Just a clarification about Northern Ireland

[The Laughing Man]

What is going on there between people who call themselves Protestants and those who call themselves Catholics

does not represent Christianity as a whole!!!

Just because a few idiots in a localized area think it's okay to disobey God's commands and kill each other does not mean every Christians acts that way or even would consider acting that way given the chance.



[Sorry, but I just read a crass and ignorant comment about this issue on the infidels.org forum.]

[Solly]

Being a bit closer to the action - we have had a few bombscares here in Northampton in our time - I can say amen to that. We mostly hear from the vocal "Christian" elements, and those caught up in it, or up to their necks in it, such as Rev Ian Paisely (an attested man of God whose preaching has blessed many; I can recommend his commentary on Romans). But it has been little but gangsterism on both sides for many years now. They do not represent the people. The UDA etc don't speak for Protestantism, and Sinn Fein don't speak for Ireland.

It's a rum old business, dating back centuries, to when the British ruled Ireland, and imported Scotch Protestants into the Northern part. It will roll on for a good while too, I suspect, with a few fringe elements causing trouble.

There is hope.

[spl_cadet]

Ian Paisley is hardly a man of God. He's the European version of Jack Chick! He says that Catholics are all satan worshippers and what not.

[Solly]

There is that, but then it depends on your standard of who counts as a man of God. He is a hard and fast British Protestant.

But then the Gospel he preaches is not catholicism either, so I don't suppose you would accept him for that either. Protestants would have held his views about catholicism until the 19th century at least. Most Reformed Protestants have since toned down their views. However, the fact is that his views on Christian doctine fall within the domain of late 19th century evangelical arminianism, and he is greatly in demand throughout the UK. I just wish he would get out of politics; Rev. and MP don't go together in my books.

[spl_cadet]

02-26-2003 @ 06:42 AM
Solly:
There is that, but then it depends on your standard of who counts as a man of God.

Someone who doesn't resort to blatant falsehoods about fellow Christians for one.

But then the Gospel he preaches is not catholicism either, so I don't suppose you would accept him for that either. Protestants would have held his views about catholicism until the 19th century at least. Most Reformed Protestants have since toned down their views.

I don't have any problem with someone preaching the Protestant gospel, I have a problem with someone preaching an anti-Catholic gospel and going after fellow Christians.

And in my opinion, that's one of the sad facts of Protestantism. It was founded on anti-Catholicism and will remain that way for some time.

[Solly]

I don't have any problem with someone preaching the Protestant gospel, I have a problem with someone preaching an anti-Catholic gospel and going after fellow Christians. Protestantism... was founded on anti-Catholicism and will remain that way for some time.


And there we agree somewhat, though for different reasons. But this isn't the thread for discussing that issue.

[stevencarrwork]

02-26-2003 @ 06:29 AM
Jinx72:

What is going on there between people who call themselves Protestants and those who call themselves Catholics

does not represent Christianity as a whole!!!

Who does represent Christianity as a whole?

I should point out that the IRA had often Marxist members, or members who lent that way, and that there has never been any suggestion that the Reverend Ian Paisley has been involved with any sort of terrorist organisation. Indeed, the idea is rather absurd.

[stevencarrwork]

02-26-2003 @ 02:14 PM
spl_cadet:

Ian Paisley is hardly a man of God. He's the European version of Jack Chick! He says that Catholics are all satan worshippers and what not.

Gosh, when did Ian Paisley say that? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing he would say.

[spl_cadet]

02-26-2003 @ 02:18 PM
stevencarrwork:
Gosh, when did Ian Paisley say that? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing he would say.

Beats me. It's been years since I saw his site. I do remember though that he was just like Jack Chick.

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-26-2003 @ 04:03 PM
stevencarrwork:

I should point out that the IRA had often Marxist members, or members who lent that way, ...

That was generally the early PIRA in the late 60s/early 70s, and was indeed one of the primary issues over which they split from Official IRA. But by the late 80s/early 90s, even PIRA (by then generally just IRA, as Official IRA was as dead as Marley) however was mostly beyond that. Not to say that they dropped all their connections to "fellow travelers", as it was too convenient for getting Semtex and weapons. Just that people who assume that "IRA = Marxist" is still true today are a bit behind times.

...and that there has never been any suggestion that the Reverend Ian Paisley has been involved with any sort of terrorist organisation. Indeed, the idea is rather absurd.

Not at all. There have been at least two official investigations of Big Ian's connection with the UDA/UVF in general or with specific actions of UDA/UVF (i.e., one killing in particular that I know of, and others that I forget the details). He was exhonerated (rather, found "not guilty", which is not technically the same as "innocent"--but we're only talking investigations here, not trials at all: what evidence was found was profoundly underwhelming, though, and any idea of proceeding was dropped).

I'm not claiming that he was guilty, either--just that "never been any suggestion" and "rather absurb" are wrong. Even discounting official investigations, he has often been publically questioned/challenged about any connection with and/or support for various "orange" paramilitary actions.

The (nor am I claiming that he was innocent) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-26-2003 @ 04:18 PM
stevencarrwork:
Gosh, when did Ian Paisley say that? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing he would say.

Oh, it sounds exactly the sort of thing that he says all the time. F'rinstance, here's some text from his very own web site (An Exposure of Popery:

Every part of Popery corrupts Christianity, and its corruptions have crept into its church by degrees....

