Henry was the founder of the Anglican church but not the founder of the Anglican faith, if that makes sense.
And at the risk of repeating myself, neither the Lutherans nor the Episcopalians have been traditionally liberal and as others have said, there is more to being a liberal church than one's stance on gay marriage.
This is where my frustration comes and why I keep telling you to read some books on the topic. You keep positing completely wrong information, saying you're merely asking questions, and then repeating wrong information in the form of a lecture.
What is the wrong information I'm posting? I never said that Lutherans or Episcopals have been traditionally liberal. I never thought that for a second. I don't believe there was ANY church at that time that was liberal with liberal being the definition we use today.
I was speaking of strictly today's churches. Taking a snap shot of today's churches, who is the most liberal? What denomination is most likely to have as many democrats as republicans? That is all. After I took a long break from any organized religion, I set out to find something in the Christian denomination that was what I'd call liberal (as I mentioned their views on women's role in the family, their accepting of gay people being two biggies) I also wanted a church whose congregation had a good mix of Democrats and Republicans so I didn't have to hear sermons about how Democrats are the anti-christ. And all roads I searched let back to Lutheran or Episcopal. I'm sorry if my finding that funny, or ironic somehow comes out that I thought these dudes were just oh so progressive back in the day. That is not what I meant.
What I did say was, I wondered if they were liberal for their time. And then said I didn't know, maybe they were and maybe they weren't. I know they were considered controversial and heretics. I never thought they were so enlightened and social activists or anything even remotely resembling today's version of what liberal would be.
And actually earlier you said that Baptists are not considered Protestant while every thing I'm reading says that they are. Now I don't care one way or the other if they are or aren't. I'm sure you have plenty of information pointing to the fact that they are not. I'm seeing plenty of info pointing to the fact that they are. The point is, to try to discuss religion and politics together and not have there be some discrepancies in what people have learned prior to the conversation is damn near impossible.
Henry was the founder of the Anglican church but not the founder of the Anglican faith, if that makes sense.
And at the risk of repeating myself, neither the Lutherans nor the Episcopalians have been traditionally liberal and as others have said, there is more to being a liberal church than one's stance on gay marriage.
This is where my frustration comes and why I keep telling you to read some books on the topic. You keep positing completely wrong information, saying you're merely asking questions, and then repeating wrong information in the form of a lecture.
What is the wrong information I'm posting? I never said that Lutherans or Episcopals have been traditionally liberal. I never thought that for a second. I don't believe there was ANY church at that time that was liberal with liberal being the definition we use today.
I was speaking of strictly today's churches. Taking a snap shot of today's churches, who is the most liberal? What denomination is most likely to have as many democrats as republicans? That is all. After I took a long break from any organized religion, I set out to find something in the Christian denomination that was what I'd call liberal (as I mentioned their views on women's role in the family, their accepting of gay people being two biggies) I also wanted a church whose congregation had a good mix of Democrats and Republicans so I didn't have to hear sermons about how Democrats are the anti-christ. And all roads I searched let back to Lutheran or Episcopal. I'm sorry if my finding that funny, or ironic somehow comes out that I thought these dudes were just oh so progressive back in the day. That is not what I meant.
What I did say was, I wondered if they were liberal for their time. And then said I didn't know, maybe they were and maybe they weren't. I know they were considered controversial and heretics. I never thought they were so enlightened and social activists or anything even remotely resembling today's version of what liberal would be.
And actually earlier you said that Baptists are not considered Protestant while every thing I'm reading says that they are. Now I don't care one way or the other if they are or aren't. I'm sure you have plenty of information pointing to the fact that they are not. I'm seeing plenty of info pointing to the fact that they are. The point is, to try to discuss religion and politics together and not have there be some discrepancies in what people have learned prior to the conversation is damn near impossible.
Except I think discounting religious sources altogether also limits your viewpoint. Just because the source is religious or spiritual doesn't mean it can't be objective.
