Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Michael Medved has written about the ten lies including this subject, read up, because we do know a lot about these people.Native American are not a Race.
But as you say, y-their lot was vastly improved in the next generations when things like "tens of millions of Native Americans died from disease before they ever had contact with the "white" people."Draggingthem into the 21st century with us has given their ancestors this wonderful opportunity in this Age.I have done some research into these people of the New World, and found manyt things including the fact that they were not really as diverse as your misconception of them may be.There were only 12 "tribes" in the sense of comparing what we found here, in the New World, to the ancient belief that all nations, like the Jews, stem from a dozen different social types of people in every case.I believe that a case can be made that the bible is reporting this for us as a very important behavioral insight These twelve Nations support that theory, (tribes are divisions of the Nation, and within each Indian Nation, as many as 120 seoarate villages or tribes can be found).This Hypothesis that peoples originate in such a way as the twelve Tribes of Romans did, the Jews, or the twelve present Tribes in Somali was offered an empirical scientific experimental opportunity when Columbus came to the New World.
That these Natives indeed were derived and differentiated into a neat dozen seems to scientifically confirm my observation.Nevrtheless, their culture over all on the East Coast in particular was to organize raiding parties, and they would not stop when the white man came.

You are wise to reserve your opinion on such a definition as the churches would teach about God.
What you said so directly makes the kind of common sense that should detour anyone from accepting the present idealization of the God of the Old Testament.But pure Logic ought clue all readers of the New Testament to understand the Father of Christ to necessarily be the force behind this ever unfolding Reality when Jesus specifically tells us that he is The Truth and the Way men need seek the father, and the Life which Reality offers us in spite of the temptation to invent Fantasy Worlds.TRINITY:
Our Lord is (1) Truth, in whose (2) Spirit of mind we must commit our lives, in order to face the (3) Father of all Nature, The Almighty, the evermore unfolding Reality, within which we all exist.

I'd enjoy a chance to chase this stuff down, but it's already so far off topic that even this message is one too many.

So I guess you too should be classified as a Liberal Christian or Liberal Protestant, take your pick, since you reject major portions of what Reformation Protestantism regards as foundational Biblical truth.Although I do regard myself as a Bible-believing Protestant who adheres to the Solas of the Reformation, my point here isn't so much to argue FOR this particular understanding (it's inevitable that I would to some extent of course) but more to try to get it defined clearly so that we can all know what I mean when I talk about the conflicts between Romanism and Protestantism. This is difficult because of all the confused ideas that have been promoted in the name of Christianity, such as jar's ideas, Liberal Christianity, Unitarianism which denies the Deity of Christ, the "Jesus loves you, accept him into your heart" formula and all that. But such clarification of terms and definitions is still my main aim.As No Nukes has pointed out, there is another topic being raised which is not on-topic here. Perhaps it could be proposed for a separate discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As a Protestant I am also a Bible believer, but I understand that while GOD wrote the Universe, man wrote the books of the Bible and man decided what would be included in any given Canon. When there is a conflict I tend to go with what GOD wrote instead of what man wrote.

Hi Jar,I dont' care to dispute whether anyone who believes themselves Protestant based upon their own personal reading of the Bible is Protestant, and I don't think Faith should, either. Doesn't seem like it's relevant to this thread's topic.Grace through faith as foundational is a fact of Protestant history, and it remains a foundational principle of most Protestant religions today, including Episcopalianism according to this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Sola Fide: The concluding sentence repeats your own argument about works but makes clear that acceptance of this view is far from universal. Though some realms of Protestantism do embrace some aspect of grace through works, Faith seems correct in pointing out that grace through faith is a defining characteristic.--Percy