Such is the church against whose iniquities, doctrines, and practices the martyrs protested, and sealed the truth with their blood. It is heathenish new-modelled, and Christianity foully corrupted. It is doomed to perish, but yet struggles for existence. Its throne totters, but many hands yet strive to hold it up. Its subtle agents are at work to renew its influences in this land of martyrs. The Jesuit, like a sly serpent, creeps into every hole and corner. The "slimy viper" stealthily crawls into our families, schools, colleges, universities, and senate. We trace its existence under the mitre and the cassock; we see it polluting the pulpit and the press. We should beware of its corruptions in innovating ceremonies creeping under the Protestant altars, and in leading articles published in our most popular newspapers. If we would not again fall a prey to the reptile foe, let us learn dextrously to handle the sword of the Spirit, which it cannot resist; and let us say to each other, as Jesus to his disciples – WATCH!
(emphasis added)

The serpentine references are deliberate allusions back to Genesis Chapter 2. And we all know who was the Serpent in that account, right?

The article is actually written by a Rev. Ingram Cobbin, not Big Ian himself, but by hosting it on his website, along side numerous articles that are by himself, his sons and his staff, he certainly shows that this view is his very own; it's the electronic counterpart to "what he said" when agreeing with someone else.

The (not at all subtle, our Big Ian) Curtmudgeon

[GrayPilgrim]

02-26-2003 @ 03:32 AM
Solly:

Being a bit closer to the action - we have had a few bombscares here in Northampton in our time - I can say amen to that. We mostly hear from the vocal "Christian" elements, and those caught up in it, or up to their necks in it, such as Rev Ian Paisely (an attested man of God whose preaching has blessed many; I can recommend his commentary on Romans). But it has been little but gangsterism on both sides for many years now. They do not represent the people. The UDA etc don't speak for Protestantism, and Sinn Fein don't speak for Ireland.

It's a rum old business, dating back centuries, to when the British ruled Ireland, and imported Scotch Protestants into the Northern part. It will roll on for a good while too, I suspect, with a few fringe elements causing trouble.

There is hope.

I am largely ignorant of all the subtelties of the confilct. So I have a question from those who are better acquainted with the facts. One person from my church toldme recently that part of the complaint, among all the others is that the counties of Northern Ireland are the most fertile and that GB kept those while letting the less fertile have their independce. Is this true, or part of hte blarney surrounding this whole situation. Like I said I'm largely ignorant of the facts here.

What does UDA stand for--Ulster Defense Association? Moreover, what does UVF stand for --Ulster V? Force?

GP

[stevencarrwork]

02-27-2003 @ 05:25 AM
GrayPilgrim:



I am largely ignorant of all the subtelties of the confilct. So I have a question from those who are better acquainted with the facts. One person from my church toldme recently that part of the complaint, among all the others is that the counties of Northern Ireland are the most fertile and that GB kept those while letting the less fertile have their independce. Is this true, or part of hte blarney surrounding this whole situation. Like I said I'm largely ignorant of the facts here.

What does UDA stand for--Ulster Defense Association? Moreover, what does UVF stand for --Ulster V? Force?

Northern Ireland is not so different in fertility from the rest of the country.

UVF means Ulster Volunteer Force

[GrayPilgrim]

02-27-2003 @ 12:54 AM
stevencarrwork:



Northern Ireland is not so different in fertility from the rest of the country.

UVF means Ulster Volunteer Force

Thanks.

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-26-2003 @ 11:25 PM
GrayPilgrim:
I am largely ignorant of all the subtelties of the confilct. So I have a question from those who are better acquainted with the facts. One person from my church toldme recently that part of the complaint, among all the others is that the counties of Northern Ireland are the most fertile and that GB kept those while letting the less fertile have their independce. Is this true, or part of hte blarney surrounding this whole situation. Like I said I'm largely ignorant of the facts here.

"Most fertile"? No, probably (certainly not 'certainly'!) not, as except for certain parts of the west Ireland is all extremely fertile. But the Six Counties are generally very fertile, and very desirable land, alright. On the other hand, the Six Counties rather early on diverged from agriculture (in general, I don't mean to imply that there is no agriculture there at all) and became much more industrialised than "southern" Ireland. So if you reword that comment to something more like "most productive/remunerative" then you'd be nearer the mark.

But the reasons GB/UK 'keeps' NI has more to do with history than agriculture or industry. In the early Tudor period, Ulster was the most anti-English part of the country, host especially to the familes of O'Donnell and O'Niall that plagued the Tudor (Elizabethan) rulers of Ireland. Eventually, full-scale insurrection against England broke out there, but finally Elizabeth's armies were able to defeat them. By the terms of surrender, the Gaelic leaders and their families left Ireland never to return (the "Flight of the Wild Geese"), leaving only the small crofters and such behind. Elizabeth, and later Jamie Stuart more successfully, gave out land grants (the 'Plantation of Ulster') to English and Lowland Scots landlords, including laws restricting the local indigenous Catholics from holding sub-farms larger than a certain size, and other restrictions to keep them in a sense enserfed. It was the introduction of these Protestant landlords, and the total economic and political control which they were given, that created the situation on the ground. (There had actually been earlier, smaller plantations, even by Catholic Queen 'Bloody' Mary!, but mostly those failed to gain any great number of planters.)

What does UDA stand for--Ulster Defense Association? Moreover, what does UVF stand for --Ulster V? Force?

Spot on for 'UDA'. UVF = Ulster Volunteer Force. They are widely acknowledged to be two sides of the one coin (hence you'll often see them presented as "UDA/UVF", as I did), whereby the UDA is the open, official and essentially legal organisation whereas the UVF is the same people acting covertly and illegally. It's not quite the same as the better-known connexion between the political party Sinn Fein and the IRA (for one, UDA is not a political party, although it certainly is a political animal!), and in fact is much better documented (i.e., Sinn Fein and IRA have a large overlap but do have separate leadership and some separation of membership; UDA and UVF really are almost identical in membership, differing only in the actions that they take).

The (hard for me to find witty parentheticals on this subject) Curtmudgeon