Which denominations are most hostile to Catholicism?

[dianaiad]

Aaahh. But here’s the weakness in that parable. You are assuming that there is no other belief system to replace what they have lost.

Quite the contrary. AFter all, what was the guy with the lantern there for but to lead the folks to HIGHER GROUND? That is the replacement; that ‘higher ground.’

But instead of keeping the lantern up to show the way up, he loses the light and wields the ax. He has lost the high ground then, too.

Here is a better parable.

You have this ginormous castle and the king says everyone should live in it because He built this to house every single one in His kingdom. But some had disagreements with the current chief-in-charge of the castle and decided to pitch tents on the castle grounds. The king said to the chief-in-charge go after those living in tents and tell them to come home. It is not safe there. If a hurricane comes what will happen to them. But the tent dwellers insist on living in the tent.

So we go over there saying, look this tent is made of very unsafe material. It is unstable and the wolves could easily huff and puff and blow your tent down. Come home to the castle. It is made of solid brick and re-inforced steel, the wolf will die of exhaustion before the castle will even come close to collapsing from its puffing. Its nice and warm and the king and your brothers and sisters are waiting for you. As a matter of fact the king has sent us to come and bring you back home.

Some realize the wisdom of this and come home but some still cling to the notion that their piece of stick and cloth for a home is indeed it. But we never tire calling out to them. As a matter of fact, some have died in the process of calling out to these lost souls because they cannot just abandon their brothers who insisted on clinging to the tent when the hurricane came.

Nice parable…and it works too.

The trouble is, what happens isn’t that the folks in the castle keep calling. It’s that the folks in the castle get too impatient to keep calling–and they set fire to the tents, and the smoke from those fires blocks the view so that the tent dwellers cannot see the castle.

As well, you seem to forget that most of those tent dwellers, at this point, weren’t the ones who left the castle in the first place; rather it is their descendants, who have been taught that there is no castle, or that the castle is made of paper and air.

So when your castle dwellers come calling, and setting fire to the tents, there truly is no place for those tent dwellers to go.

 

[dianaiad]

Tolerance of religion does not mean that all faiths are equal because they are not. All it means is that you cannot persecute someone for their beliefs. It is still however, encumbent upon you to show them the light.

Yeah, but they don’t ever try to ‘show the light,’ don’t you get it?

"showing the light’ means showing the good, the truth, teaching the gospel.

That’s not what happens. What happens is this:

anti: you believe that and you are going to hell.
True believer: no, we don’t believe that. We believe this.
anti: no you don’t. You REALLY believe that, and I can prove it (pulls out some quote)
True believer: no, we don’t believe that. we believe this.
anti: you do TO believe that, and we don’t.

True believer. Well, how nice. We don’t believe that either. Why aren’t we friends?

anti: because you believe…THAT!

True believer: …sigh…

 

[dianaiad]

Regarding the Temple protestors, this was pure political harassment, and should have resulted in 911 being called, if it did not.

er, which incident of Temple protesters are you thinking about? It’s pretty constant, and only in the last few weeks has it been politically motivated (and by the way, I protest; I didn’t see any picketing of the CATHOLICS over this!!)

In the first case, that person would be mistaken or ignorant. The second case, for Catholics, is the sin of deception, which must be confessed as it separates us from God. It has its origin in the evil one, who is “a liar and the father of lies”

Call 911. That’s what it’s there for. Maybe you could post on a gay rights forum, to get your point across to them, some of the most intolerant on earth. If anyone on earth knows persecution, it is the Catholic Church. And, there’s much more to come, especially in the next four years.

Is that “pastoral” and 'truth?"

Only the truth of Jesus Christ is the truth, and it is 100% pastoral. Those who do not have the truth never like to hear the plain, unvarnished truth. The evil one turns them against it. The grace of God returns them to it.

That’s the problem, though. When you attack someone else’s beliefs, you seldom ever are proclaiming 'the plain, unvarnished truth." Inevitably you’ll get something wrong.

 

[po18guy]

er, which incident of Temple protesters are you thinking about? It’s pretty constant, and only in the last few weeks has it been politically motivated (and by the way, I protest; I didn’t see any picketing of the CATHOLICS over this!!)