Screw it. When my "Hour of Development Power" is over (I've got two bloody templates to convert and then I'm DONE! MUAAHAHAHAHAAAA), I'm going to post my recommended reading list. eclaires mentioned something like a Tudor book club, so it'll be like that, but broader. Others can obviously feel free to contribute
The religious sources I've encountered seem to have the hardest time with just accepting the fact that there was and still is a lot of corruption and power in the church. I think this is why there is bound to be hurt feelings and people getting offended because uncovering the truth is presenting information in a matter that is unbiased and it can be a punch in the face at times. The most I learned about religion in my life was during the period that I stopped attending church. Kind of a "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.
a) Can I ask what the hell Ds and Rs have to do with a religious congregation? Aren't you there for, you know, the Jesus-y beliefs, not the political persuasion of the Church? I understand wanting to find a congregation or church that is accepting of gay marriage or doesn't picket abortion clinics, but I don't really see what that has to do with the mix of political affiliations.
b) the idea that there is some sort of intellectual dishonesty among any sort of religious sources about this that you're finding is kind of laughable to me, considering I received 12 years of Catholic education and am well aware of the corruption, don't dispute it and the place I learned all of that was a religious institution. I can't speak to other faiths, but most Catholics are pretty aware and honest about what the Church was during the Reformation. Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded to have the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation after the Reformation began. Clearly, they were aware there were issues, so it'd be kind of hard to not know about them or be dishonest about it. Personally, I feel no punch in the face when I hear about the things the Church did in the 1500s, or at any time really, because I don't expect a church as a whole to be perfect. They are men/women trying to interpret God's word and there will be mistakes and abuse of power and on and on. Anyone who thinks differently is painfully naive.
The religious sources I've encountered seem to have the hardest time with just accepting the fact that there was and still is a lot of corruption and power in the church. I think this is why there is bound to be hurt feelings and people getting offended because uncovering the truth is presenting information in a matter that is unbiased and it can be a punch in the face at times. The most I learned about religion in my life was during the period that I stopped attending church. Kind of a "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.
Well, then I'd respectfully submit two things:
1) You're reading the wrong religious sources. Not uncommon, really.
2) You ALWAYS have to keep in mind the source when reading. Just because something is secular doesn't mean it's unbiased. Especially when dealing with history. You try to get to the root sources when doing research for a book but in many cases the sources do not exist OR were written/recorded by people who were biased.
Take Richard III as a prime example. The entire history book on him was written by Tudor historians who had a vested interest in destroying Richard's reputation. Even Thomas More, who is largely reputed to be one of the most scrupulous men of his age (he died for that reason, after all), repeated the most ridiculous nonsense about Richard in his history of him. Then those stories were immortalized by Shakespeare (who also had a vested interest in keeping a cranky Tudor monarch happy). That is not to say there isn't some truth in what was said by More and others, but that one always has to weigh and balance what you read against other resources available.
Go back and read the post, 2v. I was arguing that the church was NOT liberal in the Renaissance. And then I pointed out that lots of popes were acting extravagantly--and buying exotic animals to add to their growing menagerie which included a gifted elephant.
I'm not in this post to promote some anti-catholic agenda at all. I'm here to tell amusing stories. And Renaissance Catholics were quite good at separating their faith from the actions of their popes. See, for example, Dante. Who claimed that multiple popes were burning in hell for their sins, and yet was deeply devout.
Some popes acted more like extravagant princes than humble shepherds. Regardless of the exact number of elephants and their provenance, that's what happened.
So please, point out the other falsehoods you feel people are peddling here. Please. Because if you're going to keep harping on one elephant, there isn't much left to say.
Ah, yes...amusing. Oh so funny. You just don't get it. Yes, the information I bristled at was immaterial in the grand scheme of things (and I have said repeatedly that the Church was corrupt at that time and that there were "bad" Popes). However, the bottom line was you lied about the facts .... whether that was intentional I will not judge. And then you brought up your degree to support just *how* knowledgeable you are on the topic. If you are so knowledgeable, then you should make an even better attempt at being accurate. And if you didn't take the time to be accurate with some of the info, then I sure as heck am not going to believe everything else you brought up as a ha-ha was factual.
If you're going to make a ha-ha at least be factual. But I suspect being completely factual isn't necessary when dealing with "bad" popes. They deserve the exaggeration and falsehoods.
And thank you Tef for at least understanding the defensiveness.
You're right. I lied about buying elephants because I hate the popes, and I hate Catholicism. Is that what you want to hear?
