Posted on 11/28/2011 12:35:23 PM PST by marshmallow
“fundamentalism merely dates to the nineteenth century,”
Fundamentalism dates to the 15th century B.C. It is the school of literal and faithful biblical hermeneutics.
The Fundamentalst movement of the 1800’s ff. is only one of its manifestations.
“Don’t forget, Protestants hate beauty.”
In the same posting which speaks of the greatest collection of sacred art in the Southeast?
Your post is a violation of the forum rules. It is also incorrect.
You wrote:
“You are ALLEGEDLY a sick, sick man, to love Rome so much and hate Christ-followers so much.”
Who EXACTLY is alleging that I am a “sick, sick man”?
Also, I hate no one. But I do hate the evil Protestants have wrought in Christendom in the name of their false, man-made, dates-back-only-to-the-16th-century creed.
You wrote:
“... I hate no one. But I do hate ...”
Conflicted much?
How can you possibly not understand that sentence?!?
Do you really not see the irony, that he says “I hate no one,” and then in the very next sentence contradicts that by saying, “But I do hate the evil Protestants ...”?
Hence my use of the term “conflicted.”
Protestants — those who reject the corrupted system known as the Roman Catholic Church, and instead embrace Christ alone as Savior — are people too. I guess I’d count myself among them, though I don’t really use the term Protestant.
So he’s saying that he simultaneously hates no one and that he hates me.
Nice.
BTW, I enjoyed the ?!? at the end of your last comment. It really draws attention to your confusion.
You wrote:
“Conflicted much?”
Not one bit. I hate no one. But I hate some things. I can tell the difference between a person and a thing. Can you? If you can, then why did you ask the question you did?
You left off the bold portion, wonder why? Maybe because it highlights the true subject of the sentence!?!(hint, its the word 'evil' not 'Protestant')
Still confused? Try This.
You left off the bold portion, wonder why? Maybe because it highlights the true subject of the sentence!?!(hint, its the word 'evil' not 'Protestant')
Still confused? Try This.
“Savanarola and his followers also had quite a problem with some church art.”
Their problem regarded what they considered obscene or extravagant patronage or pagan. They had nothing against beauty in itself. All anyone has to do is look at the sheer dourness of Northern Protestantism - especially Puritanism - to see what I am saying is true.
Botticelli, apparently inspired by a sermon from Savonarola, painted this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Mystic_Nativity%2C_Sandro_Botticelli.jpg Clearly Botticelli did not believe Savonarola was against beauty. And Botticelli burned some of his work at the request of Savonarola.
***And Botticelli burned some of his work at the request of Savonarola.***
Since one did not go to Hobby Lobby to get paint back in those days, his burning his own paintings must have been a real critical decision for him.
But then, Fredrick Remington also burned a lot of his paintings, thankfully after they were printed so we still have copies.
I’ve a short biography of Savonarola. He appeared to be a deeply spiritual man.
most protestant churches that I've been in were kind of like meeting halls.....nothing wrong with that i guess, but certainly lacked the beauty of the art and decor in most Catholic churches. While the art is certainly not necessary, it was used through the early church to teach Christianity. The early Catholics used paintings, stained glass windows, statuary, etc. to teach the masses who could not read....Now, they are just art decorations....pretty to look at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
