GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom  (Read 22053 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #140 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 14:39:23 »
I read one website where a former catholic monseignor is accusing the RCC of using its diplomatic corps, prelates, ambassadors, who have diplomatic immunity, to push drugs, launder mafia money, and illegally sell weapons. A book exposing this lists the names of several of them that were discovered by the police, but it is hard to prosecute them because of diplomatic immunity.


Oh my...where do people come up with this stuff....   rofl




 ::doh:


You can find out about the mexican catholic monseignor that exposes the vatican mafia connection at this website:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_mafia.htm

Also see Richard Hammer's book, THE VATICAN CONNECTION WITH THE MAFIA, which has the names of vatican clergy and prelates which were discovered by the police to be involved in criminal activity, but could not be arrested because they had vatican diplomatic immunity:

"The Vatican Connection," as the editor Charter Books, N.Y., very well defines it, is an explosive book which contains all the ingredients to stun and amaze any lector -concerning the truth about the Vatican Mafia. In his book, titled "The Astonishing Account of a Billion Dollar Stock Deal Between the Mafia and the Church," he analyzes the criminals.
And when they are discovered by New York Police and by the commander Joseph J. Coffey, an official of the Organized Crime Homicide Task Force, they could not be arrested because they carried a diplomatic passport of the Vatican and accompanied the  -the Roman Pontif and VICARUS FILLII DEI, your HOLINESS etc . . . He cites the names of Cardinals and administrators of the Vatican, places where they meet, conversations, and the copies and documents which prove how the Vatican Mafia functions.



The mafia is an organization of catholics; it started, around Sicily, I think.


I am expecting Rod Serling to appear at any moment now...

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #140 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 14:39:23 »

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #141 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 14:41:47 »

No he has not been exposed as a fraud. Many protestants believe he is for real. Read the online book, IS ALBERTO FOR REAL BY, By Sydney Hunter. Find it on search at chick.com.

Alberto Rivera said that protestant churches and pulpits are infiltrated with catholics that pretend to be protestant. So these so called protestants that exposed Rivera; how do you know if they were really protestant or catholics pretending to be protestant?
Rivera said that catholics have been pretending to be members of other religions in this country since the second boat load of pilgrims that arrived.
See online book, THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM,  by Wylie, for the centuries old practice of Jesuits infiltrating other religions and governments.
Nino LoBello, in his book, THE VATICAN PAPERS, says that the vatican spy network is efficient and worldwide. It outclasses even the Russian KGB.

Is someone here playing a joke?  Surely the person who is stating this is laughing while he types...is this serious!!!  Oh my...I guess people will believe anything these days...this does not even warrant a  response....moving on....

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #141 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 14:41:47 »

Offline seekr

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
  • Manna: 171
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #142 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 14:45:06 »
As I read this stuff it makes me think about what would happen to us all if Robert were in charge. Would he allow us religious freedom? Think of what would happen to those who opposed HIS beliefs.

Organized religion takes harsh stands no matter what the group and as pointed out by some posters the religious right would be a great detriment to this nation if allowed to be in charge. I always love the scare tactics used by preachers or the posters here to find fault with others.

Offline antiaging

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Manna: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #143 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 22:26:22 »

No he has not been exposed as a fraud. Many protestants believe he is for real. Read the online book, IS ALBERTO FOR REAL BY, By Sydney Hunter. Find it on search at chick.com.

Alberto Rivera said that protestant churches and pulpits are infiltrated with catholics that pretend to be protestant. So these so called protestants that exposed Rivera; how do you know if they were really protestant or catholics pretending to be protestant?
Rivera said that catholics have been pretending to be members of other religions in this country since the second boat load of pilgrims that arrived.
See online book, THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM,  by Wylie, for the centuries old practice of Jesuits infiltrating other religions and governments.
Nino LoBello, in his book, THE VATICAN PAPERS, says that the vatican spy network is efficient and worldwide. It outclasses even the Russian KGB.

Is someone here playing a joke?  Surely the person who is stating this is laughing while he types...is this serious!!!  Oh my...I guess people will believe anything these days...this does not even warrant a  response....moving on....

President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln was not playing a joke, when he said this:  [about the civil war]

"This war would never have
been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to
popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons.
Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the
North on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor anyone of the
leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had
they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of
Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of
France were at their disposal, if they would attack us. I pity the priests,
the bishops and monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize
that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed
in this war. I conceal what I know, on that subject, from the knowledge of
the nation; for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into
a religious war, and it would at once, take a tenfold more savage and bloody
character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would
become a war of extermination on both sides. The Protestants of both the
North and the South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the
Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor Morse has said to me of the plots
made in the very city of Rome to destroy this Republic, and if they could
learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our
shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the
people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are
nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon, and the other
despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our
people from our constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare
a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain,
and wherever there are any people who want to be free."
 
"Is it not an absurdity to give to a man a thing which he is sworn to hate, curse, and
destroy? And does not the Church of Rome hate, curse and destroy liberty of
conscience whenever she can do it safely? I am for liberty of conscience in
its noblest, broadest, highest sense. But I cannot give liberty of
conscience to the Pope and to his followers, the Papists, so long as they
tell me, through all their councils, theologians, and canon laws, that their
conscience orders them to bum my wife, strangle my children, and cut my
throat when they find their opportunity! This does not seem to be understood
by the people today. But sooner or later, the light of common sense will
make it clear to every one that no liberty of conscience can be granted to
men who are sworn to obey a Pope, who pretends to have the right to put to
death those who differ from him in religion."

President Lincoln realized the threat posed to our religious freedoms by the catholic church.
Alberto Rivera said by the time of Lincoln, half of the newspapers in the United States were already controlled by the vatican. It looks like they control much more of the media now.

That quote by Lincoln can be found on several websites on the internet.