Maybe the protesters were afraid of the Opus Dei thugs at the Cathedral? Picketing of the LDS is because of the politics that have been injected into a matter of morality.

That’s the problem, though. When you attack someone else’s beliefs, you seldom ever are proclaiming 'the plain, unvarnished truth." Inevitably you’ll get something wrong.

Since you are on a Catholic forum, I have a responsibility to defend the truth of the CC’s teachings. In the Christian world, the Catholic Church is the “go to” place for 100% of God’s revealed truth. I know you’ll disagree, but other faiths gain weak Catholics, while the Catholic Church gains the most fervent seekers of God from other churches. The examples are many and well known. Some are posting on this thread.

BTW, interesting segue into the travails of the LDS! I still vote that the SDA is the most hostile. The LDS believe that they are a restoration church. The SDA believe they are in mortal combat with Evil, Inc. I’ll grant you that it is a big difference.

 

[ChristinaM]

Speaking of Seventh-Day Adventists, I have a good friend who was raised Seventh-Day Adventist, and I got curious and asked her once if she ever heard anti-Catholic preaching in her church. She told me no, she never did. I thought that was a little bit odd because their stated doctrines are very anti-Catholic, “whore of Babylon” type stuff. Just goes to show how much individual churches can differ!

I never personally encountered any anti-Catholic stuff, even growing up in the South. I had some friends subtly try to “save” me in high school but I was a pretty savvy kid and quickly got wise to it. I don’t think you can make many generalizations about whole denominations. I think some people buy into the anti-Catholic stuff more than others. The pro-life movement in particular is very ecumenical, even in the South.

I think the closest I ever got to a real anti-Catholic was this nutty preacher who used to come to my college. He’d stand on the Drill Field and tell us we were all fornicators and idolators. Oh, happy college days.

 

[benedictus2]

Quite the contrary. AFter all, what was the guy with the lantern there for but to lead the folks to HIGHER GROUND? That is the replacement; that ‘higher ground.’

The replacement has to be more than just higher ground because as you say once the houses are gone they need to move somewhere else.

But instead of keeping the lantern up to show the way up, he loses the light and wields the ax. He has lost the high ground then, too.

But thisis where you are wrong. The lanter is always kept up along with with a bull horn. There is no burning going on. All we are saying is that the house is unstable. We don’t hack them down because in spite of them being in unstable and unsafe houses, it is the only house they know. The most we are doing is tell them the structural defect so that they will vacate the dwelling themselves.

Nice parable…and it works too.

The trouble is, what happens isn’t that the folks in the castle keep calling. It’s that the folks in the castle get too impatient to keep calling–and they set fire to the tents, and the smoke from those fires blocks the view so that the tent dwellers cannot see the castle.

As I’ve said above, no fire was set. History bears this out. The only thing the Catholic Church can do is to woo them back. You cannot equate showing people that their belief is wrong to burning their beliefs. And if they found that their beliefs are indeed wrong, the alternative, the Truth of the Catholic Faith is always there for them to embrace. This has been borne out by nurmerous rabidly anti-Catholics who have found the joy of coming home.

As well, you seem to forget that most of those tent dwellers, at this point, weren’t the ones who left the castle in the first place; rather it is their descendants, who have been taught that there is no castle, or that the castle is made of paper and air.

So when your castle dwellers come calling, and setting fire to the tents, there truly is no place for those tent dwellers to go.

And that is why aside from telling them that their tents are shabby we also tell them about the Castle. How well structured and beautiful it is. We show them its pictures. We show them a photo album of the family who are eagerly waiting for the time when they will come home.

That is why we explain the faith so that they wlll know that the lies they have been told about the castle and their family is precisely that: a lie. And that the truth is so much more glorious than they can ever imagine.

 

[po18guy]

…this nutty preacher who used to come to my college. He’d stand on the Drill Field and tell us we were all fornicators and idolators. Oh, happy college days.

Where is he now that we really need him???

 

[benedictus2]

Yeah, but they don’t ever try to ‘show the light,’ don’t you get it?

"showing the light’ means showing the good, the truth, teaching the gospel.

