Why do Protestants rewrite history to fit there own views?

[Mannyfit75]

This thread is not meant to offend any Non-Catholic Christians, but for those who view are so Anti-Catholic that they rewrite history of Christianity which contains many errors. Some claimed that the Papacy didn’t start until 500 A.D, or that the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine (another false claim).

Any well know Catholic Apologist and Historians that the Catholic Church is the historical Church that Jesus Christ founded. It this Church, it trace its history through Apostolic Succession.

Why oh why do Anti-Catholic Protestant write lies about the Catholic Church? Lying is a sin, and I wonder if the devil is in their heart than God’s? Surely God would not condone such historical lies.

 

[cheddarsox]

This thread is not meant to offend any Non-Catholic Christians, but for those who view are so Anti-Catholic that they rewrite history of Christianity which contains many errors. Some claimed that the Papacy didn’t start until 500 A.D, or that the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine (another false claim).

Any well know Catholic Apologist and Historians that the Catholic Church is the historical Church that Jesus Christ founded. It this Church, it trace its history through Apostolic Succession.

Why oh why do Anti-Catholic Protestant write lies about the Catholic Church? Lying is a sin, and I wonder if the devil is in their heart than God’s? Surely God would not condone such historical lies.

Some probably do it out of ignorance, they repeat what they have been taught. Some may do it out of malice to prove that Catholicism isn’t what it claims to be, and some do it out of an honest belief, after looking at the facts, that is genuinely how they interpret them.

There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, everyone slants things a bit according to their experience and their understanding of how the universe operates.

I regularly see people of all religions misrepresent other religious beliefs. I hope that it is more often out of ignorance than malice, but it happens all the time. It is hard to see the world through someone else’s eyes, after all.

Try not to assume that it is out of the worst possible reasons. Gently offer facts and move on. I know that in any discussion I am “listening in” on, I am more apt to take the word of the calm person, who offers information and sources, than the one who is making strange accusations.

People misrepresent my faith often, so I know how you feel. They seem to like to try making me look dumb or evil to other people. If you have a strong faith, you will not be swayed or dismayed by other people’s lack of understanding, and the challenges will help you come to know your faith better as you defend it.

cheddar

 

[Atreyu]

Some probably do it out of ignorance, they repeat what they have been taught. Some may do it out of malice to prove that Catholicism isn’t what it claims to be, and some do it out of an honest belief, after looking at the facts, that is genuinely how they interpret them.

There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, everyone slants things a bit according to their experience and their understanding of how the universe operates.

I regularly see people of all religions misrepresent other religious beliefs. I hope that it is more often out of ignorance than malice, but it happens all the time. It is hard to see the world through someone else’s eyes, after all.

Try not to assume that it is out of the worst possible reasons. Gently offer facts and move on. I know that in any discussion I am “listening in” on, I am more apt to take the word of the calm person, who offers information and sources, than the one who is making strange accusations.

People misrepresent my faith often, so I know how you feel. They seem to like to try making me look dumb or evil to other people. If you have a strong faith, you will not be swayed or dismayed by other people’s lack of understanding, and the challenges will help you come to know your faith better as you defend it.

cheddar

Great post, Cheddar

 

[lak611]

This thread is not meant to offend any Non-Catholic Christians, but for those who view are so Anti-Catholic that they rewrite history of Christianity which contains many errors. Some claimed that the Papacy didn’t start until 500 A.D, or that the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine (another false claim).

Any well know Catholic Apologist and Historians that the Catholic Church is the historical Church that Jesus Christ founded. It this Church, it trace its history through Apostolic Succession.

Why oh why do Anti-Catholic Protestant write lies about the Catholic Church? Lying is a sin, and I wonder if the devil is in their heart than God’s? Surely God would not condone such historical lies.

I don’t think this represents the majority of Protestants, only a few. I have family members and friends who are Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian. None of my family/friends have ever made any false claims about the Catholic Church or said anything that was hateful. Most of my family and friends, be they Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian, belong to the faith they profess because that was how they were brought up. The only exception is a man who married one of my cousins. He had no religion and had never been baptized. After he was married ten years and had a son, who was studying for his First Communion, he surprised everyone in the family by joining RCIA. Nobody ever said anything to him about religion, he decided on his own. Since then, he has become active in his parish, and his son has also been confirmed.