« Last Edit: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 22:38:03 by antiaging »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #143 on: Mon Dec 03, 2007 - 22:26:22 »

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #144 on: Tue Dec 04, 2007 - 03:09:54 »
I hate, hate Catholicism.  Then again, I hate more or less ALL organized religion.  But Catholicism is really an exception. 

I hate the lies they tell. I do hate that about the religion.

Will they suppress religious freedom? 

They already do, you cannot talk to one of them about the LORD without them making it all into a Catholic thing.  They cannot seem to fellowship with other Christians without having to correct us in theology or to try to convert us... telling us how they were delivered from being a protestant.   ::frustrated::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #144 on: Tue Dec 04, 2007 - 03:09:54 »



Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #145 on: Tue Dec 04, 2007 - 07:47:15 »
The quote above, attributed to "several websites" is from "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome" by Charles Chiniquy, for what it's worth.  I thought I recognized it.  I've got a copy here in the office.

Offline antiaging

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Manna: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #146 on: Thu Dec 13, 2007 - 10:21:54 »
I hate, hate Catholicism.  Then again, I hate more or less ALL organized religion.  But Catholicism is really an exception. 


I hate the lies they tell. I do hate that about the religion.

Will they suppress religious freedom? 

They already do, you cannot talk to one of them about the LORD without them making it all into a Catholic thing.  They cannot seem to fellowship with other Christians without having to correct us in theology or to try to convert us... telling us how they were delivered from being a protestant.   ::frustrated::


The Roman catholics are pesecuting and murdering Christians in Mexico. Read the new article at this website:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/219641.aspx

Christians are being threatened, murdered, with churches being destroyed. Christians have been put in jail and even killed for sharing their faith in Chiapas Mexico.
Property has been confiscated.
Roman Catholicism will still murder people of other religions and persecute them when they see their chance to do so.
The iron fist in the velvet glove.--- Don't be deceived by it.

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #147 on: Thu Dec 13, 2007 - 11:35:29 »
The Roman catholics are pesecuting and murdering Christians in Mexico. Read the new article at this website:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/219641.aspx

Christians are being threatened, murdered, with churches being destroyed. Christians have been put in jail and even killed for sharing their faith in Chiapas Mexico.
Property has been confiscated.
Roman Catholicism will still murder people of other religions and persecute them when they see their chance to do so.
The iron fist in the velvet glove.--- Don't be deceived by it.


You are just pathetic.  Give me a break!

I just read the article and it sounds to me that a bunch of thugs are terrorizing a group of people.  None of these actions are sanctioned by the Vatican and the article makes no mention that the Vatican is involved in any way.  The Catholic Church rejects the practices of this "traditionalist" group because they mix pagan practices with Catholicism.  This is nothing new, i.e. Santeria.

The town government enacted a law...not the Catholic Church.  Do not confused the actions of a few misguided individuals with the official teachings and practices of the Church.  As a Catholic, I condemn the actions of these individuals and pray that they will change their ways.

I can only shake my head in disgust at both their actions and YOURS.
« Last Edit: Thu Dec 13, 2007 - 12:08:21 by broach972 »

Offline ann

  • ann
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Manna: 15
  • ask God to help you make life simple
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #148 on: Fri Dec 14, 2007 - 11:56:06 »
I suggest that you should understand things in much much more greater detail before making such suggestions.    Really understand it I mean and I don't think you do at this present stage. 

Offline Harold

  • Love Peace Joy
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3057
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Therefore let us stop passing judgment
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #149 on: Fri Dec 14, 2007 - 13:03:00 »
This morning when I left home for work there was a mini-van full of Nuns waiting to scourge me for daring to believe in Jesus without Rome's approval.

Nah, it was a bad Taco, I woke up and took a Tums.

I can't believe this is still around.

Did anyone call the FBI tip line?  rofl

FTL

Offline antiaging

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Manna: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #150 on: Fri Dec 14, 2007 - 16:10:25 »
The Roman catholics are pesecuting and murdering Christians in Mexico. Read the new article at this website:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/219641.aspx

Christians are being threatened, murdered, with churches being destroyed. Christians have been put in jail and even killed for sharing their faith in Chiapas Mexico.
Property has been confiscated.
Roman Catholicism will still murder people of other religions and persecute them when they see their chance to do so.
The iron fist in the velvet glove.--- Don't be deceived by it.


You are just pathetic.  Give me a break!

I just read the article and it sounds to me that a bunch of thugs are terrorizing a group of people.  None of these actions are sanctioned by the Vatican and the article makes no mention that the Vatican is involved in any way.  The Catholic Church rejects the practices of this "traditionalist" group because they mix pagan practices with Catholicism.  This is nothing new, i.e. Santeria.

The town government enacted a law...not the Catholic Church.  Do not confused the actions of a few misguided individuals with the official teachings and practices of the Church.  As a Catholic, I condemn the actions of these individuals and pray that they will change their ways.

I can only shake my head in disgust at both their actions and YOURS.


There is too much history behind the activities of the catholic church for it to not be regarded as a threat to religious freedom.
Read the syllabus of errors in the original post on this thread.

[Catholicism has a history of allowing people in foreign lands to mix their religion with catholicism. Just like the pagan religion of ancient rome was mixed with Christianity to form Roman catholicism.]
Catholic Cardinal Newman says in his book, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, that the;
incense, offerings, holy water, seasons of devotion, holidays, and vestments, along with the images and statues, all have a pagan origin. They come mostly from the old pagan religion of ancient Rome.
Catholicism allows people in foreign lands to mix their religions with catholicism. There is nothing new about that. Mixing religions is how roman catholicism came to be what it is in the first place.
For a detailed analysis of the pagan traditions in the Roman catholic religion, Read the online book, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop, found on metacrawler search engine.
 