That’s not what happens. What happens is this:

anti: you believe that and you are going to hell.
True believer: no, we don’t believe that. We believe this.
anti: no you don’t. You REALLY believe that, and I can prove it (pulls out some quote)
True believer: no, we don’t believe that. we believe this.
anti: you do TO believe that, and we don’t.

True believer. Well, how nice. We don’t believe that either. Why aren’t we friends?

anti: because you believe…THAT!

True believer: …sigh…

But we do show the good. I don’t know about other religious proselityzers but Catholics do show the good. If you trawl through the threads here you will learn much about the truth of the Catholic Church.

One must remember that it is the Truth that is important because our actions follow from what we hold to be true.

The conversions that have occured because of this website is proof of this.

 

[po18guy]

But we do show the good. I don’t know about other religious proselityzers but Catholics do show the good. If you trawl through the threads here you will learn much about the truth of the Catholic Church.

One must remember that it is the Truth that is important because our actions follow from what we hold to be true.

The conversions that have occured because of this website is proof of this.

Amen! Other faiths read about Jesus, but can only imagine actually being with Him. During a Holy Hour before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, we ARE with Christ and He is with us. There is nothing remotely similar in any other church. I can attest to miracles of healing in others while I prayed for them in His presence - supernatural occurrences that have no earthly explanation. That’s what the Catholic Church has to offer.

Never mind any disputes with Catholic doctrine, or Church history, that you may have. if you love Jesus Christ, you want to be with Him, right? Well, go and spend an hour with Him. Just sit there and let Him speak to your heart. Simply being in His presence has caused numerous conversions from many other faiths. Amen!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Out of curiosity, I’m just wondering which denominations tend to be the most hostile toward Catholicism.

Do you really feel that this is a fair question?

Consider you wording for a few minutes.

What is the intent of you question?

Here is how I see it, personally, no denomination involved, just gut feeling.

1. The word “hostile” denotes violence. I can not speak of any other denomination or other religious organizations. However, in the short space of time that I have been associated with the one I an with, feel free to read my profile, I have not once encountered, read about or be informed about any “violent” acts committed by any of my associates, past or present against the RCC. Yes, it is true we believe what our view of the RCC, as an organization, is correct. However, it is not our intent to nor our goal to conduct “antiganistic hostilities” against it. We have no animosity to RCC members individually. Our belief is that there are true Christians in every denomination and that we are all brothers in Christ. Our objection is to the role, as portrayed in scripture, of the RCC. We believe the evidence is in the prophetic word.
2. Your post in and of itself can be deemed “hostile” as it seems to be designed to promote distain to those who appear to apose the RCC views and beliefs. So to accuse others of being hostile and trying to point to the most hostile of all in and of itself is hypocritical. What did Jesus say? “Take the plank out of you own eye before pointing out the mote in your brother’s eye.”
3. The question posed does not appear to be made with love and charity in mind. I need not say more.

 

[benedictus2]

Do you really feel that this is a fair question?

Consider you wording for a few minutes.

What is the intent of you question?

Here is how I see it, personally, no denomination involved, just gut feeling.

1. The word “hostile” denotes violence. I can not speak of any other denomination or other religious organizations. However, in the short space of time that I have been associated with the one I an with, feel free to read my profile, I have not once encountered, read about or be informed about any “violent” acts committed by any of my associates, past or present against the RCC. Yes, it is true we believe what our view of the RCC, as an organization, is correct. However, it is not our intent to nor our goal to conduct “antiganistic hostilities” against it. We have no animosity to RCC members individually. Our belief is that there are true Christians in every denomination and that we are all brothers in Christ. Our objection is to the role, as portrayed in scripture, of the RCC. We believe the evidence is in the prophetic word.
2. Your post in and of itself can be deemed “hostile” as it seems to be designed to promote distain to those who appear to apose the RCC views and beliefs. So to accuse others of being hostile and trying to point to the most hostile of all in and of itself is hypocritical. What did Jesus say? “Take the plank out of you own eye before pointing out the mote in your brother’s eye.”
3. The question posed does not appear to be made with love and charity in mind. I need not say more.

I don’t think Psalm4 is talking about denominations violent to the Catholic Church. More like those who hate the Church not so much individual Catholics. Those who call the Pope the Anti Christ and the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon could be said to be hostile to the Church.

