Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

It has NOTHING to do with it. Good grief.ABE: This thread is supposed to be about OFFICIAL positions of Protestantism versus Catholicism. JAR's example is no such thing, he can't even prove actual Protestants were involved as opposed to Catholics or any other groups but in any case he's talking about a situation in which various individuals of this or that religious persuasion might have been involved. This is not anything to do with doctrinal differences and conflicts, which is what this thread is about. This is just jar doing his absurd gadfly thing and I'm sorry I fell for it.HERE however is an example of OFFICIAL CATHOLIC involvement in 20th century atrocities, not something done by individual Catholics but by the Roman institution itself, the papacy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-I44rCeA2UEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe you don't know what Genocide means; it means the intentional destruction of a culture or people, and Christianity has been very good at that for about 2000 years. The Protestants simply developed a more efficient, more socially acceptable methodology. Instead of only killing off the infidels and heathens, the Protestants also took the land away from them and outlawed practicing the religions, using the languages, wearing the dress and then took the kids away from their families.Of course there were even more developments as the Protestants evolved new techniques, for example the 1924 Racial Purity Act simply declared that there was no such thing as a Native American and destroyed all the records so that in the future it would be impossible to prove that someone was a Native American.The Protestants learned. Killing off the Pequots and selling the rest into slavery was better than the Catholic Practice of killing off all the native population and then needing to import slaves to take up the slack as the Spanish did in the Caribbean.The biggest difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics is just how much more efficient Protestants have been and still are at genocide.

Again, as I say above, what you are descdribingb has nothing to do with OFFICIAL PROTESTANT DOCTRINE, which is what this thread is about. There is nothing PROTESTANT about any of that. You are just pointing the finger at individuals and calling them Protestants without even knowing what any of them believed, just making up stuff. Again, I'm talkiing about official positions, official doctrinal conflicts and the like.Again, THIS is the sort of thing I'm talking about here:>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-I44rCeA2UEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Too funny.There is no official "Protestant" doctrine, there are a whole herd of Protestant Chapters of Club Christian.There is what Protestants have done just as there is what Roman Catholics have done.The kid torn from his culture and family and made to cut his hair, wear strange clothes, speak a strange language and worship some silly religion instead of his religion really doesn't much care whether it was "Official Doctrine" or "wink wink, nudge nudge".

Sure there can be official Protestant positions such as when great numbers of the clergy agree on a certain actionm such as happened in the American Revolution when the "Black robed regiment" preached for Revolution and Liberty and went off to fight and die along with their congregants. THAT could be called an official act of Protestantism. A motley crew of people whose beliefs you don't even know can't be called representative of Protestantism or anything else.

There are references to "official Protestant doctrine" etc. in many of the above posts.Which group or groups can produce "official" doctrines when there are tens of thousands of different groups?

The 2001 edition [of the World Christian Encyclopedia], successor to his 1982 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations.

As noted in the website listed below, 30,000+ of these are Protestant/Anglican denominations.The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition)So why should we believe what any of them have to say?If all of them, with the same origin some 2,000 years ago, have now split into 33,820 different groups, with no sign of agreeing with one another and consolidating, its likely that all are wrong.Edited by Coyote, : speeling

And when official Protestant churches establish Indian Schools and take the kids away from their families and destroy their culture it can be called Official Protestant Genocide.

That sure sounds like a "no true Scotsman" defense.Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

This "no true Scotsman" thing is getting horribly misused. When you have an institution that is defined by certain doctrines such that all members subscribe to those doctrines, that's your criterion for a TRUE adherent of that institution. This is no fallacy, it's a matter of logic and definition. If Protestantism in its broadest sense, that goes back to the Reformation, is defined as belief in the Bible as sole authority, or Sola Scriptura, belief that the gospel is salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, as a free unmerited gift through the death of Christ which you possess by faith, then anyone who adheres to that is a true Protestant and anyone who doesn't isn't. That is official Protestant Doctrine and you simply aren't a Protestant otherwise.And jar's claim to be a Protestant after agreeing with the anathemas of Rome against Protestant belief is twisted logic. The term Protestant was given to those who protested against Rome's doctinres. To agree with Rome when Rome condemns fundamental Protestant belief makes you NOT a Protestant.Which ought to be obvious to anyone who has a functioning brain cell in his head.

jar is a recognized member of a Protestant Chapter of Club Christian raised in a Protestant home, educated in a Protestant school who has taught adult and child Protestant Sunday school and helped start new Protestant Missions and helped physically build Protestant churches and is webmaster for a half dozen or so Protestant websites.jar is a Protestant.Get over it.It really is that simple.

As that site says, there are really only six major categories of denominations involved, which makes more sense, but he says the majority are Protestant.I've defined Protestant over and over and over agian on this thread, as the beliefs in
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus ChristusI regard any church that holds to those beliefs as a "true Protestant church."Which I guess means I have to take back what I said about the televangelists because t6hey do subscribe to these beliefs.\
\
My objection to jar's nonsense is that he's just trying ro find anything to accuse "Protestants" of, but I'm trying to focus on OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, which I've once again defined for you here. I'm not accusing rank and file Catholics of anything, I'm talking about OFFICIAL PAPAL DOCTRINE.Now if a Proestant Church that subscribes to those Solas I list above issues an official decree to murder and torture some group of people FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS, OR if some Protestant clergyman or other person who is representing a Protestant body either promotes or engages in murder and torture for official religious reasons, then I'll recognize that as an instance of what I'm trying to focus on here.

Jar doesn't agree with anything the Protestant Reformers said or did, he even agrees with Rome's curses against the doctrine of the Reformers but he still insists he's a Protestant.

Except their motives were not to harm the children, unlike a true policy of genocide which DOES describe the papal Inquisition. And genocide is NOT the annihilation of CULTURE, the word refers to KILLING HUMAN BEINGS. But jar doesn't care how he uses words as long as he can accuse somebody of something.

No, he IS a Protestant.It really is that simple and so get used to it.And yes, he does hold the utterly silly idea that Jesus death paid for all sins and that all one needs is to believe in Jesus to be saved should be denounced as pitiful, weak, a con job, a diminishing of Jesus worth and message, as something dirty, shameful, a cheapening of all the Christianity could stand for.It's an easy sell to those of weak faith that are willing to accept false assurances and totally contrary to what the Bible says that Jesus said.

Actually, it is. What definition of genocide are you using? Genocide

quote:

---

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

---

Maybe not precisely defined as the annihilation of culture, but that is basically the outcome or at least the goal.