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #151 on: Fri Dec 14, 2007 - 17:57:45 »
[Catholicism has a history of allowing people in foreign lands to mix their religion with catholicism. Just like the pagan religion of ancient rome was mixed with Christianity to form Roman catholicism.]
Catholic Cardinal Newman says in his book, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, that the;
incense, offerings, holy water, seasons of devotion, holidays, and vestments, along with the images and statues, all have a pagan origin. They come mostly from the old pagan religion of ancient Rome.
Catholicism allows people in foreign lands to mix their religions with catholicism. There is nothing new about that. Mixing religions is how roman catholicism came to be what it is in the first place.
For a detailed analysis of the pagan traditions in the Roman catholic religion, Read the online book, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop, found on metacrawler search engine.
 

Oh if I only had a dime everytime I heard this one...I could retire.  Antiaging, you have got to be kidding.  If you knew anything about the history of the Church and the developments of other religions in general, I doubt you would be making this claim.  Please read the following article.  Maybe you can learn a thing or two.  You will see that this argument just doesn't hold water...

Is Catholicism Pagan?

If few Fundamentalists know the history of their religion—which distressingly few do—even fewer have an appreciation of the history of the Catholic Church. They become easy prey for purveyors of fanciful "histories" that claim to account for the origin and advance of Catholicism.

Anti-Catholics often suggest that Catholicism did not exist prior to the Edict of Milan, which was issued in 313 AD and made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. With this, pagan influences began to contaminate the previously untainted Christian Church. In no time, various inventions adopted from paganism began to replace the gospel that had been once for all delivered to the saints. At least, that is the theory.

Pagan Influence Fallacy

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this "pagan influence fallacy." Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic "freethinkers" such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.

The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears.

Use of a round wafer implies sun worship?

Hislop and Chick argue that the wafers of Communion are round, just like the wafers of the sun worshippers of Baal. They don’t bother to mention that the wafers used by the same pagans were also ovals, triangles, some with the edges folded over, or shaped like leaves or animals, etc. The fact that a wafer is round does not make it immoral or pagan, since even the Jews had wafers and cakes offered in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1-8, Ex 29:1-2).

Unfortunately for Chick and other Fundamentalists, their arguments backfire. An atheist will take the pagan connection one step further, saying, "Christianity itself is simply a regurgitation of pagan myths: the incarnation of a divinity from a virgin, a venerated mother and child, just like Isis and Osiris, Isa and Iswara, Fortuna and Jupiter, and Semiramis and Tammuz. Beyond this, some pagans had a triune God, and pagan gods were often pictured with wings, as was your God in Psalms 91:4. The flames on the heads of the apostles were also seen as an omen from the gods in Roman poetry and heathen myths long before Pentecost. A rock is struck that brings forth water in the Old Testament . . . just like the pagan goddess Rhea did long before then. Also, Jesus is known as the ‘fish,’ just like the fish-god Dagon, etc." Unless the Fundamentalists are willing to honestly examine the logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies, they are left defenseless. Fortunately, like the attacks on Catholicism in particular, all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called "pagan influence fallacies."

Anything can be attacked using fallacy

The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., "No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer").

Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") fallacy—e.g., "Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source." Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc ("Similar to this, therefore because of this") fallacy.

When the pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out that it is, in fact, a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committing it, it may be helpful to illustrate with cases where the pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his own position (e.g., the practice of circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of peoples—including the Egyptians—but few Jews or Christians would say that its divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of "pagan corruption").

To help a secular person see the fallacy involved, one might point to a parallel case of the genetic fallacy involving those of his perspective (e.g., "Nobody should accept this particular scientific theory because it was developed by an atheist").

Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.

For example: "The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known" (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).

For example: The ideas expressed in the Norse Elder Edda about the end and regeneration of the world were probably influenced by the teachings of Christians with whom the Norse had been in contact for centuries (H. A. Guerber, The Norsemen, 339f).

4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?

For example: Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed "neutral" Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.

Examples of negative parallels are often found in Genesis. For instance, the Flood narrative (Gen. 6-9) has parallels to pagan flood stories, but is written so that it refutes ideas in them. Thus Genesis attributes the flood to human sin (6:5-7), not overpopulation, as Atrahasis’ Epic and the Greek poem Cypria did (I. Kikawada & A. Quinn). The presence of flood stories in cultures around the world does not undermine the validity of the biblical narrative, but lends it more credence.

Criticism, refutation, and replacement are also the principles behind modern holidays being
celebrated to a limited extent around the same time as former pagan holidays. In actuality, reports of Christian holidays coinciding with pagan ones are often inaccurate (Christmas does not occur on Saturnalia, for example). However, to the extent the phenomenon occurs at all, Christian holidays were introduced to provide a wholesome, non-pagan alternative celebration, which thus critiques and rejects the pagan holiday.

This is the same process that leads Fundamentalists who are offended at the (inaccurately alleged) pagan derivation of Halloween to introduce alternative "Reformation Day" celebrations for their children. (This modern Protestant holiday is based on the fact that the Reformation began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517.) Another Fundamentalist substitution for Halloween has been "harvest festivals" that celebrate the season of autumn and the gathering of crops. These fundamentalist substitutions are no more "pagan" than the celebrations of days or seasons that may have been introduced by earlier Christians.

Historical truth prevails

Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.

Offline antiaging

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Manna: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #152 on: Fri Dec 14, 2007 - 22:36:06 »
[Catholicism has a history of allowing people in foreign lands to mix their religion with catholicism. Just like the pagan religion of ancient rome was mixed with Christianity to form Roman catholicism.]
Catholic Cardinal Newman says in his book, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, that the;
incense, offerings, holy water, seasons of devotion, holidays, and vestments, along with the images and statues, all have a pagan origin. They come mostly from the old pagan religion of ancient Rome.
Catholicism allows people in foreign lands to mix their religions with catholicism. There is nothing new about that. Mixing religions is how roman catholicism came to be what it is in the first place.
For a detailed analysis of the pagan traditions in the Roman catholic religion, Read the online book, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop, found on metacrawler search engine.
 