Some don’t even consider Catholics christians so you can definitely sense a hostility there.

So the question is valid. It is asking for people’s perception so each persons response will be different. Some will have encounterd this hostility and some not. Personally some protestants I know have had this veneer of respect for the Catholic Church and yet when engaged in a debate, their true feelings come out.

Also, the hostility will be found in the official teaching of the individual Churches on how they view the Catholic Church and believe me there is a lot of hostility there.

A lot of converts to Catholicism speak of losing friends from their former religion. Some say that after their conversion no one would speak to them again. The vitriol that was directed at Scott Hahn after his conversion is evidence of that. And yet if he had just moved to another protestant denomination, he would not have got such flak.

 

[po18guy]

Do you really feel that this is a fair question?

Consider you wording for a few minutes.

What is the intent of you question?

Here is how I see it, personally, no denomination involved, just gut feeling.

1. The word “hostile” denotes violence. I can not speak of any other denomination or other religious organizations. However, in the short space of time that I have been associated with the one I an with, feel free to read my profile, I have not once encountered, read about or be informed about any “violent” acts committed by any of my associates, past or present against the RCC. Yes, it is true we believe what our view of the RCC, as an organization, is correct. However, it is not our intent to nor our goal to conduct “antiganistic hostilities” against it. We have no animosity to RCC members individually. Our belief is that there are true Christians in every denomination and that we are all brothers in Christ. Our objection is to the role, as portrayed in scripture, of the RCC. We believe the evidence is in the prophetic word.

But, your portayal of the CC in scripture is 100% based on private interpretation of prophecy. Thus, it is mere opinion, not biblical fact. The bible says:

2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

1. Your post in and of itself can be deemed “hostile” as it seems to be designed to promote distain to those who appear to apose the RCC views and beliefs. So to accuse others of being hostile and trying to point to the most hostile of all in and of itself is hypocritical. What did Jesus say? “Take the plank out of you own eye before pointing out the mote in your brother’s eye.”

So, name a denomination other than the SDA which clearly and consistently identifies the CC as the “whore of babylon” and the pope (which one - there have been 266?) as the “antichrist”. The fact that popes themselves have conducted exorcisms puts the lie to that claim. A house divided cannot stand and the CC is counting down to 2,000 years.

1. The question posed does not appear to be made with love and charity in mind. I need not say more.

It reveals a love of the truth. The truth is always pastoral. For a Catholic to say that the SDA church is just fine does a disservice to the truth. The CC maintains that the SDA has truth in it, but also much that is new and non-biblical. The fact that the CC considers you a brother in Christ is an act of charity. The CC does not call the SDA “demon-lead” or “the devil’s spawn”. You clean your house and we’ll clean ours. How’s that?

And, none of this is done out of hostility. It is done out of love of God and love of the Truth, which is Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

But, your portayal of the CC in scripture is 100% based on private interpretation of prophecy. Thus, it is mere opinion, not biblical fact. The bible says:

This is a false accusation. You would be more correct to say that scripture is used of itself to interpret what it says as none of what is expounded on by the SDA is of private interpretation. As to the scriptures refering to the RCC the comparing
of the scriptures of Daniel and Revelation and using historical evidences to support those prophecies is all that is needed to back up the claims put forth.

2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

And that is why scripture must be studied and compared with scripture. To gain an understand as to what was meant or intended. Even your own CC states that scripture must be viewed in light of when it was written and for whom it was written. We accept that, and that is what is practiced.

So, name a denomination other than the SDA which clearly and consistently identifies the CC as the “whore of babylon” and the pope (which one - there have been 266?) as the “antichrist”. The fact that popes themselves have conducted exorcisms puts the lie to that claim. A house divided cannot stand and the CC is counting down to 2,000 years.

Look at history, all the early protestant denominations held the same view at one point or another. Even one of the Pope Gregory’s (I don’t remember which) stated that to desire to be called Pope was the spirit of Anti-Christ. The SDA view is nothing new, nor is it original, it’s just that the SDA view, unlike other protestant denominations, has not changed since it’s inception. Nor is it likely too.

