The funny part is that the historical Illuminati were, at least by the standards of their time, a group who'd pretty much only be suspected of nefarious intent by the likes of Alex Jones and his followers.
Yeah, I heard that from Steve Shives's "5 Stupid Things" about Illuminati conspiracies.
So much for secrecy, hmm? (But, again: traditionalist lodges will disavow other traditionalist lodges at the drop of a hat. Seriously.)
That's the way of insular, elitist groups.
Not sure about Baptists proper (except for the old saying which states that they, much like cats, raise hell but never get caught at it).
I wasn't aware there was a difference. I don't keep track of church politics.
Lord of the Rings is massively overrated and has 10000% more influence on fantasy literature as a whole than it actually merits. Also, its fans say things like this with no hint of irony. Those, all on their own, would be enough to sour me on the whole thing.
Really, I just thought it'd be funny to make a rant about religion & Lord of the Rings & see which bothered people more. But, to be serious, I do not like that series or its venerated status, & my impression is that Tokien himself was never under any delusion that it was some flawless work of literature, but was more of a hobby & an excuse to invent languages & histories. Which I guess is sort of cool, but it doesn't excuse that the narrative itself is a slog, has overly simplistic themes, & is full of arbitrary things like how the eagles can't fly into Mordor because they'll be shot down, but a couple hobbits can totally sneak past his whole army.
As I see it? Traditionalists within a society snubbing another faction within that society (because tradition) is rigidity. Fundamentalists hollowly paying lip service to disavowing a living representation of their own squalling id (because plausible deniability) is hypocrisy. The two aren't synonymous; and the only particular similarity is the No True Scotsman fallacy inherent in the main groups' disavowal. But whatever.
Makes sense.
This isn't really aimed at me, but I think some of it applies to me, so here goes:
I did not make a No True Scotsman fallacy, do not try to trow fallacies aorund if you do not know how they work.
I don't really see what's to be gained here. You insist you didn't, pretty much everyone else seems to disagree, & it doesn't seem like anyone's about to budge.
By your logic, me saying that Christinaity is not a form of Judaism can be called No True Scotsman.
We are 2000 years removed from the founding of Christianity. At the time, it really wouldn't have made sense to say this. Jesus, if he existed, considered himself a Jew, & there were various other Jewish sects that seldom agreed on anything. But now that argument is a bit more defensible, because each has a distinct theology that doesn't recognize the other. Of course, even today there are gray areas, like the Jews for Jesus.
The reality is that it's often not possible to completely distinguish groups based on ideological boundaries, because there's often not an objective standard. We can't get Yahweh or Jesus on the phone & ask them which sects are really following their teachings. Even if we could, the answer may well be none, because none of these groups are exactly like the original Jews or the original Christians.
The fact is that the continental lodges DECIDED to leave the other lodges. Therefore they are NOT part of the same group.
Chimpanzees are not gorillas & vice versa, but neither is the "true ape," they are both equally evolved apes, just with distinct lineages.
Also, no not all southern baptists are extremists.
Exactly, we can't make absolute judgments, but certain generalities may be broadly true.