Oh if I only had a dime everytime I heard this one...I could retire.  Antiaging, you have got to be kidding.  If you knew anything about the history of the Church and the developments of other religions in general, I doubt you would be making this claim.  Please read the following article.  Maybe you can learn a thing or two.  You will see that this argument just doesn't hold water...


The title Pope, or Roman Pontiff comes from the pagan Roman religion. The Roman emporers were all pontifex maximus or chief Roman Pontiff. Peter never was a pontiff. In Peter's day Tiberius and Nero were the Roman pontiff's. The title Roman Pontiff is not in the bible. The Bible says that Jesus is the head of the church.

Catholicism says this error:

The Bull Unam Sanctam... Issued by POPE BONIFACE VIII reads as follows: "The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which was spoken of Christ 'thou has subdued all things under his feet' may well seem verified in me... I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do." "Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff;... but all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Christ;... therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power." Corpus Juris chap. 1 column 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII "All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture, inplying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed to the Pope." Bellamin, "On the Authority of Councils," book 2, Chapter 17. "For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col. 109 The title "Lord God the Pope" can be found within a gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4, Declaramus.

This is what the bible says about someone pretending to be God on Earth:

II Thes. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Read this book:
[Peter's Tomb Recently Discovered in Jerusalem, published by F. Paul Peterson, P O Box 7351, Ft. Wayne IN 46807, copyright 1960
The apostle Peter's body was not buried at Rome. There is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome.]
« Last Edit: Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 07:57:17 by antiaging »

Offline ann

  • ann
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Manna: 15
  • ask God to help you make life simple
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #153 on: Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 04:07:23 »
have you people ever read the book of ACTS in the Bible.  The early Christians. The Roman Catholic Church.  You guys are the break away religion that set up rules to suit yourselves as you did not like the original rules.  Read about Paul!! Or have you endoctrinated that too  to suit yourselves?

I am not going to go down your road of arguing why the differences are worse than each other.  Call yourselves Christians. Then start behaving like Christians and love one another!  People might start taking you seriously then.  Suppression indeed! grow up and be mature and don't be brain washed by these silly articles that are designed to deliberately stirr you up to believe you are holier than the rest. 

one guy on these message boards appealed to peace and love.  there is not much sign of it on this thread.  show me how christian you really are since you love saying that you are saved and quite happy to ask others if they are saved.  Well am asking you now to take a read through the posts especially the ones against the Roman Catholic Church and ask yourselves this soul searching question.  Are you really saved if you can come up with such horrible thoughts of these against other people? 

Offline ann

  • ann
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Manna: 15
  • ask God to help you make life simple
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #154 on: Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 05:12:44 »
dont get me wrong. I am as against people killing one another as much as you all are.  But I am also very aware of articles written to stirr us up into hating other religions.   Okay so some people have had some very bad experiences within the Roman Catholic Church and I don't underestimate that.  But some people have had very bad life experiences. Yes some hate their lives because of their bad experiences.  I wish I could name famous people who have turned their bad experience into a good one.
I thought Christianity was a little bit about peace and love.  I came away from this board a couple of months ago as I was getting somewhat frustrated over the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church and arguments over whose baptism is the best form of baptism.  I did fall into the trap of thinking that it will be better a couple of months down the line and the people here will have moved on from hating and hurting.  But to be honest there doesn't appear to be much change. I hope that you guys will set out to prove me very wrong and you really are into peace and love.  Okay so the world is not a rose garden.  That is partly why we are here, to bring some love into a cold and bleak world.  But if the non Christians only hear us argue amongst ourselves about who is better than who, then are we teaching them anything more than they already know?  They will say that the christian is no better than themselves so why would they change.  I am appealing to you people to wake up today since it is only 5.15 in America, and start today's message boards afresh and see where we can all sit down together so to speak and work out how we can work together to share our love of God through Jesus Christ his only son, into the world that we share.  Can't be that difficult since there a lot of us internationally, rather than this silly hatred of other christian religions.... please ::preachit::

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #155 on: Mon Dec 17, 2007 - 18:24:33 »
We Protestants have no business removing the speck in Catholicism's eye while there's a Redwood stuck in ours!

The Pope doesn't "pretend to be God," he believes he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the chief Pastor of  the Church. And no, the Catholic Church is NOT pagan in origin.

I'm all for voicing objections to views of other denominations one believes are wrong, but they should be legitimate objections to legimitate teachings, not caricatures of what that other denomination teaches. Anyone can google a few online documents or leaf through a few books and tracts by a denomination and "prove" they're apostate. And finding polemic works is easy!


After someone has carefully studied a faith tradition such as Catholicism, then they are in a position to object all they like, but not until they really have a good idea of what they're objecting to.

Pax.

Offline Circuitridingpreacher

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Manna: 33
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #156 on: Mon Dec 17, 2007 - 23:12:18 »
We Protestants have no business removing the speck in Catholicism's eye while there's a Redwood stuck in ours!

The Pope doesn't "pretend to be God," he believes he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the chief Pastor of  the Church. And no, the Catholic Church is NOT pagan in origin.

I'm all for voicing objections to views of other denominations one believes are wrong, but they should be legitimate objections to legimitate teachings, not caricatures of what that other denomination teaches. Anyone can google a few online documents or leaf through a few books and tracts by a denomination and "prove" they're apostate. And finding polemic works is easy!


After someone has carefully studied a faith tradition such as Catholicism, then they are in a position to object all they like, but not until they really have a good idea of what they're objecting to.

Pax.
Having met the criteria you deemed necessary to comment, I should be free to do so.

I agree with your first statement that Protestantism today is in as pitiful condition as Romanism is, and that is the way it was prophesied to be.