I brought up my degree because you said that my mis-statement about an ELEPHANT implied that everything else was somehow suspect, and possibly false. I offered to give you some citations, but clearly you've written me off as a peddler of falsehoods. You think I'm intentionally spreading elephant mis-information here to tarnish the church? I think maybe YOU'VE been taking too many gold laxatives.
a) Can I ask what the hell Ds and Rs have to do with a religious congregation? Aren't you there for, you know, the Jesus-y beliefs, not the political persuasion of the Church? I understand wanting to find a congregation or church that is accepting of gay marriage or doesn't picket abortion clinics, but I don't really see what that has to do with the mix of political affiliations.
b) the idea that there is some sort of intellectual dishonesty among any sort of religious sources about this that you're finding is kind of laughable to me, considering I received 12 years of Catholic education and am well aware of the corruption, don't dispute it and the place I learned all of that was a religious institution. I can't speak to other faiths, but most Catholics are pretty aware and honest about what the Church was during the Reformation. Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded to have the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation after the Reformation began. Clearly, they were aware there were issues, so it'd be kind of hard to not know about them or be dishonest about it. Personally, I feel no punch in the face when I hear about the things the Church did in the 1500s, or at any time really, because I don't expect a church as a whole to be perfect. They are men/women trying to interpret God's word and there will be mistakes and abuse of power and on and on. Anyone who thinks differently is painfully naive.
1) I agree that D's and R's shouldn't have anything to do with church. That is what I was tired of. I attended a few churches where the pastor would go heavily into politics. The church was mostly Republican so there are many anti Dem sermons. FTR I wouldn't want to go to church that slammed R's either. My mom attended a church in TN where before this past election, the pastor's words were, "If you vote for anyone other than Romney, the blood of the unborn is in your hands." I wanted to find a church that didn't discuss politics at all. And with this church, so far, so good.
2) I can't speak for Catholics but it appears to me that Catholics do receive an excellent education in history. I only know of the church history I've received through my church (Sunday School, bible studies, sermons) and yes there is a lot of mistruth. Whether that misinformation is intentional or not, I don't know. But even now, you really have to consider the source when seeking info about Christianity. For example, there is a Christian site called "Got questions?" whose answers are very anti-Catholic imo. They claim that praying to saints is anti Christian and reciting prayers like Apostles Creed or the Lord's Prayer means they don't come from one's heart. I attended confirmation classes at my Episcopal church and while they touched on what happened during Henry's time, they don't into the detail that even this post goes into. The stay more religious and less political, which I completely understand. But if I want the whole picture, the church is not the place I'm going to seek, is all I was saying.
As a kid in the fundie church I learned in Sunday school that the earth is only 6,000 years old and science is a lie, fossils are lie. That picture Reeve posted about how WE are the real truth was pretty much what our church taught. Our pastor had numerous books published too. Scary. So if some people's churches have been honest with them about their own church's history, then I applaud that. That has not been my experience at all. Our church was very honest with us about pope corruption of course. We weren't Catholic. But were they honest about the corruption in our own history? Ha, you got to be kidding. Of course they weren't. Only other denominations had skeletons in the closet.
I don't feel punched in the face because I became disillusioned with religion long ago. I spent many years as an agnostic. I have no problem slamming religion or holding a mirror up to its ugly history. I know for many though, hearing about how corrupt the church is does feel like a slap and that's why posts about religion often get a little hairy and hurt some feelings. FTR my feelings are not hurt in the least though. I wasn't referring to me. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. It's actually an opinion that caused a lot of strife with the church I was attending in the 90's who believed the church and the bible were infallible.
While I'll admit I don't have quite the passion for this time in history that you all do, I do love history, and when I do read it, I want to be reading the truth. Not someone's biased interpretation of what they think the truth is. And unfortunately, that's a lot of what is out there. Finding the truth on the origins of Christianity requires finding a source that is not religious based, crazy as that sounds.
Except I think discounting religious sources altogether also limits your viewpoint. Just because the source is religious or spiritual doesn't mean it can't be objective.
Screw it. When my "Hour of Development Power" is over (I've got two bloody templates to convert and then I'm DONE! MUAAHAHAHAHAAAA), I'm going to post my recommended reading list. eclaires mentioned something like a Tudor book club, so it'll be like that, but broader. Others can obviously feel free to contribute.
This would be amazing. I've been reading along the last few days knowing nothing about anything other than a handful of eps of the Tudors, and thinking about asking for "beginner" recs.
The religious sources I've encountered seem to have the hardest time with just accepting the fact that there was and still is a lot of corruption and power in the church. I think this is why there is bound to be hurt feelings and people getting offended because uncovering the truth is presenting information in a matter that is unbiased and it can be a punch in the face at times. The most I learned about religion in my life was during the period that I stopped attending church. Kind of a "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.
