Uganda debates death penalty for gays

[Sheilbh]

Which is what makes them christian, but the protestants trace theirs through the Roman church. The Anabaptists do not.

No they don't.  Protestants reject the Roman Church as an innovation and say they're a purifying movement with that great Reformation slogan of a 'return to the sources'.  Almost all Protestant Churches establish themselves as directly linked to the Church Fathers or the Apostles which is why they reject Romanish 'innovation'.

[Admiral Yi]

What's to elaborate? They existed since the apostles. Under different names, in different places, often in secrecy for obvious reasons.

For starters what does baptismal lineage mean.

[Maximus]

For starters what does baptismal lineage mean.

Apostle A baptized guy B. Guy B baptized guy C. etc down to the modern day. All adult baptisms of course, upon the confession of faith.

[Martinus]

For starters what does baptismal lineage mean.

Apostle A baptized guy B. Guy B baptized guy C. etc down to the modern day. All adult baptisms of course, upon the confession of faith.

Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.

[Sheilbh]

Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.

I believe the Waldensians claimed it and some Anabaptist groups claim descent from them.  I've never seen the argument presented except to be dismissed in mainstream histories however.

[Admiral Yi]

Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.

What possible difference does it make?

[Martinus]

Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.

I believe the Waldensians claimed it and some Anabaptist groups claim descent from them.  I've never seen the argument presented except to be dismissed in mainstream histories however.

See, that's the problem with religious groups. No matter how much benign or harmless they may seem, you eventually arrive at some ridiculous bullshit that makes you wonder if these people are fucking nuts or just pretend to be.

[Maximus]

Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.

I never said it wasn't a myth. All religions have their myths. All nations have their myths for that matter. It doesn't make it any less of a part of their beliefs.

@ Sheilbh. Yes the waldenses are a part of that lineage.

[Sheilbh]

What possible difference does it make?

They don't go back to the early church.  They are Protestants who came about during the Reformation - historically speaking - regardless of their beliefs and the belief that they're directly linked to the Apostles isn't significantly different from the beliefs every other Protestant Church had that they were restoring the true Church after Romanish deviance.

[Malthus]

Anyone who claims something like that must be a fucking hoax. There is no fucking way there could be records of this through the early dark ages for example.

I believe the Waldensians claimed it and some Anabaptist groups claim descent from them.  I've never seen the argument presented except to be dismissed in mainstream histories however.

See, that's the problem with religious groups. No matter how much benign or harmless they may seem, you eventually arrive at some ridiculous bullshit that makes you wonder if these people are fucking nuts or just pretend to be.

Heh I saw an official geneology of the Kings of England, displayed at the Tower of London. Allegedly, to this very day they claim ultimate descent from "Wotan" (Woden, or Odin). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%8Dden

A faked-up, impossible geneology as part of one's founding mythology is nothing new and not specific to religion (most English folk are not, at least these days, worshipers of the old Germanic gods and so presumably don't even believe "Wotan" exists, much less that their monarchs are descended from him). 

[Neil]

See, that's the problem with religious groups. No matter how much benign or harmless they may seem, you eventually arrive at some ridiculous bullshit that makes you wonder if these people are fucking nuts or just pretend to be.

Meh.  It's no more ridiculous than virtually everything that you believe.

[Admiral Yi]

They don't go back to the early church.  They are Protestants who came about during the Reformation - historically speaking - regardless of their beliefs and the belief that they're directly linked to the Apostles isn't significantly different from the beliefs every other Protestant Church had that they were restoring the true Church after Romanish deviance.

Point taken, but do you think that was the basis of Marty's objection?

[Maximus]

They don't go back to the early church.  They are Protestants who came about during the Reformation - historically speaking - regardless of their beliefs and the belief that they're directly linked to the Apostles isn't significantly different from the beliefs every other Protestant Church had that they were restoring the true Church after Romanish deviance.

Except there is a difference. The Protestants started new organizations to get back to their roots. The Anabaptists neither started anything new nor generally increased in number during the reformation.

I should point out that I am arguing their position using their histories, much of which is unwritten and the rest of which is contained in religious texts. I am not claiming it holds up to academic historic standards, but if a church is not defined by its beliefs, what is it defined by?

[Sheilbh]

Except there is a difference. The Protestants started new organizations to get back to their roots. The Anabaptists neither started anything new nor generally increased in number during the reformation.

But historically we know they did start something new.  We know that the Swiss Brethren, for example, initially seemed at home in Zwingli's Zurich and then rejected it and were persecuted.

I should point out that I am arguing their position using their histories, much of which is unwritten and the rest of which is contained in religious texts. I am not claiming it holds up to academic historic standards, but if a church is not defined by its beliefs, what is it defined by?

Well in historical terms I think it's defined by its history.  I don't think we should hold them to a lower standard than, say, the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession or Constantine's donation.  Both of those are important in how the Catholic Church understands itself but historically we have to acknowledge that the latter's a fraud and the former highly, highly improbable.  Even histories of the Catholic Church by Catholic historians, such as Eamon Duffy's history of the Popes admits that basically we don't know anything about the early Popes and that that element of Catholic history is more myth than history - which doesn't mean it's not important.

[Maximus]

Well in historical terms I think it's defined by its history.  I don't think we should hold them to a lower standard than, say, the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession or Constantine's donation.  Both of those are important in how the Catholic Church understands itself but historically we have to acknowledge that the latter's a fraud and the former highly, highly improbable.  Even histories of the Catholic Church by Catholic historians, such as Eamon Duffy's history of the Popes admits that basically we don't know anything about the early Popes and that that element of Catholic history is more myth than history - which doesn't mean it's not important.

Which is prety much what I'm saying.

But historically we know they did start something new.  We know that the Swiss Brethren, for example, initially seemed at home in Zwingli's Zurich and then rejected it and were persecuted.

The Swiss Brethren are not considered a part of that lineage since they started by baptizing each other after Zwingli switched to supporting infant baptism.