I also agree with your second statement, except that the word Vicar actually means “in the place of or substitute

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #157 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 05:59:40 »
Lee,

You comment about familiarity with the Catholics and their history brings up a question for me, independent of others' comments and views.  Suppose one does read quite a bit of history, does even read the current catechism, etc. and maybe even is ex-Catholic, and still holds beliefs that it has born fruit that seems opposed to the very gospel itself?  Will the bar of what one can examine and criticize then move to some other spot? 

Certainly there are things said that are unfair, and based on hearsay.  That should be dismissed outright.  But what about when one looks at the very real history of the burning of heretics, the manipulation of governments, the oppressive tax collecting of the middle ages, and on and on?  Sure revisionists have tried to erase their import, but this is confirmed world history 101, and these are not the sort of things that one simply nonchalantly brushes aside.  The Reformers sure didn't, and many of them were Catholics until they could stomach the fruit no more.

Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #158 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 06:44:05 »
Certainly there are things said that are unfair, and based on hearsay.  That should be dismissed outright.  But what about when one looks at the very real history of the burning of heretics, the manipulation of governments, the oppressive tax collecting of the middle ages, and on and on?  Sure revisionists have tried to erase their import, but this is confirmed world history 101, and these are not the sort of things that one simply nonchalantly brushes aside.  The Reformers sure didn't, and many of them were Catholics until they could stomach the fruit no more.

There was a time when slavery was an honored and accepted institution in the South and if my memory serves me correctly, I don't think that the majority of Christians, mostly Protestant, in the South were working to actively abolish it.  As a matter of fact, the Christian faith was often used to support and sanction it.

As a teacher and student of history, I always warn my students to never judge history through our own eyes and values.  Mankind has come a long way despite its history of barbarism and brutality.  No doubt that the Catholic Church has its own blemishes where history is concerned.  Some historical events have been fabricated or skewed just to discredit the Church, i.e. Pope Pius XII and the Jews during World War II.

As a new convert to the Catholic faith, I was very much aware of the dark history of the Church.  However, it was history that ironically started my journey that resulted in where I am now.

I appreciate Lee's comments, and I would like to make one lasting observation.  It amazes me that there hasn't been any blatant anti-Protestantism.  Many of the Catholics on this forum have attempted to teach what Catholicism really believes.  I am just privileged to be a part of this forum because I have been blocked from other forums just becaue I was Catholic.  I commend this forum for being open, and I am grateful for that.

Much of the anti-Catholic material is quite brutal, downright offensive, and in many cases, just plain wrong.  Catholics have enormous respect for our Protestant brethren despite our disagreements and differences.  We can debate and discuss matters of theology in a civilized way without resorting to the attacks that are often launched.  It also amazes me that even though the theology of Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity is almost identical, it is Catholicism that recieves much of the attack.

Offline DCR

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11300
  • Manna: 432
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #159 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 06:50:57 »
Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Yet, as a counterpoint to that... to how many generations is guilt inherited?  Or, is guilt even inherited?

Not being sure of the present-day Vatican's view of some of the past actions of the Catholic Church that we're describing here, I can tell you that I've observed Catholics condemn past actions in church history... even to the point of acknowledging that there have been corrupt popes, corruption in church hierarchy, etc.

If it is found that my great great great great grandfather murdered someone, I don't know if that means that I should be viewed with extra suspicion, as a result.

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #160 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 06:52:56 »
I agree with your first statement that Protestantism today is in as pitiful condition as Romanism is, and that is the way it was prophesied to be.

First, let's get our teminology right.  I am not a Roman.  I am a Catholic.  Did you know that not all Catholics are "Roman" Catholics?  As a matter of fact, the word "Roman" was not used until the Reformation.

You might want to research a little more.

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #161 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 07:04:51 »
I think the following article will be of interest.

The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don’t Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.

Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

What’s the Point?

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.

Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.

The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #162 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 07:08:50 »
Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Yet, as a counterpoint to that... to how many generations is guilt inherited?  Or, is guilt even inherited?

Not being sure of the present-day Vatican's view of some of the past actions of the Catholic Church that we're describing here, I can tell you that I've observed Catholics condemn past actions in church history... even to the point of acknowledging that there have been corrupt popes, corruption in church hierarchy, etc.

If it is found that my great great great great grandfather murdered someone, I don't know if that means that I should be viewed with extra suspicion, as a result.
We're dealing with an institution, not an individual, and historical actions over centuries, not and individual act, so I'm not sure that carries over directly.  If it did, why dd you occasionally have to deal with Foy Wallace & McGarvey's fruit?
« Last Edit: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 07:25:24 by jmg3rd »

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #163 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 07:20:13 »
Certainly there are things said that are unfair, and based on hearsay.  That should be dismissed outright.  But what about when one looks at the very real history of the burning of heretics, the manipulation of governments, the oppressive tax collecting of the middle ages, and on and on?  Sure revisionists have tried to erase their import, but this is confirmed world history 101, and these are not the sort of things that one simply nonchalantly brushes aside.  The Reformers sure didn't, and many of them were Catholics until they could stomach the fruit no more.

There was a time when slavery was an honored and accepted institution in the South and if my memory serves me correctly, I don't think that the majority of Christians, mostly Protestant, in the South were working to actively abolish it.  As a matter of fact, the Christian faith was often used to support and sanction it.

As a teacher and student of history, I always warn my students to never judge history through our own eyes and values.  Mankind has come a long way despite its history of barbarism and brutality.  No doubt that the Catholic Church has its own blemishes where history is concerned.  Some historical events have been fabricated or skewed just to discredit the Church, i.e. Pope Pius XII and the Jews during World War II.

As a new convert to the Catholic faith, I was very much aware of the dark history of the Church.  However, it was history that ironically started my journey that resulted in where I am now.

