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.
AgnosTheist said:
I know it was quite common for Catholics to use force & trickery in converting people in the past. What about protestants?
Click to expand...
The sword is THE absolute best and most often used method of spreading a faith.

This is exactly what is happening in Iraq to the Chaldean Catholics, they are being converted to Protestant Christianity in droves.

And who opened THAT door?
 
mark_a said:
The sword is THE absolute best and most often used method of spreading a faith.

This is exactly what is happening in Iraq to the Chaldean Catholics, they are being converted to Protestant Christianity in droves.

And who opened THAT door?
Click to expand...
i had not heard this. do you have evidence you can point me to that shows this?
 
Righteousone said:
Huh? All of The Blessed Mother’s apparitions (which you are not at all familiar with), have been in the past few centuries. Fatima was in 1932 I believe. The church has recognized most of her apparitions. I refuse to talk to you about this if you are not already learned in this area.
Click to expand...
Why do you refuse to talk to people about “this”,Mr. Papist?
 
Well, there was the Wiedertäufer movement in the 16th century that build its own little nation in Münster (Westphalia). They converted catholics to their religion by force quite violently. Convert or die.
Of course, when Münster was sacked shortly after by papal forces the revenge was harsh. The remains of the executed leaders were displayed in small cages hung from the cathedral until the 19th century.

And in Germany protestants did burn more witches than the catholics, which can be explained statistically as the peak of witch burning took place, when most parts of Germany were already protestant.
 
AgnosTheist said:
I know it was quite common for Catholics to use force & trickery in converting people in the past. What about protestants?
Click to expand...
Protestants “converted” Indians in North America and Aborigines in Australia, also many catholics, for example in England.
It’s also very interested how atheists, deists, agnostics, etc. converted others to their “religion”. Just look at French revolution, bolshevik revolution, Mexican revolution, anticatholic war in Spain in 1930s, China, Pol Pot in Cambodga… Are you proud of your spiritual ancestors?
 
angelusm said:
It’s also very interested how atheists, deists, agnostics, etc. converted others to their “religion”. Just look at French revolution, bolshevik revolution, Mexican revolution, anticatholic war in Spain in 1930s, China, Pol Pot in Cambodga… Are you proud of your spiritual ancestors?
Click to expand...
As I am not a communist …phhh… 🤷
Well, the French revolution is something different, where indeed enough atrocities were commited in the name of ratio and I would count much of the spirit back then to my “spiritual” heritage. But, hey, all of that spirit can largely be found in the US constitution, several declarations of human rights etc. etc., can’t be that bad then, even if some suckers have misunderstood a great many things about it.
It’s a part of cultural and social evolution to learn from the mistakes of the past and a sign of actual development not to repeat them. I wonder who’s better off in that aspect…:whistle:
 
As another example, this is what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about Luther:

Two books published by Luther in 1544 are especially marked by bitterness—“Von den Juden und Ihren Luegen” and “Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi,” both printed in Wittenberg (ib. xxxii. 99-358). The occasion for writing the first book was, as he states, the audacity with which the Jews attacked the Christian dogmas and especially the Christological exposition of the Old Testament. The bitterness noticeable in the writings of his last years and which was due to disappointment at the slow progress of his work, to the dissensions among his followers, and, not the least, to his physical ailments, is evident to a degree which is grievous to his most ardent admirers. He must have been influenced by some converts from Judaism, such as Antonius Margaritha and Bernhard Ziegler (ib. xxxii. 357), probably the Bernhard referred to above, for he attacks the views expressed in the prayer-book as blasphemous, and repeats the old accusations that the Jew does not consider the “goyim” as human beings, that he prays for their misfortune (ib. xxxii. 193), and that when a Christian comes to his house he says to him “Sched willkomm,” which the Christian understands as a welcome, though in reality the Jew is calling him a “devil” (ib. xxxii. 222). Luther praises the “dear Emperor Charles” for having expelled the Jews from Spain (ib. xxxii. 231, evidently meaning Ferdinand, Charles V.'s grandfather), and expresses great satisfaction at a recent edict of expulsion from Bohemia. He repeatedly urges that their synagogues be burned, and is sorry that he can not destroy them with hellfire. He further advises that their houses be torn down, their books taken from them, their rabbis prohibited from teaching; that no safe-conduct be granted them; that their usury be prohibited; that their public worship be interdicted; that they be forced to do the hardest labor; and he admonishes everybody to deal with them in a merciless manner, “even as Moses did, who slew three thousand of them in the wilderness.” The invectives which he uses against them are vile even for sixteenth-century standards. After admonishing his readers not to have the slightest intercourse with the Jews, he says: “If that which you already suffer from the Jew is not sufficient strike him in the jaw.” The most fanatic statement is the following: "If I had power over them I would assemble their most prominent men and demand that they prove that we Christians do not worship the one God, under the penalty of having their tongues torn out through the backs of their necks" (ib. xxxii. 257).
 