 

[Loginus]

Eh, it happens in all religions and alot more often than you think. Alot of times its the assimiliation or local customs or beliefs or that of a current society. Usually those partaking have no idea something has been changed and give it enough time and even their history/religious texts will reflect said changes.

 

[Evan]

There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, everyone slants things a bit according to their experience and their understanding of how the universe operates.

Not true. But a popular misconception. Honest histories and unbiased opinions can be given. We, being human, can see beyond our own interests. Relativism is not an option when witnessing to the truth.

A slant is different than a bias. You may slant how you express yourself but you can still present the truth in an unbiased manner.

 

[Loginus]

Not true. But a popular misconception. Honest histories and unbiased opinions can be given. We, being human, can see beyond our own interests. Relativism is not an option when witnessing to the truth.

A slant is different than a bias. You may slant how you express yourself but you can still present the truth in an unbiased manner.

I agree as long as we are merely looking at computer generated data or numbers. When it comes to wording or vocalizing however, ppl tend to load their words with a personal meaning squing the truth to give it a slant.

 

[David_Paul]

The most egregious disseminator of incorrect information was the first President of Cornell University–Andrew Dickson White. The errors in his book History of the Warfare of Science With Theology are still being repeated today. I learned many of them in public school myself (medieval Christians believed the world was flat, the “dark ages” were not only dark but began with the fall of Rome and ended in the late 15th century etc).

 

[cheddarsox]

Not true. But a popular misconception. Honest histories and unbiased opinions can be given. We, being human, can see beyond our own interests. Relativism is not an option when witnessing to the truth.

A slant is different than a bias. You may slant how you express yourself but you can still present the truth in an unbiased manner.

I disagree, we are not even capable of seeing things in an unbiased manner. Ten people can look at the same thing and see something different, our brains interpret all data according to what it has been taught.

If we cannot see unbiasedly, it is impossible for us to report unbiasedly.

Show 5 people a piece of graph paper, two will say…it’s graph paper, one will say it’s blue lines, one will say it’s white squares, the fifth will have yet another interpretation. They are all telling the truth, the facts…as they see them.

cheddar

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t think this represents the majority of Protestants, only a few. I have family members and friends who are Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian. None of my family/friends have ever made any false claims about the Catholic Church or said anything that was hateful. Most of my family and friends, be they Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian, belong to the faith they profess because that was how they were brought up. The only exception is a man who married one of my cousins. He had no religion and had never been baptized. After he was married ten years and had a son, who was studying for his First Communion, he surprised everyone in the family by joining RCIA. Nobody ever said anything to him about religion, he decided on his own. Since then, he has become active in his parish, and his son has also been confirmed.

Why do you think I write, “This thread is not meant to offend any Non-Catholic Christians, but for those **who view **are so Anti-Catholic that they rewrite history of Christianity which contains many errors.”

I know not all Protestants held these views, but there those minority that would make false history, and say that Catholicism is Pagan in origin, which is false.

 

[RCCDefender]

I disagree, we are not even capable of seeing things in an unbiased manner. Ten people can look at the same thing and see something different, our brains interpret all data according to what it has been taught.

If we cannot see unbiasedly, it is impossible for us to report unbiasedly.

Show 5 people a piece of graph paper, two will say…it’s graph paper, one will say it’s blue lines, one will say it’s white squares, the fifth will have yet another interpretation. They are all telling the truth, the facts…as they see them.

cheddar

Evan, I agree with cheddar. Actually I had a book that had a great example. Hopefully I can reproduce it accurately here.

Take this sentence:

I never said you stole the money.

Tell me how many different ways there are to interpret that.

I’ll be back to see what you think…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Evan, I agree with cheddar. Actually I had a book that had a great example. Hopefully I can reproduce it accurately here.

Take this sentence:

I never said you stole the money.

Tell me how many different ways there are to interpret that.

I’ll be back to see what you think…

Hmmm…

I never said you stole the money.

Does this mean he stole something else?

Does this mean he never stole anything?

Does this mean he thinks he stole the money but can’t prove it so he doesn’t want to get a slander suit placed again himself?

Does this mean he thought he stole the money but he never said it out of politeness?

Does this mean he never even thought about the person stealing the money in the first place?

Does this mean he thinks someone else stole the money?

Does this mean that he thinks the money was never around to be stolen in the first place?

Does this mean he thinks he borrowed the money?

Does this mean he thinks the person took a loan from the bank?

Does this mean he applied credit to his credit card?