Yes, thank you. I have no doubt that a majority of the denominations in that supposed 30,000 number people keep putting up adhere to this doctrine. Jar didn't spell this out, merely described his denomination and insisted that it's a "Protestant" denomination, but I did spell out the history for you a few posts back, which comes down to what are called "liberal" corruptions of the Biblical gospel that derive ultimately from the Enlightenment emphasis on Reason as the arbiter of all knowledge, which specifically denies the supernatural elements such as the virgin birth and the claim that Jesus Christ is God Himself in human flesh.Jar's beliefs are in this tradition along with the big name American Founders (though the nation was majority Biblical Christian at the time as were many of the others involved in the founding). Jefferson for instance "edited" the Bible to show what his own reason was able to accept, and he kept a lot of the moral teachings but threw out all the supernatural elements. John Adams and his wife Abigail were Unitarians who denied that Jesus was God, as a matter of fact ridiculing the idea of the Trinity which enshrines His Deity, although they too promoted what they thought of as Christian morality, Adams famously saying that the Constitution was written "for a moral and religious people" being "wholly inadequate for the government of any other" if I'm remembering his phrasing rightly. Some Christians have taken that to be proof that he was a Christian. But as with the other four big name Founders it can be shown from his letters that he was not because he denied essentials of Christian doctrine.I'm coming back to this because I'd really really like to keep these issues CLEAR if at all possible. Thank you for affirming that Sola Fide IS Reformation Protestantism.

Yes, the above was all directed away from the fact that Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries started with the Great Schism in 1054AD which divided the singukar Universal Christianity over all the known world that had appeared when the Holy Comfroter came in 54AD in the form of the written Gospel:Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (that was Roman Culture, including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands (those monks living in moneyless monastic environments); and they, (the saints/apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD, i.e., those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).All that we have seen since that time, following the Renaissance of the seven headed beast of the old world Roman and Greek culture has pertained to the spirit being oured out through the sons and daughters of those monks of the Monastic Age:Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

I can refer to jar as "liberal Protestant" if I have to but just about everything he says is contrary to the teachings of the Protestant Reformation and I find it absurd that I should have to accept his calling himself a Protestant when he denies so much of what makes a Protestant a Protestant. All that does is muddy up the discussion which I'm working so hard to keep clear. Thank you.And that quote does demonstrate a trend among Anglicans especially but also other Protestant denominations, back to the faith-plus-works salvation formula and other Romanisms that the Protestant Reformation was all about overthrowing.

It's not so much Grace through works since forgiveness is totally up to GOD's mercy at the time of judgement as it is that we are charged to do works.And yes, the position is far from universal. I would not say that anyone who holds a differing position to mine but that was a member of some recognized Chapter of Club Christian was not a Christian or that someone who was a member of some Protestant Chapter of Club Christian was not a Protestant.The 39 Articles are also really interesting and were the subject of many arguments long long ago when the boarders gathered during the evening outside on the porch when the weather was good or inside waiting for a turn on the ping-pong table. The goal of course was to differentiate the Anglican form of Protestantism from Lutheran or Calvinist Protestantism as much as to differentiate Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. They were made law at times in England but were always controversial withing the CoE.But we are not living in the 16^th. Century anymore.My point in this thread though is to try to point out that there are not all that many differences in beliefs or behavior down through the centuries between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Both have seen beliefs evolve, reinterpretations of Dogma and Doctrine; both have perpetrated truly horrendous acts; both have at times behaved badly. If I am to be honest with myself I must admit that my faith has not been lily white, does not hold some TRUTH denied to the other.

OK, since I'm trying to be as clear as possible here, this has to be identified as contrary to the principles of the Protestant Reformation which put the Biblical revelation above all other sources of knowledge about God, and teaches that the Bible is God's Word, meaning its writers were inspired by God so that it contains His truth and nothing but His truth.Of course it was "written by men" in the literal sense that men took pen to paper and wrote it, but it was NOT "written by men" in the sense jar means it because it is regarded by Bible believers as being God's revelation to us THROUGH the men who physically wrote it. This is just another way jar shows himself to be no Protestant and no Christian.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet he IS a Protestant Christian.LOLGet used to it.