Well, then I'd respectfully submit two things:
1) You're reading the wrong religious sources. Not uncommon, really.
2) You ALWAYS have to keep in mind the source when reading. Just because something is secular doesn't mean it's unbiased. Especially when dealing with history. You try to get to the root sources when doing research for a book but in many cases the sources do not exist OR were written/recorded by people who were biased.
Take Richard III as a prime example. The entire history book on him was written by Tudor historians who had a vested interest in destroying Richard's reputation. Even Thomas More, who is largely reputed to be one of the most scrupulous men of his age (he died for that reason, after all), repeated the most ridiculous nonsense about Richard in his history of him. Then those stories were immortalized by Shakespeare (who also had a vested interest in keeping a cranky Tudor monarch happy). That is not to say there isn't some truth in what was said by More and others, but that one always has to weigh and balance what you read against other resources available.
I absolutely agree. And I will say that I think that it's almost easier to get one's hands on the wrong sources than the right ones. I don't mean that secular=correct and religious based=wrong. I mean that if one is looking for an unbiased view of the origins of a particular denomination and the politics behind what happened, that religious sources may not be the best way to get that info. At least that's been my experience. More than ever I always consider the source and after growing up with only the religious side of things, for me it's actually nice to read something secular. The joys of growing up fundie where secular=the de-bull.
You're right. I lied about buying elephants because I hate the popes, and I hate Catholicism. Is that what you want to hear?
I brought up my degree because you said that my mis-statement about an ELEPHANT implied that everything else was somehow suspect, and possibly false. I offered to give you some citations, but clearly you've written me off as a peddler of falsehoods. You think I'm intentionally spreading elephant mis-information here to tarnish the church? I think maybe YOU'VE been taking too many gold laxatives.
Oh, you're being funny again. wheeee! I'm sure the others will find this hysterical too.
Yep, your need to make a funny outweighed being honest and accurate and that absolutely colors my ability to get past it. Your exaggerations are no better than Luther's. But like I said, it's okay (and apparently meritorious) to do that.
I specifically said I did not judge whether you did anything intentionally (but it's interesting that you failed to quote that post). And yes, let's keep focusing on the ELEPHANT so we can avoid the bigger issue I have with your original post.
Tef, I put "bad" in popes just to emphasize it. Of course, based on all of the previous posts saying (once again) that I agree there were corrupt popes, it should be clear that I don't mean I don't believe they aren't bad. Having said that, despite all of their personal failings they never once changed Church teaching (and if you research at least Leo X there was a lot of good he did too). But, yes, I am in no way defending their corruption.
And no, voodoo, I'm not on the offense here. But I can appreciate why it appears that way to you.
a) Can I ask what the hell Ds and Rs have to do with a religious congregation? Aren't you there for, you know, the Jesus-y beliefs, not the political persuasion of the Church? I understand wanting to find a congregation or church that is accepting of gay marriage or doesn't picket abortion clinics, but I don't really see what that has to do with the mix of political affiliations.
b) the idea that there is some sort of intellectual dishonesty among any sort of religious sources about this that you're finding is kind of laughable to me, considering I received 12 years of Catholic education and am well aware of the corruption, don't dispute it and the place I learned all of that was a religious institution. I can't speak to other faiths, but most Catholics are pretty aware and honest about what the Church was during the Reformation. Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded to have the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation after the Reformation began. Clearly, they were aware there were issues, so it'd be kind of hard to not know about them or be dishonest about it. Personally, I feel no punch in the face when I hear about the things the Church did in the 1500s, or at any time really, because I don't expect a church as a whole to be perfect. They are men/women trying to interpret God's word and there will be mistakes and abuse of power and on and on. Anyone who thinks differently is painfully naive.
1) I agree that D's and R's shouldn't have anything to do with church. That is what I was tired of. I attended a few churches where the pastor would go heavily into politics. The church was mostly Republican so there are many anti Dem sermons. FTR I wouldn't want to go to church that slammed R's either. My mom attended a church in TN where before this past election, the pastor's words were, "If you vote for anyone other than Romney, the blood of the unborn is in your hands." I wanted to find a church that didn't discuss politics at all. And with this church, so far, so good.