I appreciate Lee's comments, and I would like to make one lasting observation.  It amazes me that there hasn't been any blatant anti-Protestantism.  Many of the Catholics on this forum have attempted to teach what Catholicism really believes.  I am just privileged to be a part of this forum because I have been blocked from other forums just becaue I was Catholic.  I commend this forum for being open, and I am grateful for that.

Much of the anti-Catholic material is quite brutal, downright offensive, and in many cases, just plain wrong.  Catholics have enormous respect for our Protestant brethren despite our disagreements and differences.  We can debate and discuss matters of theology in a civilized way without resorting to the attacks that are often launched.  It also amazes me that even though the theology of Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity is almost identical, it is Catholicism that recieves much of the attack.
Well, I lived in Russia and am too familiar with some of the ROC's past actions not to hold their feet to the fire, too, Broach.  Don't worry, they won't be put to any less scrutiny. ::wink::

To the rest of you post, I always appreciate you posts, even though we come at this from very different angles.  Please don't take my question to Lee as siding with others in the thread, hence my first sentence.  What I'm asking him is what is the practical side of things when people still hold such very strong views, and it's not out of ignorance of history, but knowledge of it.

And, while I didn't approach it, there is another angle...as a Christian, some of that history is mine, too.  When I'm talking to a guy over at the college campus about Christianity, he doesn't give me the luxury of "Oh, you're part of the RM, so I know the Crusades had nothing to do with you," now does he?  Nope.  So in some ways, we all have to deal with that history. 

I think Mitt Romney actually set a good example of this last week.  Rather than run from his church's past, he expressed his displeasure (understatement) at their historical actions, and his delight at their change of values.  I'm certainly willing to recognize that the RCC has moved away from such actions.  I also, though, certainly understand why people stumble over the history and abuses of the past (which were real, though the Catholics were hardly alone in them).


(dog gone it I knew that question would folks all hinky, but I had to ask ::doh:: ::noworries::)

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #164 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 07:22:33 »
I agree with your first statement that Protestantism today is in as pitiful condition as Romanism is, and that is the way it was prophesied to be.

First, let's get our teminology right.  I am not a Roman.  I am a Catholic.  Did you know that not all Catholics are "Roman" Catholics?  As a matter of fact, the word "Roman" was not used until the Reformation.

You might want to research a little more.
Broach, you may find this is habit.  I also sometimes use the term, but that's not a slight.  It's because I live in a very Catholic community (40%) and even the buildings around here say Roman Catholic Church and RCC is a common abbreviation among them.  So please excuse me if the habit wins over my memory of your hangup on this point. ::tippinghat::

Offline DCR

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11300
  • Manna: 432
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #165 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 07:37:45 »
Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Yet, as a counterpoint to that... to how many generations is guilt inherited?  Or, is guilt even inherited?

Not being sure of the present-day Vatican's view of some of the past actions of the Catholic Church that we're describing here, I can tell you that I've observed Catholics condemn past actions in church history... even to the point of acknowledging that there have been corrupt popes, corruption in church hierarchy, etc.

If it is found that my great great great great grandfather murdered someone, I don't know if that means that I should be viewed with extra suspicion, as a result.
We're dealing with an institution, not an individual, and historical actions over centuries, not and individual act, so I'm not sure that carries over directly.


But, we're talking about actions and decisions of individuals within that institution.  If someone condemned the policies of past presidential administrations, is that justification for leveling the condemnation against the present-day U.S. and all things American, including you and me as present-day Americans?  There was once a federal policy of removing and exiling American Indians from their tribal lands to reservations.  I'm sure many would find such actions condemnable today.  Should the United States as an institution now be held with suspicion as a result, because of the actions of past leadership?

Of course, flaws can be found in nearly any analogy.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #166 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 08:07:17 »
Don't native Americans do just that?  And don't many on this forum do just that with regard to RM churches?  It just seems to me that claiming it's unfair for people to bring up real history is a bit unfair itself.  And, it's a bit pie in the sky to think that everyone will read that history the same way.  Better, istm, to deal with it head on than to ask people to ignore it (which is what it sometimes seems some here are asking people to do).

"It is a mistake to think that the past is dead. Nothing that has ever happened is quite without influence at this moment. The present is merely the past rolled up and concentrated in this second of time. You, too, are your past; often your face is your autobiography; you are what you are because of what you have been; because of your heredity stretching back into forgotten generations; because of every element of environment that has affected you, every man or woman that has met you, every book that you have read, every experience that you have had; all these are accumulated in your memory, your body, your character, your soul. So with a city, a country, and a race; it is its past, and cannot be understood without it." W. Durant

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that one acts as though the past is the present and the attitudes behind the actions of the past are still present.  What I'm saying is, you've got to understand why people trip over this.   And I don't think that simply telling people they are ignorant and need to get over it helps a thing (as has been implied in this thread).  That actually feeds the problem, istm.
« Last Edit: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 08:19:34 by jmg3rd »

Offline broach972

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #167 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 08:50:46 »
I agree with your first statement that Protestantism today is in as pitiful condition as Romanism is, and that is the way it was prophesied to be.

First, let's get our teminology right.  I am not a Roman.  I am a Catholic.  Did you know that not all Catholics are "Roman" Catholics?  As a matter of fact, the word "Roman" was not used until the Reformation.

You might want to research a little more.
Broach, you may find this is habit.  I also sometimes use the term, but that's not a slight.  It's because I live in a very Catholic community (40%) and even the buildings around here say Roman Catholic Church and RCC is a common abbreviation among them.  So please excuse me if the habit wins over my memory of your hangup on this point. ::tippinghat::

jmg,
I appreciate your comments.  I know that this is a common term and it is acceptable at times.  In past discussions, both on-line and in person, many have used the word as a derogatory term.  I do think that "Romanism" is a little overboard though and I wanted to bring it to Circuit's attention.

