How often had Protestants converted people at the tip of the Sword?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AgnosTheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bengal_fan said:
do you even realize what Jesus’ statement means?? it is an offensive statement. He is saying if the church attempts to bust through those gates, they cannot stand against it. it is not a defensive statement as “gates” are not a weapon. so it is right to point out where the church has failed to be offensive in it’s attack on hell. one of those areas is in standing up to oppression as opposed to taking part in it or even leading it.
Click to expand...
Bengal, this is the problem with you Protestants…you interpret everything to mean something else…you also just form your own opinions of Scripture…give it a break.
 
ricmat said:
The crusades purpose was to regain the holy land from the Muslims, not to convert anybody.
Click to expand...
of course. but forced conversions happened anyway.
ricmat said:
The inquisition was put in place to put an end to secular abuses of “heresy.” Heresy was a crime against the state, and non-religious rulers were abusing the charge. Those who were charged with heresy actually BEGGED to be tried by the Church rather than the state, as the Church tended to actually look for evidence, and give a fair trial, and be much more lenient to the convicted. And the Jews who were targets of the inquisition were allowed to retain their faith, so long as they didn’t pretend to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
what you said sure looks nice on paper. reality screams otherwise.
ricmat said:
The miracle in Mexico you are (probably) referring to was the apparition of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”. Given the fact that this “bogus miracle” put an end to the human sacrifice of tens of thousands of innocent people annually, and actually forced nobody to convert, I’m not sure what your issue is.
Click to expand...
like I said, i prefer deception than violent persuasion. tens of thousands annually? what gave you that idea?
 
Valke2 said:
When is the documentary due out?
Click to expand...
not sure, it is making its rounds to people to view it and write reviews of it. i got to be a part of that and found it to be very moving and inspiring to be better than what we have been as Christians.

incidentally, he points out the faults (in the area of anti-semitism) of many Christian denominations, not just catholics. however, catholicism has a longer history and bigger influence (which means it also has the ability to do more good) and thus takes a bigger brunt of the facts.
 
bengal_fan said:
do you even realize what Jesus’ statement means?? it is an offensive statement. He is saying if the church attempts to bust through those gates, they cannot stand against it. it is not a defensive statement as “gates” are not a weapon. so it is right to point out where the church has failed to be offensive in it’s attack on hell. one of those areas is in standing up to oppression as opposed to taking part in it or even leading it.
Click to expand...
Ive never heard of this interpretation before. You got me thinking.

But anyway, how do you know that Jesus didnt picture hell being right next to the Church, trying to break in to it through its own (hell’s) “gates”?
 
I suppose protestants were not much into violent persuasions except in a few episodes when they were at war with catholics. what about american indians, have they been forcefully converted by protestants?
 
bengal_fan said:
he is also considered a top-notch journalist. for anyone who has ever studied journalism, you know the research and the ethics of reporting your research that goes into it. he did his research, he made a claim, and his research backs it up. just because it might cause some folks to think about the wrong an organization they love (and capable of doing so much good) has committed, doesn’t mean he is attacking that organization. i got to view an advanced copy of the documentary and i have read the book. both are historically accurate and do not attack the entire organization, but some of the things the organization did or allowed to happen without intervention.
Click to expand...
His section on Vatican III, which I assume is what most Catholics take issue with, is his opinion based on how he views the history set forth in the rest of the book. You can disagree with his conclusions without blindly questioning his research.

I just purchased another book of his for my father in law, which looks at (I think) America today. I forget the title, but my father in law, who is no dummy when it comes to current events and history (He’s read pretty much every book on History that I can think of, and written a very interesting paper on the Romans and destruction of the 2nd Temple), thought it was well written and very interesting.

So, obviously I’m write and Carroll’s critics are wrong 🙂
 
MH84 said:
Ive never heard of this interpretation before. You got me thinking.

But anyway, how do you know that Jesus didnt picture hell being right next to the Church, trying to break in to it through its own (hell’s) “gates”?
Click to expand...
i guess, because gates are not an offensive weapon. plus, we were never charged with sitting back and defending. Jesus put us on the offensive with the great commission. another reason is that self defense was forbidden in the early church and i can only think that is because we were never called to defend. even the verses that tell us to be ready to give an answer for our faith aren’t about defending, they are about spreading the good news.
 
bengal_fan said:
i guess, because gates are not an offensive weapon. plus, we were never charged with sitting back and defending. Jesus put us on the offensive with the great commission. another reason is that self defense was forbidden in the early church and i can only think that is because we were never called to defend. even the verses that tell us to be ready to give an answer for our faith aren’t about defending, they are about spreading the good news.
Click to expand...
I heard a preist (or he may have been a theologin) say that Hell would be a constantly expanding city trying to annex the world into its depravity. The Church would never be annexed into it, meaning that it would always be “outside” the gates. I like that concept

I like Bengal’s view as well.
 