2) I can't speak for Catholics but it appears to me that Catholics do receive an excellent education in history. I only know of the church history I've received through my church (Sunday School, bible studies, sermons) and yes there is a lot of mistruth. Whether that misinformation is intentional or not, I don't know. But even now, you really have to consider the source when seeking info about Christianity. For example, there is a Christian site called "Got questions?" whose answers are very anti-Catholic imo. They claim that praying to saints is anti Christian and reciting prayers like Apostles Creed or the Lord's Prayer means they don't come from one's heart. I attended confirmation classes at my Episcopal church and while they touched on what happened during Henry's time, they don't into the detail that even this post goes into. The stay more religious and less political, which I completely understand. But if I want the whole picture, the church is not the place I'm going to seek, is all I was saying.
As a kid in the fundie church I learned in Sunday school that the earth is only 6,000 years old and science is a lie, fossils are lie. That picture Reeve posted about how WE are the real truth was pretty much what our church taught. Our pastor had numerous books published too. Scary. So if some people's churches have been honest with them about their own church's history, then I applaud that. That has not been my experience at all. Our church was very honest with us about pope corruption of course. We weren't Catholic. But were they honest about the corruption in our own history? Ha, you got to be kidding. Of course they weren't. Only other denominations had skeletons in the closet.
I don't feel punched in the face because I became disillusioned with religion long ago. I spent many years as an agnostic. I have no problem slamming religion or holding a mirror up to its ugly history. I know for many though, hearing about how corrupt the church is does feel like a slap and that's why posts about religion often get a little hairy and hurt some feelings. FTR my feelings are not hurt in the least though. I wasn't referring to me. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. It's actually an opinion that caused a lot of strife with the church I was attending in the 90's who believed the church and the bible were infallible.
"I know for many though, hearing about how corrupt the church is does feel like a slap and that's why posts about religion often get a little hairy and hurt some feelings."
You, my friend, get it. Imagine how jokes about it feel.
Sigh. Okay, if you don't like jokes about history, I guess it's a good thing you're not in my classes. And btw, I really like Leo X. He was a baller, and wanted to act like all the other renaissance princes. And poor kid was a cardinal at 13, which must have been hard.
Anyway, thanks for saying I'm no better than Luther. I've never gotten that one before.
Ironically, I actually teach a unit on Reformation propaganda. So to even out the scales, here's a really hilariously defaced image of Luther (original impression is by Hans Baldung Grien, 1521). Check out the awesome 16th century "additions."
well, i think of the of catholics on here have felt that you are defensive in almost all the catholic threads, 2vermont. but i am sure it is just the difference between the CTGers and the converts. which we have covered before.
I'm sure this is a huge part of it. I guess I've grown up with the reality that is the Catholic Church, and the fact that educators, including priests and nuns, never shied away from the bad has probably shaped my view quite a bit. To me, there is nothing to be upset by because its not like we are making fun of Jesus or a deeply held belief. Plus I don't want to live in a world where the foibles of people throughout history aren't fair game for funnies.
Also, I admit that I chuckled at the "bad as Luther" comment. I don't get 2V's distaste for him. I think even though he broke off from the Church, quite a bit of good came from that for Catholics. I don't think the status quo would have been a good thing.
lololol as bad as Luther I'm dying here. DYING, I SAY! And to boot, it's distracting me from sydney's insistence that's she's not saying what she said, guys. SHE'S SAYING WHAT SHE SAID.
lololol as bad as Luther I'm dying here. DYING, I SAY! And to boot, it's distracting me from sydney's insistence that's she's not saying what she said, guys. SHE'S SAYING WHAT SHE SAID.
huh? I'm not saying what?
The only thing I "insisted" was one point. I did not ever think that the Lutherans or the Episcopals were somehow the trailblazers for civil rights w/r/t my comment that I was surprised that these were the two denominations that I've found to be the most liberal today. Not 3 hundred freakin' years ago. Today. And I clarifed that over and over.
A couple of years ago, I sent out about 20 something emails to local churches asking them about their feelings on gay people, women's roles, and not discussing politics in church. I wanted to get feedback before I began even attending a church. The only two who gave me the answers I wanted to hear was the local Episcopal and Lutheran church. The other churches gave long, murky answers. With gays it was lots of "love the sinner hate the sin", with politics a lot of them said that our country was founded on the Bible so yeah, they were going to discuss politics in church. With women, many of them were honest and said that they felt that a woman's role was staying home with the family and they could not support women working. Hey, at least they were honest. Made it easier on my part. But you obviously aren't interested in my research so I'll just stop. I can see you are bent on seeing what you want to see in my post even though I've made every attempt to clarify what I've meant.