Again, I appreciate your comments and they are most certainly welcomed.


Offline DCR

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11300
  • Manna: 432
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #168 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 09:05:51 »
Don't native Americans do just that?  And don't many on this forum do just that with regard to RM churches?

Yes.  And, I suppose that's why I'm more sympathetic when it happens to someone else.

It just seems to me that claiming it's unfair for people to bring up real history is a bit unfair itself.
 

It's certainly not unfair to bring up history.  Yet, it often depends on the motive or agenda in bringing it up.  Historical evidence of what our forebears may have done is often used against us.  And, worse yet, the same evidence or facts can be used as fodder for various conspiracy theories... and there are some wacky ones out there, regarding the Catholic Church as well as other things... some of which have even been promoted on this forum.

And, it's a bit pie in the sky to think that everyone will read that history the same way.  Better, istm, to deal with it head on than to ask people to ignore it (which is what it sometimes seems some here are asking people to do).

I'm certainly not asking anyone to do this.

"It is a mistake to think that the past is dead. Nothing that has ever happened is quite without influence at this moment. The present is merely the past rolled up and concentrated in this second of time. You, too, are your past; often your face is your autobiography; you are what you are because of what you have been; because of your heredity stretching back into forgotten generations; because of every element of environment that has affected you, every man or woman that has met you, every book that you have read, every experience that you have had; all these are accumulated in your memory, your body, your character, your soul. So with a city, a country, and a race; it is its past, and cannot be understood without it." W. Durant

And, that's a good quote... a lot of truth in it.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that one acts as though the past is the present and the attitudes behind the actions of the past are still present.  What I'm saying is, you've got to understand why people trip over this.   And I don't think that simply telling people they are ignorant and need to get over it helps a thing (as has been implied in this thread).  That actually feeds the problem, istm.

I agree.  We just need to be responsible and prudent with information and theories about others' motives or what an "institution" is up to, especially when attempting to indict wrongs.

OK... now, I'm rambling.  Thanks for the thoughts. 

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #169 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 09:46:04 »
I do think that "Romanism" is a little overboard though and I wanted to bring it to Circuit's attention.
That's probably the same as when I hear "Campbellite", huh?  ::smile::

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #170 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 10:48:48 »
We Protestants have no business removing the speck in Catholicism's eye while there's a Redwood stuck in ours!

The Pope doesn't "pretend to be God," he believes he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the chief Pastor of  the Church. And no, the Catholic Church is NOT pagan in origin.

I'm all for voicing objections to views of other denominations one believes are wrong, but they should be legitimate objections to legimitate teachings, not caricatures of what that other denomination teaches. Anyone can google a few online documents or leaf through a few books and tracts by a denomination and "prove" they're apostate. And finding polemic works is easy!


After someone has carefully studied a faith tradition such as Catholicism, then they are in a position to object all they like, but not until they really have a good idea of what they're objecting to.

Pax.
Having met the criteria you deemed necessary to comment, I should be free to do so.

I agree with your first statement that Protestantism today is in as pitiful condition as Romanism is, and that is the way it was prophesied to be.

I also agree with your second statement, except that the word Vicar actually means “in the place of or substitute

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #171 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 11:30:27 »
Lee,

You comment about familiarity with the Catholics and their history brings up a question for me, independent of others' comments and views.  Suppose one does read quite a bit of history, does even read the current catechism, etc. and maybe even is ex-Catholic, and still holds beliefs that it has born fruit that seems opposed to the very gospel itself?  Will the bar of what one can examine and criticize then move to some other spot? 

Certainly there are things said that are unfair, and based on hearsay.  That should be dismissed outright.  But what about when one looks at the very real history of the burning of heretics, the manipulation of governments, the oppressive tax collecting of the middle ages, and on and on?  Sure revisionists have tried to erase their import, but this is confirmed world history 101, and these are not the sort of things that one simply nonchalantly brushes aside.  The Reformers sure didn't, and many of them were Catholics until they could stomach the fruit no more.

Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Hey I'm fine with critiquing history. All I'm asking is for people to understand what they're disagreeing with before they start slamming it. Too often I hear my Protestant brethren making wildly inaccurate statements regarding Catholicism which are usually based on simple ignorance of what Catholicism really teaches.

As for the medeival Church, there is lots of mis-information, based upon generalizations and stereotypes, out there in the popular imagination. As a medievalist, I'm not convinced the medieval Church was as bad as popular history says. No, Catholicism doesn't have a spotless track-record, however a lot of the negative things said about the medieval Church are merely later Protestant propaganda. There was as much manipulation of the Church by corrupt monarchs-such as French King Philip the IV, who moved the papacy to Avignon so he could manipulate and ride herd on Popes Boniface VIII and Clement V, and who suppressed the Order of the Knights Templar on false charges in order to confiscate their wealth, as there was manipulation of monarchs by the Church. Earlier this year I posted an article here on the medieval church and heresy.

I guess all I'm asking for is a little balance.

Pax.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #172 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 12:22:50 »
That's actually the section of history I've been reading lately, from a few different sources.  Some of information (or perhaps misinformation in some cases) is not to be laid only at the feet of Catholic critics (Protestants, et al.) though, as there are quite a few more "secular" historians who do quite a number as well.  Catholic apologists are quick to distance the Catholic church from the execution of John Huss.  Secular sources say he was condemned at the Counsel of Constance because of his Wycliffian teachings, etc. and that the counsel had him burned at the stake to prove their own orthodoxy.  Apologists say it was really just the civil authorities that executed him.  Pope JP II said the church made a mistake in having him executed...which sounds like an admission that it wasn't really just the civil authorities behind his death, at least to me.