Both Biblical Protestants and Roman Catholics back a few centuries would adamantly have disagreed with you, and those who remain purists in those camps continue to disagree with you. There are HUGE differences. Catholicism declared the beliefs of Protestantism to be "accursed," that's what all those anathemas are about, and the Reformers, along with many others who form a long list I linked somewhere in this thread a while back, recognized the papacy as so far from Christian it is the Antichrist as defined by the Bible.The fact that all this history and the doctrinal distinctions between the two are being muddied up these days as Rome tries to sound conciliatory to the "separated brethren" and Protestants are forgetting our heritage and drifting back into the arms of the Antichrist, doesn't change the fact that IN THEIR ESSENCE the two systems are RADICALLY at odds with each other. Nonsense, The beliefs and dogmas of Protestantism have been CORRUPTED, which is what you think of as evolving because you think your liberal denials of the Biblical revelation are progress, but the foundational beliefs of Protestantism in the written revelation of God, the Bible, are still preserved alive and well and uncorrupted among the orthodox Bible believing churches. I'm not going to deny that Protestants as individuals and even occasionally officially through bad teaching have misbehaved and done bad things, but as I am trying to talk about these things on this thread I am not talking about individuals or deviations from good doctrine or the occasional official error -- such as the Salem Witch Trials which killed about nineteen and were finally stopped by the clergy themselves, or that the (mostly liberal) German Lutherans committed when they officially sided with Hitler.What I'm trying to talk about is INSTITUTIONALLY and OFFICIALLY promoted enormities of cruelty and murder such as those perpetrated by the Roman Church in the Inquisition, for which they have NEVER apologized nor repented but it all remains as official doctrine, as a "right" to kill "heretics" as defined by them. Their "apologies" are a fraud, read the wording. The Pope at one point "apologized" for what SOME CATHOLIC BELIEVERS did. But it was NOT what Catholic believers did -- most Catholics have no clue about any of this stuff -- it was what the PAPACY AND ITS ARMY AND ITS ORDERS SUCH AS THE JESUITS did IN THE NAME OF THE POPE AND THE ROMAN RELIGION.I put up a link somewhere back there to a report on what Roman Priests did as promoters and even actual hands-on murderers of the Orthodox Serbs by the Catholic Croatians simply because they were Orthodox and not Catholic.Here's a link to a very scholarly article that carefully considers the various estimations of the numbers murdered by Rome in its various persecutions, Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later by David A Plaisted. He doesn't conclude with a particular number but he does conclude that the highest estimates have good evidence behind them. I hope the link works:http://www.noiseofthunder.com/...%20protestants%20killed.pdfAlso he mentions the Thirty Years War which somebody up thread somewhere tried to impute to Protestantism or at least equally to both Protestantism and Romanism. He says what many other sources say, that it was fomented by the Jesuits, who are responsible for most of the conflicts of that nature. This is part of the historical picture that I've been learning about recently and want to collect evidence for.And again, this has nothing to do with the average Catholic who isn't any more of a sinner than the average Protestant and for the most part doesn't know a thing about any of this as I also didn't until quite recently.

I do like the use of capitals Faith - I like the emphasis and the conviction it shows.But I thought I'd examine this particular use of capitals, because I had a recollection it was wrong: Did you catch this story (it was a few years ago, but your use of the capitalised "NEVER" suggested to me that you'd fully researched this): Pope says sorry for sins of church | World news | The Guardian(I've just remembered that we don't debate by link on EVC, so just to clarify, this is a story where Pope John Paul II apologised for the inquisition and a bunch of other attrocities committed by the RC church over the years. So your use of NEVER (particularly in its emphasised and capitalised form), appears incorrect).Edited by vimesey, : Remembered to follow guidelines

I believe I went on to say that they NEVER apologized because their "apologies" are a fraud. This is because they never acknowledge that it was the PAPACY itself, or the Jesuit order, that ordered the persecutions and murders and they blame it on some overzealous Catholic believers instead. That's a lying misrepresentation of the true history. That article was hard for me to read for some reason, but as I skimmed through it I didn't find a direct quote of the Pope. Perhaps you could dig one up so we can see just exactly what his "apology" amounted to? Or if you don't perhaps I can eventually find it.Meanwhile here are some quotes about the role of the Jesuits in history, a scary bunch of men who even scared the Popes and murdered some of them although their main mission was to serve the papacy. I'm only copying out quotes of a few well known men on the subject but the link has a very long list of quotes: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.