It reveals a love of the truth. The truth is always pastoral.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt the the question “reveals a love of the truth”. How can I deny that? As I have stated before it is hard to discern charity and love in the written word on these forums.

For a Catholic to say that the SDA church is just fine does a disservice to the truth. The CC maintains that the SDA has truth in it, but also much that is new and non-biblical. The fact that the CC considers you a brother in Christ is an act of charity. The CC does not call the SDA “demon-lead” or “the devil’s spawn”. You clean your house and we’ll clean ours. How’s that?

To what extent each organization has what truth is yet to be seen. I think much of what each has to say on the point in irrelevent as some of it may not have to do with salvation at all, just a matter of symantics. However, there is also much that, perhaps, niether side understands about the other and, in many cases, refuses to accept of the other. There in lays the problem, as communication and understanding opens up vast corridors of learning. For my part, I have endeavored to learn as much as I can in the short time I have been an SDA not only concerning the SDAs, but the RCC and church history. What I have learned has not dissuaded me from the SDA view. And please don’t think that I have spent all my time on SDA doctrinal materials, I have not. I believe more of my time has been spent in scripture, books written by RCC authors and secular historians.

And, none of this is done out of hostility. It is done out of love of God and love of the Truth, which is Jesus Christ. Amen.

Again, I grant the benefit of the doubt as to motive.

 

[chrisse]

I’ll post my 2 cents worth in

I’m downunder, so the Evangelical/Born Agains are not so strong in numbers, and if they have anything to say about the RCC, no one is listening. That’s the good news.

However, from the internet I’ve come into contact with the American E/BA’s and they are, with a few exceptions, vile, full of hate and bigotry; and their arrogance and pride in their own abilities is sad to see. I never understood the criticism they received before. Now I do, and am grateful more than ever I was born in Australia.

Even though I never go into the xtian apologetics rooms on a particular chat program I like, as soon as they find out I’m RC it’s off the topic and onto the RCC. I avoid them like the plague.

Evangelical / Born Agains are definitely, in my experience, the most hostile. Actually, they scare me. They are no longer happy to just say we are not Christians - we’re apostates now . I’ve even heard them distancing themselves from traditional Protestant/Lutheran Churches.

 

[po18guy]

This is a false accusation. You would be more correct to say that scripture is used of itself to interpret what it says as none of what is expounded on by the SDA is of private interpretation. As to the scriptures refering to the RCC the comparing
of the scriptures of Daniel and Revelation and using historical evidences to support those prophecies is all that is needed to back up the claims put forth.

Maybe for those who believe in the SDA’s beliefs. The VAST majority of Christians do not believe like the SDA. Conservatively, 29,999 other Christian denominations disagree with the SDA over various doctrines. There is no way to tell which of them is correct, since none of them has the God-given authority to interpret scripture. Why is the SDA right and the rest of Christendom wrong? The Baptists think you are wrong on many things. Same with the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Anglicans, the Pentecostals, ad nauseam. Are they all a bunch of lost souls? Why do you pick the Catholic Church? Why not swing other Protestants over, since it would be easier?

And that is why scripture must be studied and compared with scripture.

Have to strongly disagree. This exact activity has produced the 30,000+ disagreeing denominations! Each of them uses the exact same bible. How can this be true, if scripture interprets itself? No one has even shown where the bible interprets itself, or how. Why has bible interpretation produced so much division?

Even your own CC states that scripture must be viewed in light of when it was written and for whom it was written. We accept that, and that is what is practiced.

It’s what the SDA has added with their own opinion of scripture that can be misleading, or flat out wrong.

Look at history, all the early protestant denominations held the same view at one point or another.

Au contraire! The reformers, for a short time, all held similar beliefs. Very soon, they split up and the splitting is occurring even as we speak. This is not God doing this! This is not truth.

Even one of the Pope Gregory’s (I don’t remember which) stated that to desire to be called Pope was the spirit of Anti-Christ. The SDA view is nothing new, nor is it original, it’s just that the SDA view, unlike other protestant denominations, has not changed since it’s inception. Nor is it likely too.