pismopal said:
Thanks for the pop history lesson but the reason the Catholic Church is not as fragmented as non Catholic gatherings is because Christ promised that we wouldn’t be. Mathew 16: 18.
Can you support your statement that without violence the Church would be in scism?
Click to expand...
The protestants came from the catholic church. Thats all the proof I need that Jesus was wrong. Sorry. 😃

the break of the church into east & west came at a time of peace.
the break of the protestants came at a time of peace.
the heresies came before the inquisition.
pismopal said:
No peaceful or respectful persuasions by the early Church you say.
Click to expand...
i was referring to the middle ages. the time of crusades, inquisitions, and the conquistas. that is truth you cannot deny it. :cool:
 
AgnosTheist said:
The protestants came from the catholic church. Thats all the proof I need that Jesus was wrong. Sorry. 😃
Click to expand...
And yet she (The Catholic Church) still stands never changing after 2000 years of being attacked from all sides. Following the will of God. Not man.
 
It seems to me that the OP was looking to start debate between Protestants and Catholics so that he could enjoy watching us attack each other.

Where’s the profit in that?
 
khutcheson said:
It seems to me that the OP was looking to start debate between Protestants and Catholics so that he could enjoy watching us attack each other.

Where’s the profit in that?
Click to expand...
I had money that it would all be traced back to some Jewish sect. It seems like a lot of that going around. 😛

No, there was no profit in this exercise. The Catholic Church has had more troubles because we’ve been here longer and had a larger role in human history. But, if you look at the overall picture, both sides have issues, and as Bengal alluded to, the Catholic Church has also used her power and influence for good in the world a time or two.
 
bengal_fan said:
actually though, i think hitler actually classified himself as a pagan. i just read this recently that he was outspoken (within certain circles) about this.
Click to expand...
Hitler was born a Catholic but converted to Protestanism when he commited those attrocities. Not saying that has anything to do with Protestanism, just that he did that then.
 
AgnosTheist said:
The protestants came from the catholic church. Thats all the proof I need that Jesus was wrong. Sorry. 😃

the break of the church into east & west came at a time of peace.
the break of the protestants came at a time of peace.
the heresies came before the inquisition.

i was referring to the middle ages. the time of crusades, inquisitions, and the conquistas. that is truth you cannot deny it. :cool:
Click to expand...
If Protestants CAME FROM the Catholic church, how could Jesus be wrong?? BTW, Jesus is NEVER wrong. Just as His church isn’t wrong.
 
bengal_fan said:
i am sorry you disagree with how the disciplines work. but in those disciplines, you always start with a theory or a question. you always start with a direction and if the evidence leads you in other directions, you follow it. he started with a premise and the research led him to continue in that direction.
Click to expand...
I have a degree in communications, took media ethics courses in school and am a journalist. I do not “disagree with how the disciplines work.” As I said before, journalists should never set out to prove a theory, evidence be darned. They must look at the data and get the complete picture, not pull out only information that supports their version of the story. If that is how they act, then they are bad journalists.
 
ElizabethAnne said:
I have a degree in communications, took media ethics courses in school and am a journalist. I do not “disagree with how the disciplines work.” As I said before, journalists should never set out to prove a theory, evidence be darned. They must look at the data and get the complete picture, not pull out only information that supports their version of the story. If that is how they act, then they are bad journalists.
Click to expand...
every journalist (no matter how idealistic they think they are) goes in with an idea/theory/supposition/etc. and then sets out to prove or disprove it. good journalists are open to both. they are not upset when the evidence disproves their theory either.
i saw nothing (and have seen nothing) that says james carroll ignored evidence. he simply puts more weight on certain evidence which is what every journalist/historian/and any other social scientist does. it is part of the discipline. just because you disagree with his findings does not make him a bad journalist. that is when you show your findings, backed up by evidence, and try to dispute him. that is how it all works. there is no such thing as an impartial anything.
 
Stephen_C said:
And yet she (The Catholic Church) still stands never changing after 2000 years of being attacked from all sides. Following the will of God. Not man.
Click to expand...
Look at one example: In olden days the CC supported the death penalty (like during the inquisition). Now its against capital punishment.
 
AgnosTheist said:
Look at one example: In olden days the CC supported the death penalty (like during the inquisition). Now its against capital punishment.
Click to expand...
it actually started out against capital punishment:
Athenagoras:
“For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who them can accuse us of murder of cannibalism?”
From: A Plea for the Christians
Click to expand...
 
AgnosTheist said:
Look at one example: In olden days the CC supported the death penalty (like during the inquisition). Now its against capital punishment.
Click to expand...
Boy that really seems to be a theme with you around here. All you answers seem to have that. Go figure…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top