Righteousone said:
Yea, just like you too would enjoy it.
Click to expand...
i guess i wouldn’t say i “enjoyed” it considering i wept through a lot of it. i was forced to look into some history that i wasn’t familiar with and reckon with it on a personal level.

of course, i have a head and a heart and this forced me to use both of them. sometimes i wonder whether you have either. it’s obvious you have ears and fingers since you seem to listen to lots of biases resources and just type back out whatever they tell you.
 
ralphinal said:
I heard a preist (or he may have been a theologin) say that Hell would be a constantly expanding city trying to annex the world into its depravity. The Church would never be annexed into it, meaning that it would always be “outside” the gates. I like that concept

I like Bengal’s view as well.
Click to expand...
i can see that interpretation as well. never really thought about it in that light. i can’t see why both can’t be true.
 
bengal_fan said:
i guess, because gates are not an offensive weapon. plus, we were never charged with sitting back and defending. Jesus put us on the offensive with the great commission. another reason is that self defense was forbidden in the early church and i can only think that is because we were never called to defend. even the verses that tell us to be ready to give an answer for our faith aren’t about defending, they are about spreading the good news.
Click to expand...
But the CC doesnt interpret the passage in terms of “defending” itself. The Church interprets it as being protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching any falsities in matters of faith, doctrines and morals.
 
bengal_fan said:
i can see that interpretation as well. never really thought about it in that light. i can’t see why both can’t be true.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, I think we agree way more than we should. Perhaps you are too Catholic for your own good. 😉
 
MH84 said:
But the CC doesnt interpret the passage in terms of “defending” itself. The Church interprets it as being protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching any falsities in matters of faith, doctrines and morals.
Click to expand...
but that has to do with Jesus’ statement of leading us into “all truth” not the the gates of hell wouldn’t overcome us. i still say it is a charge more than a promise. it is telling to church to be the church and not worry if we get persecuted for we will not be overcome.
 
AgnosTheist said:
Who can better dig up the skeletons in Protestant closets than their adversary the Catholics? I’m just curious.
Click to expand...
I do not consider Protestants my adversaries.
bengal_fan said:
he is also considered a top-notch journalist. for anyone who has ever studied journalism, you know the research and the ethics of reporting your research that goes into it. he did his research, he made a claim, and his research backs it up.
Click to expand...
James Carroll is very far from being a good journalist. He commonly ignores facts that do not agree with his anti-Catholic agenda. I live in Boston and read his opinion pieces in the Globe regularly. They are everything but fair and balanced.
 
bengal_fan said:
well, that’s nice that the “catholic league” thinks it’s rubbish. most historians who aren’t biased would say that the book (and the documentary that is coming out) are historically accurate. it is an attack on the catholic church’s actions, not the church itself. it is also an attack on certain popes, not the papacy. try reading it and watching the documentary, you’ll see that he still loves the church deeply but is deeply saddened by the role the church has played in atrocities against the jews. he interviews active priests, one of whom works at the vatican as an historian.
Click to expand...
So you do agree that regardless of the veracity of the book or other beliefs of actions of Catholics. These are Popes\Priests doing evil in the name of the Church but not supported by Church teaching.
So who cares what these people did, even if it is fiction or possibly true, they were not actually following Catholic teaching.

It is against Catholic teaching to forcibly convert anyone, so lets assume someone did…
I certainly agree with you then that doing evil is wrong but the Catholic Church has never taught to do evil, so therefore you agree with the Catholic Church.
Unless you support that it is ok to do evil, the Catholic Church condemns that.
The only way to disagree with the Catholic Church is to endorse evil.

If you disagree feel free to PM me,
Scylla
 
So what do you think AgnosTheist? If members of the Catholic Church did “commonly” force people to convert against their will, does that mean it cannot be the One True Church? And does the same apply to the other religions whose members have used violence?
 
bengal_fan said:
i guess i wouldn’t say i “enjoyed” it considering i wept through a lot of it. i was forced to look into some history that i wasn’t familiar with and reckon with it on a personal level.

of course, i have a head and a heart and this forced me to use both of them. sometimes i wonder whether you have either. it’s obvious you have ears and fingers since you seem to listen to lots of biases resources and just type back out whatever they tell you.
Click to expand...
No, I listen to the truth and the truth being that people will continue everywhere to try and bash the Catholic church to no avail and I refuse to allow that. People cannot stand the Catholic faith because of one reason (often times, made up) or another. We are not going away in spite of persecution and whatever else put on this beautiful church. Because Jesus said so, we will prevail in the end.
Even the Blessed Mother has said “The muslim faith will convert to Catholicism”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top