And Habs you never did address the fact that you are insisting that Baptists aren't Protestants when I've read lots of sources that say they are. You were quick to jump on me when I said that many Episcopals don't consider themselves Protestants, even though I said I wasnt' one of those people. Habs I have no beef with you. I've always enjoyed your posts on religion because I feel like I learn something. I'm not a sensitive person when it comes to forums. But I honestly feel like I could say the sky is blue and you'd disagree. I have no idea why.
I'm not Catholic but I've seen a lot of posts that seem to bash Catholics. I don't think this post is one of them. But I think because of the history of Catholic bashing it's easy to see how a person could get their back up with even the mention of Catholicism. That's all. I don't know if there is any board history with 2V but I like her and I think she's always pretty diplomatic in defending herself. I admire that.
Another random note: these posts always make me miss Adamwife because while there was very little I agreed with her, she did know her Bible better than most people I know irl and I feel like I learned a lot from her too.
Sydney, to clarify, strictly speaking Protestants would be those movements that arose from the disputes with the Catholic church during the Reformation. That's where the word Protestant came from, those who protested against the practices of the church.
But there are plenty of Christian denominations to spout up long after Martin Luther and the other reformers were long since dead and most of those do not consider themselves protestant at all. Certainly nondenominationalists don't and many Baptists don't consider themselves protestant at all and would be offended to hear anyone say so.
Many consider themselves having descended from the Anabaptists though wiki tells me there is some argument as to whether or not the Anabaptists are protestant.
I didn't address it because I never said it, sydney. I believe this response indicates I was telling you what some thing, not the truth of it.
Please show me where I said Baptists weren't protestants considering my responses have lumped them in as such.
Ironically, I actually teach a unit on Reformation propaganda. So to even out the scales, here's a really hilariously defaced image of Luther (original impression is by Hans Baldung Grien, 1521). Check out the awesome 16th century "additions."
And the reason I have a problem with your posts is again, you keep repeating false information and then when called on it, you basically said I didn't say false information, I said . . . and then you proceed to repeat that information but using different words and with a personal anecdote as to why isn't false.
Also, random emails isn't research. YWIA.
I'm really confused by your experiences with churches, tbh. You do not read as a person who has some kind of faith, looking for a church home that matches up with your beliefs. Your stories read as someone who is looking for an objectively right answer using secular framework. So what exactly is it you are looking for when church shopping? What's your ultimate goal because I don't get the sense you're trying to find a body of like minded believers with whom you'd like to fellowship which is generally the goal.
Sydney, to clarify, strictly speaking Protestants would be those movements that arose from the disputes with the Catholic church during the Reformation. That's where the word Protestant came from, those who protested against the practices of the church.
But there are plenty of Christian denominations to spout up long after Martin Luther and the other reformers were long since dead and most of those do not consider themselves protestant at all. Certainly nondenominationalists don't and many Baptists don't consider themselves protestant at all and would be offended to hear anyone say so.
Many consider themselves having descended from the Anabaptists though wiki tells me there is some argument as to whether or not the Anabaptists are protestant.
I didn't address it because I never said it, sydney. I believe this response indicates I was telling you what some thing, not the truth of it.
Please show me where I said Baptists weren't protestants considering my responses have lumped them in as such.
That was what I was speaking of. You said the same thing about Baptists that I said regarding Episcopals. Some don't consider themselves Protestant. You said that the Episcopals are wrong, but never said anything about the Baptists being wrong. I would think you would have included, "but they are wrong" after that sentence w/r/t Baptists not being Protestant. I misread and I apologize.
Wait, did I miss where we instituted a rule that if you say one thing, and then a similar thing, you have to say it the exact same way or you are implying what you said the first time by default?
Also, not to split hairs but Baptist is actually a pretty loose term that anyone can adopt and thus, why I said SOME baptist. There are a ton of flavors of Baptist but not many shades of Anglican/Episcopalian.
You have to remember that with the exception of a few groups, most Baptists do not have a central authority the way other protestant denominations do. Unless you are southern baptist, there isn't much of a consensus on what is Baptist doctrine for all baptist churches.