First: Where did any pope say anything about the title (meaning papa) being of the antichrist. In one sense, even if this was said, it was true. ONLY in the fact that for a man to DESIRE the name would serve the ego. Methinks you have fallen prey to A-C info. Compared to the history of Christianity, the SDA is actually quite new (1844), and introduced many new concepts - most stemming from the error of sola scriptura. BTW, where does the bible teach sola scriptura? It does not. Paul said to maintain both the oral Apostolic teaching tradition and the letters. The RCC and Orthodox Churches have done that. The SDA has discarded the oral teaching traditions of Paul, and relies solely on written words that, like forum posts, can be misinterpreted.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt the the question “reveals a love of the truth”. How can I deny that? As I have stated before it is hard to discern charity and love in the written word on these forums.

Exactly right. That is because this forum is in “sola scriptura” format. There is no voice, no vocal inflection, no nuances of speech - just stark printed words that can be misinterpreted.

For my part, I have endeavored to learn as much as I can in the short time I have been an SDA not only concerning the SDAs, but the RCC and church history. What I have learned has not dissuaded me from the SDA view. And please don’t think that I have spent all my time on SDA doctrinal materials, I have not. I believe more of my time has been spent in scripture, books written by RCC authors and secular historians.

If you have a love of the truth, and I know you do, why not read the conversion stories of those who have come to the CC? Their stories would mean much more, since their reasoning is given. I do not expect your opinion to be swayed -so virulent is the SDA opposition to the CC, but studying the reason of others is always helpful.

Again, I grant the benefit of the doubt as to motive.

Thank you. Please consider: A lie will not stand for 1,975 years. Christ founded one Church and placed the Apostles in charge. The gates of hell did not and never will prevail over it. That church still exists and will for as long as time lasts. I chose that church and I am home. I have a responsibility before God to lead others to His revealed Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ll post my 2 cents worth in

I’m downunder, so the Evangelical/Born Agains are not so strong in numbers, and if they have anything to say about the RCC, no one is listening. That’s the good news.

However, from the internet I’ve come into contact with the American E/BA’s and they are, with a few exceptions, vile, full of hate and bigotry; and their arrogance and pride in their own abilities is sad to see. I never understood the criticism they received before. Now I do, and am grateful more than ever I was born in Australia.

Even though I never go into the xtian apologetics rooms on a particular chat program I like, as soon as they find out I’m RC it’s off the topic and onto the RCC. I avoid them like the plague.

Evangelical / Born Agains are definitely, in my experience, the most hostile. Actually, they scare me. They are no longer happy to just say we are not Christians - we’re apostates now . I’ve even heard them distancing themselves from traditional Protestant/Lutheran Churches.

Hello fellow friend from down under Good to see another one from Melbourne on this thread.

 

[With_Questions]

Evangelical / Born Agains are definitely, in my experience, the most hostile. Actually, they scare me. They are no longer happy to just say we are not Christians - we’re apostates now . I’ve even heard them distancing themselves from traditional Protestant/Lutheran Churches.

Oh really??

I am an Evanglical / Born Again.

You know, one characteristic of a bigoted person is to take characteristics of a few and to ascribe them to the whole group.

Protestants do not have a corner on bigoted people.

 

[dianaiad]

Maybe the protesters were afraid of the Opus Dei thugs at the Cathedral? Picketing of the LDS is because of the politics that have been injected into a matter of morality.

Since you are on a Catholic forum, I have a responsibility to defend the truth of the CC’s teachings

Actually, this is the “Non-Catholic religions” forum, if you are going to get picky about it…

Even so, I see your point about defending your faith, of course. You might wait until those teachings are actually attacked, though. I haven’t ever done that. I didn’t come in here to attack your faith, but to defend mine. Not to proselyte, but to set the record straight about what it is we actually DO believe. I mean, if one is going to be criticized, it’s only fair to be criticized for that which exists, not for that which your enemies only wish exists.

. In the Christian world, the Catholic Church is the “go to” place for 100% of God’s revealed truth. I know you’ll disagree, but other faiths gain weak Catholics, while the Catholic Church gains the most fervent seekers of God from other churches. The examples are many and well known. Some are posting on this thread.