I share that example to simply say that our problem with history is that at this distance, it's hard to be very trustworthy of either side's accounting.  Personally, it leaves me often ::shrug:: ::headscratch::.

da525382

  • Guest
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #173 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 12:32:01 »
Lee,

You comment about familiarity with the Catholics and their history brings up a question for me, independent of others' comments and views.  Suppose one does read quite a bit of history, does even read the current catechism, etc. and maybe even is ex-Catholic, and still holds beliefs that it has born fruit that seems opposed to the very gospel itself?  Will the bar of what one can examine and criticize then move to some other spot? 

Certainly there are things said that are unfair, and based on hearsay.  That should be dismissed outright.  But what about when one looks at the very real history of the burning of heretics, the manipulation of governments, the oppressive tax collecting of the middle ages, and on and on?  Sure revisionists have tried to erase their import, but this is confirmed world history 101, and these are not the sort of things that one simply nonchalantly brushes aside.  The Reformers sure didn't, and many of them were Catholics until they could stomach the fruit no more.

Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Hey I'm fine with critiquing history. All I'm asking is for people to understand what they're disagreeing with before they start slamming it. Too often I hear my Protestant brethren making wildly inaccurate statements regarding Catholicism which are usually based on simple ignorance of what Catholicism really teaches.

As for the medeival Church, there is lots of mis-information, based upon generalizations and stereotypes, out there in the popular imagination. As a medievalist, I'm not convinced the medieval Church was as bad as popular history says. No, Catholicism doesn't have a spotless track-record, however a lot of the negative things said about the medieval Church are merely later Protestant propaganda. There was as much manipulation of the Church by corrupt monarchs-such as French King Philip the IV, who moved the papacy to Avignon so he could manipulate and ride herd on Popes Boniface VIII and Clement V, and who suppressed the Order of the Knights Templar on false charges in order to confiscate their wealth, as there was manipulation of monarchs by the Church. Earlier this year I posted an article here on the medieval church and heresy.

I guess all I'm asking for is a little balance.

Pax.


Lee,

Do you have any recommended historical references to place RC history in a more balanced perspective?  I simply do not consider their own laudered historical account of themselves credible and would never therefore rely on they themselves to declare the "real" history of the RC church.  The problem, it seems to me, is that for 1600 years, for the most part, the people were illiterate and opposition was easily snuffed out either by torture or death, so their own history is really an account of a cover-up of an endless series of purges, not only of themselves, but of Judaic believers and other groups.  We therefore really don't know what the opposition said, how many were persuaded or could have been persuaded by opposing thought.  What it gets down to today is that phrase, "the history of the Catholic church"....it depends on who is summarizing that history and on what factual basis it is predicated.  

Lee, it also seems to me that the reformers would have been murdered in a heart-beat had it not been for the overwhelming numbers of followers they received, and perhaps literacy was growing, and of course, the printing press.   The age of cover-up and purges had to give way to enlightenment, it seems.

Offline Dennis

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3869
  • Manna: 116
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Roman Catholic Church Will Suppress Religious Freedom
« Reply #174 on: Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 12:58:26 »
Lee,

You comment about familiarity with the Catholics and their history brings up a question for me, independent of others' comments and views.  Suppose one does read quite a bit of history, does even read the current catechism, etc. and maybe even is ex-Catholic, and still holds beliefs that it has born fruit that seems opposed to the very gospel itself?  Will the bar of what one can examine and criticize then move to some other spot? 

Certainly there are things said that are unfair, and based on hearsay.  That should be dismissed outright.  But what about when one looks at the very real history of the burning of heretics, the manipulation of governments, the oppressive tax collecting of the middle ages, and on and on?  Sure revisionists have tried to erase their import, but this is confirmed world history 101, and these are not the sort of things that one simply nonchalantly brushes aside.  The Reformers sure didn't, and many of them were Catholics until they could stomach the fruit no more.

Now, to be fair, because that is what they once did doesn't mean that is what they currently are doing, or would ever do again, but if history teaches us anything, it is that we ignore the brutalities of history at our own peril and naiveté.

Hey I'm fine with critiquing history. All I'm asking is for people to understand what they're disagreeing with before they start slamming it. Too often I hear my Protestant brethren making wildly inaccurate statements regarding Catholicism which are usually based on simple ignorance of what Catholicism really teaches.

As for the medeival Church, there is lots of mis-information, based upon generalizations and stereotypes, out there in the popular imagination. As a medievalist, I'm not convinced the medieval Church was as bad as popular history says. No, Catholicism doesn't have a spotless track-record, however a lot of the negative things said about the medieval Church are merely later Protestant propaganda. There was as much manipulation of the Church by corrupt monarchs-such as French King Philip the IV, who moved the papacy to Avignon so he could manipulate and ride herd on Popes Boniface VIII and Clement V, and who suppressed the Order of the Knights Templar on false charges in order to confiscate their wealth, as there was manipulation of monarchs by the Church. Earlier this year I posted an article here on the medieval church and heresy.

I guess all I'm asking for is a little balance.

Pax.

I am not sure what you mean by "balanced."  If you mean even steven, then history may not be "balanced."  I would hope we all would be more concerned about getting it right than being "balanced." I readily admit that "getting it right" means recognizing there are two side to most stories and considering both sides of the story.

Having said the above, I am not sure history proves or disproves as much as either side would suggest.  At the very least, I hope that most would agree that the reformation was a reaction by fallible men to the condition of the Church as it existed at the time and that the very fallible men who ran the Church at that time must bear some responsibility for its condition.

Personally, I am convinced that God rewards those who diligently seek him. [Heb 11:6] I understand that to be a personal responsibility. I endeavor to be a diligent seeker and I operate under the assumption that those with whom I discuss these matters are diligent seekers. Thus, while we can discuss issues and perhaps even passionately debate them.  We should try to treat one another with the respect due to one for whom Christ died.  Hopefully, therefore, when I say something critical of either side it will be understood in that spirit.