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.
MarcoPolo said:
Actually the position is that the state has a right to exercise it under rare circumstances. CCC# 2267
Click to expand...
thats a petty excuse. in the middle ages the church had a powerful influence over the state. and what did it do to oppose the burning of heretics?
 
bengal_fan said:
it actually started out against capital punishment:
Click to expand...
early christianity did begin in opposition to violence. but the fact that the church engaged and tolerated violence and death in the middle ages is proof that the Church changes accordingly. at least in practice.
 
AgnosTheist said:
thats a petty excuse. in the middle ages the church had a powerful influence over the state. and what did it do to oppose the burning of heretics?
Click to expand...
What? You said the Church was opposed to the death penalty today. I corrected that. How about a thank you? :rolleyes:
 
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...
Wait a second. Plenty of Jews are still standing after more than 2,000 years of being attacked from all sides, following the will of God. So, are we both following God’s will?
 
bengal_fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I, and other posters, have supported our positions with references to James Carroll’s work. You did not respond to that part of my earlier post, and I would be interested to know why you think those three examples do not show that he ignored key information.

It is unfair of you to say that I am basing my position on the fact that I disagree with his findings. That is untrue as I would point out the same weaknesses I see in any news story/opinion piece.

And it is not idealistic to say that journalists should not look at the facts and cherry pick information that supports their theory nor should they ignore information that is in direct conflict with their findings.
 
Valke2 said:
Wait a second. Plenty of Jews are still standing after more than 2,000 years of being attacked from all sides, following the will of God. So, are we both following God’s will?
Click to expand...
No, because Jesus is God and you don’t believe in Him.
 
ElizabethAnne said:
I, and other posters, have supported our positions with references to James Carroll’s work. You did not respond to that part of my earlier post, and I would be interested to know why you think those three examples do not show that he ignored key information.

It is unfair of you to say that I am basing my position on the fact that I disagree with his findings. That is untrue as I would point out the same weaknesses I see in any news story/opinion piece.

And it is not idealistic to say that journalists should not look at the facts and cherry pick information that supports their theory nor should they ignore information that is in direct conflict with their findings.
Click to expand...
Well, if its not idealisitc then there must be real examples of journalists who do not cherry pick information that supports their theory. Do you know of any Catholic journalists that would fit this description? I’d be interested in reading what they have to say.

Peronsally, I find that whenver someone writes something that a person doesn’t like, the person has no trouble coming up with reasons why the writer is wrong or her/his reasoning is unsound.
 
Valke2 said:
Well, if its not idealisitc then there must be real examples of journalists who do not cherry pick information that supports their theory. Do you know of any Catholic journalists that would fit this description? I’d be interested in reading what they have to say.

Peronsally, I find that whenver someone writes something that a person doesn’t like, the person has no trouble coming up with reasons why the writer is wrong or her/his reasoning is unsound.
Click to expand...
If you are looking for a Catholic journalist, try www.catholicregister.org
 
MarcoPolo said:
What? You said the Church was opposed to the death penalty today. I corrected that. How about a thank you? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Cathechism #2267 is a juggling act between words and facts. It says the church only tolerates death penalty if there is no other means of protecting the public from the aggressor. and goes on to conclude that in todays age such conditions “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”. What, as if the imprisonment of bad guys today are any more effective than the imprisonment of heretics & witches back in the merry days of the inquisition. LOL! thats what i love about religion nowadays…its good for laughs! 😃
 
I see once again someone who is not Catholic, nor interested in seriously discussing Catholic belief or Catholic history has started a thread. I also see plenty of people have taken the time to respond. First off, if you don’t like the Catholic Church, and all that religion is good for is some laughs, then why do you come here? Don’t you have anything better to do? Do you go to Muslim and Jewish forums and bother them? It is great when non-Catholics come here, and ask serious questions about Catholicism. I see you are not interested in that. How about you go do something more constructive. You obviously have too much time on your hands. Also to all the people that keep replying to the OP: just stop replying. If you stop replying to ridiculous threads, then people will stop starting ridiculous threads.
I hope the OP can get over whatever his problem is.
 
pjn6444 said:
Don’t you have anything better to do?
Click to expand...
correct
pjn6444 said:
Do you go to Muslim and Jewish forums and bother them?
Click to expand...
yes & yes. i spent years pestering muslims. got tired of it. & jews are not much fun. their beliefs are too logical & straightforward. not much loopholes that I could find and make issues of. and then I discovered this site. 😉
 
AgnosTheist said:
Cathechism #2267 is a juggling act between words and facts. It says the church only tolerates death penalty if there is no other means of protecting the public from the aggressor. and goes on to conclude that in todays age such conditions “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”. What, as if the imprisonment of bad guys today are any more effective than the imprisonment of heretics & witches back in the merry days of the inquisition. LOL! thats what i love about religion nowadays…its good for laughs! 😃
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are talking about…does the Catholic Church champion the behavior of murder during the inquisition? Do you remember Pope John Paul II’s apology in 2000? It mentions your favorite part of history: the Inquisition! 🙂 Since the Church has never claimed it’s members cannot sin, this exercise is just for your own psychology! 😃
 
Actually, I have figured out the true point to the thread!!!
MH84 said:
What were the atheists doing?
Oh, hang on, they were the ones in charge of the concentration camps!!
Click to expand...
AgnosTheist said:
Yeah, along with their Catholic and Lutheran nazi buddies. 😃
Click to expand...
AgnosTheist said:
The protestants came from the catholic church. Thats all the proof I need that Jesus was wrong.
Click to expand...
So the point is…

Followers of Jesus have committed atrocities…
Pagan athiests have committed atrocities…
Therefore the bearers of truth are…Pagan athiests! :extrahappy:
 
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...
That’s a good question but it depends on what your calling the tip of the sword.
Trickery:As a baptist protestant, and getting caught up in the moment, I confess I have used some shady ways to “bring someone to the altar call”. God forgive me. I’ll also have to mention a man named Jack Chick, the publisher of Chicktracts. His tracts designed and formatted toward children are scare tactics designed to frighten the reader into accepting Jesus. Also, I’ve heard it time and time again in Evangelical Churches, “If I could dangle a man over the fires of hell by a string, I would”.
My time in the Pentecostal Church was even more disturbing when I consider force. Those not speaking in tongues were labeled as non-believers and at time the “laying on of hand” was actually assault.
 
Perhaps a better question would be: How do we bring someone to Christ?
 
Also, I’ve heard it time and time again in Evangelical Churches, “If I could dangle a man over the fires of hell by a string, I would”.
Click to expand...
I don’t get it. Do you mean as a scare tactic? Is it like: “if you don’t listen to me, you are going there”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top