BTW, interesting segue into the travails of the LDS! I still vote that the SDA is the most hostile. The LDS believe that they are a restoration church. The SDA believe they are in mortal combat with Evil, Inc. I’ll grant you that it is a big difference.

I would dismiss you as a complete hypocrite if you felt any other way than that the Catholic church is the ‘go to’ place–if you are a Catholic. I would hope that you felt that way–until you found something better, that is, and then I hope you would feel that way about your new faith. I feel the same way about my own, did you know that?

As to the segue? Hey; I’m a Mormon. I’m extremely familiar with anti-activity in regards TO Mormons, so that’s where I get my examples from. However, anti’s do not change their methods according to the targets they aim at. The stuff they use on Mormons they also use on Catholics, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, Scientologists (well, there IS that ‘snake in the mailbox’ thing to worry about with them)…pick a religion and there will be anti-publications about it. The problem as I see it is that most of these people give as good as they get, ‘anti’ wise. From where I sit, it looks very much like a war, a feud–or at the very least a nasty political campaign complete with intimidation and threats.

 

[dianaiad]

The replacement has to be more than just higher ground because as you say once the houses are gone they need to move somewhere else.

Well, it WAS just supposed to be a short parable, and ‘higher ground’ was supposed to imply precisely that; shelter and a new place to live. However, if you insist upon having it spelled out, OK…“higher ground” included a bunch of lovely two story four bedroom homes with pools overlooking the ocean, safe from all flooding (and landslides and hurricanes and all other nasty stuff that the folks down below were in danger of getting killed by)

But thisis where you are wrong. The lanter is always kept up along with with a bull horn. There is no burning going on. All we are saying is that the house is unstable. We don’t hack them down because in spite of them being in unstable and unsafe houses, it is the only house they know. The most we are doing is tell them the structural defect so that they will vacate the dwelling themselves.

My point, sir, is that if the only thing you do is yell about how unstable the other house is, you won’t have time to talk about how strong and good YOURS is.

As I’ve said above, no fire was set. History bears this out. The only thing the Catholic Church can do is to woo them back. You cannot equate showing people that their belief is wrong to burning their beliefs. And if they found that their beliefs are indeed wrong, the alternative, the Truth of the Catholic Faith is always there for them to embrace. This has been borne out by nurmerous rabidly anti-Catholics who have found the joy of coming home.

whoa there. I didn’t specifically accuse the Catholic church of this (though I’ve met one or two Catholic “anti’s”, the vast majority of anti’s seem to come from evangelical protestant sources). In fact, Catholics are usually on the receiving end of such activity—as you allude to when you talk about anti Catholics. What methods were THEY using?

And that is why aside from telling them that their tents are shabby we also tell them about the Castle. How well structured and beautiful it is. We show them its pictures. We show them a photo album of the family who are eagerly waiting for the time when they will come home.

That’s a pretty telling statement; 'aside from telling them that their tents are shabby, we also tell them about the Castle?" That’s my point; you have the order wrong. You SHOULD be talking about the Castle only. Trust me, the folks in the tents know precisely what those tents are. If they stay there, it’s because they don’t know anything better. So–just show them the castle. They can do their own comparing.

That is why we explain the faith so that they wlll know that the lies they have been told about the castle and their family is precisely that: a lie. And that the truth is so much more glorious than they can ever imagine.

Well, y’see, let’s not forget that this is a parable; a metaphor–and remember also that those in the tents actually think that they are the ones living in the castle, and you are in the lesser dwelling. Defending the beauty of your own home is wonderful; your lights should shine.

But you know what happens when the dwellers in one ‘castle’ start telling the dwellers of another that theirs in inferior? Nothing good.

 

[dianaiad]

But we do show the good. I don’t know about other religious proselityzers but Catholics do show the good. If you trawl through the threads here you will learn much about the truth of the Catholic Church.

Actually, what I see is attacks upon my own faith and upon yours, and upon others. I see Catholics (and others) defending their own beliefs against people who insult them for beliefs they don’t actually hold.

One must remember that it is the Truth that is important because our actions follow from what we hold to be true.

The conversions that have occured because of this website is proof of this.

I think…it would be a problem for you to claim that conversion and loss rates are proof of truth. In fact, you’d better hope like anything that they are not!