (b) a lunatic or (c) both. It can be taken for granted that the CoI and for that matter the Irish Presbyterian Church once held views none too distant from those Paisley holds today. Those views are simply not held by the mainstream of Irish Protestantism these days.
3. The link you provided was to a Free Presbyterian site, not perhaps the most reliable source for anything pertaining to other Christian denominations. The rather milder expressions of fraternal disagreements TeeJay linked to are from the official site of the Church of Ireland itself. And one of them quite clearly points out that:
"Historic documents often stem from periods of deep separation between Christian Churches. Whilst, in spite of a real degree of convergence, distinct differences remain, negative statements towards other Christians should not be seen as representing the spirit of this Church today."
1. That is not a link to the articles of the Church of Ireland - it is a quote from a document dating to 1615. This is a link to the Church of Ireland website: http://www.ireland.anglican.org/home.php There is nothing there that corresponds with what you are claiming and plenty contradicting it.phildwyer said:
2. You have made specific reference to a church of which he is not a member. If you want to make a general point why not just do so, rather than making specific claims which are actually wrong?
Edit: I have just read NigelI's post: thank you for putting it far better than I can. I'd like to point out that I have never even been to Ireland and am only relying on what I have found out online.
phildwyer - what is your experience of Ireland? Have you ever been there? It sounds like you are wildly stereotyping everybody and don't seem to be differentiating between massively different viewpoints, just lumping them all together.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Still wrapped up in your mental onanisms, phil? Paisley is not a member of the Church of Ireland.
You cast aspersions on me, so let me cast some on you: you know nothing about Ireland and you make that plain here. In fact, I think you're the sort of person who tries to wriggle out of arguments through the use of bullshit, obfuscation and deviation. Oh, and you have derailed the thread for the sake of your vanity.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Since you've decided to derail this thread with your tiresome bollocks (more showing off), I thought I might wade in and have a pop. You rather conveniently forgot to mention the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Xtians, neither of whom were Catholics...or part of Rome, to be more precise.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
& the monophysites.nino_savatte said:
TeeJay said:
Of course I've been to Ireland. But I'm not claiming that most Irish Protestants believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. I'm claiming that most Irish Protestants belong to churches whose official line is that the Pope is the Antichrist. Many of these churches are embarrassed by this doctrine, and tend not to mention it much these days. However, *all* Protestant churches were founded on this belief, which is indeed the raison d'etre of Protestantism itself.
Turning specifically to the Church of Ireland. The latest reference I've found on the net to that church's articles is in force in the nineteenth century: article 80, which I mention above. This clearly states that the pope is Antichrist. Now I'm well aware that today's CofI hierarchy is ecumenical--more so even than the English Anglicans. The question, however, is whethr they ever got around to abrogating article 80. I'm pretty sure they did not, certainly this is what happened in other Protestant churches, which just quietly allowed the matter to drop rather than go through the turmoil of officially repudiating it (they'd have faced passionate resistance from many members and rosked provoking a split.) But if you, TeeJay, or anyone else knows different, I'd be very interested to hear of it.
In Bloom said:
An interesting entry, but it contains two significnt errors. First, and most imortant, it identifies Antichrist with the devil, which is of course erroneous. Second, it asserts that Rastafarians believe Ronald Reagan to be Antichrist. If this is true, its the first I've heard. As far as I'm aware, Rastafarians are perfectly clear that the Pope is Antichrist, as witnessed on innumerable fya pon Rome tracks over recent years.
Similar threads