Does this mean he thinks he took the money but was intending to pay him back?

Does this mean that he thinks it’s not stealing since the person was rich and was already stealing from the poor?

Does this mean he doesn’t think it’s stealing when someone takes money from someone else?

Does this mean he thinks he wrote a check?

Does this mean he thinks he wrote an IOU?

Does this mean he thinks he gave the money to charity?

Yes. There are many ways that that this sentence could be taken. And this is only scratching the surface.

 

[RCCDefender]

Exactly!!! And they say there’s only one way to interpret the Bible because it’s right there in black and white (and sometimes red)!

Guess that’s why Jesus left us an authority we can count on, otherwise we’d end up with thousands of interpretations. (Oh, wait. Christians who don’t acknowledge that authority have ended up with thousands of interpretations!)

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Exactly!!! And they say there’s only one way to interpret the Bible because it’s right there in black and white (and sometimes red)!

Guess that’s why Jesus left us an authority we can count on, otherwise we’d end up with thousands of interpretations. (Oh, wait. Christians who don’t acknowledge that authority have ended up with thousands of interpretations!)

 

[exoflare]

Evan, I agree with cheddar. Actually I had a book that had a great example. Hopefully I can reproduce it accurately here.

Take this sentence:

I never said you stole the money.

Tell me how many different ways there are to interpret that.

I’ll be back to see what you think…

This is interesting! I hope you come back to it later on.

 

[Veritas41]

In the Protestant circles I used to be in, it was more common for Protestants to just ignore history than rewrite it, although they did have some historical facts wrong, which I think was mostly out of ignorance than malice.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

This thread is not meant to offend any Non-Catholic Christians, but for those who view are so Anti-Catholic that they rewrite history of Christianity which contains many errors. Some claimed that the Papacy didn’t start until 500 A.D, or that the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine (another false claim).

Any well know Catholic Apologist and Historians that the Catholic Church is the historical Church that Jesus Christ founded. It this Church, it trace its history through Apostolic Succession.

Why oh why do Anti-Catholic Protestant write lies about the Catholic Church? Lying is a sin, and I wonder if the devil is in their heart than God’s? Surely God would not condone such historical lies.

Because they cant seem to attack our faith succesfully, they try to attack our secular knowledge.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hmmm…

I never said you stole the money.

IOW -​

• Someone else did say it
• I sometimes, or once, said it
• I never said it - I thought, or wrote, or gossiped about it though (or did a combination of these things)
  Every word could be stressed, apart from “the” (possibly) - in several combinations ##

Does this mean he stole something else?

Does this mean he never stole anything?

Does this mean he thinks he stole the money but can’t prove it so he doesn’t want to get a slander suit placed again himself?

Does this mean he thought he stole the money but he never said it out of politeness?

Does this mean he never even thought about the person stealing the money in the first place?

Does this mean he thinks someone else stole the money?

Does this mean that he thinks the money was never around to be stolen in the first place?

Does this mean he thinks he borrowed the money?

Does this mean he thinks the person took a loan from the bank?

Does this mean he applied credit to his credit card?

Does this mean he thinks he took the money but was intending to pay him back?

Does this mean that he thinks it’s not stealing since the person was rich and was already stealing from the poor?

Does this mean he doesn’t think it’s stealing when someone takes money from someone else?

Does this mean he thinks he wrote a check?

Does this mean he thinks he wrote an IOU?

Does this mean he thinks he gave the money to charity?

Yes. There are many ways that that this sentence could be taken. And this is only scratching the surface.

 

[Verita]

Not true. But a popular misconception. Honest histories and unbiased opinions can be given. We, being human, can see beyond our own interests. Relativism is not an option when witnessing to the truth.

A slant is different than a bias. You may slant how you express yourself but you can still present the truth in an unbiased manner.

I fully agree with you. The problem is wording. A bias, by definition, doesn’t have to be intentional. It can simply mean a perspective. We are uncapable of getting past our perspectives, which can be very different that other people’s. As previously demonstrated, we all see things in different ways. However, we are certainly capable of leaving behind intentional prejudice and bias. As you aptly put it, we can see beyond our own interests. After all, that’s what Saints do.

 

[Steadfast]

The reason some Protestants do this is the same reason some Catholics do it:

It’s easier to scan the data for damning “evidence” and crow about it than it is to be just with the record and accept nuance and context as essential parts.