Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

I would like to officially state that I will not be defending the past actions that were taken by the Catholic Church. I find much of their history very brutal, although I see it as an attempt to control power, which was done by many different groups at all times throughout history. Also, I would like to point out that we are talking about a much more barbaric time. Executions were witnessed by the masses, people were put to death for many offenses. Not to say it was right, but there is that whole thing about hindsight being 20/20. Okay, so this brings up the points I wanted to make from the Council of Trent. I believe your complaint about the church in this instance is that they declared Protestant beliefs anathema? Well, it is important to think about this "curse" in context. When the church declares someone anathema, this is actually a ritual excommunication. They are not officially damning the Protestants to Hell, as only God has that ability. However, according to Catholics (especially at that time), only Catholics are getting into Heaven, so in this belief structure those who are excommunicated would not get into Heaven.What I would like to ask is, "Do you think that Catholics are going to Hell?" The reason I ask is, if you do, is it because they are not Christian?If your answer to that question is "Yes", then you are doing a similar thing as them and declaring them anathema, or excommunicated from your faith which they do not believe.Why are Protestants angry about being forcefully excommunicated from a religion that they do not wish to be part of? According to your beliefs, Catholics do not have the authority to damn you to Hell, so their anathema is pointless. Just as your thoughts that they are going to Hell are pointless to them. These groups are arguing over some very silly things that should not be argued. You speak as if you are guaranteed to be right. I understand that you have faith, but no one knows for sure. Both of your religions feel that you are the correct one. You claim to be true followers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Catholics claim to have an unbroken chain of papacy from Peter as the rock of the church onward. I get it....you both cannot be right. But how is fighting with one another (which has happened since the reformation from both sides) in any way, shape or form following the gospel of Jesus Christ.If you want to claim your group is right because they follow the gospel of Jesus, shouldn't those who practice it follow all of this gospel? Instead, you link me to information from Ian Paisley, who suggested burning down catholic homes and churches in Ireland (seems to skip the teaching of turn the other cheek, which is directly from the gospels of Jesus). I am sorry, but I would not trust information from such a hate-filled man without researching every single bit of counter information.Likewise, the Catholic claim of direct lineage from Peter is not a guarantee. The records from the time period directly following when Christ supposedly lived are not perfect, who knows what happened. Who would blindly trust the conventional history without research? Remember, the conventional histories used to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas. Oops. However, I think that you are completely off the mark when you state that the Catholic Church is out to kill Protestants, and begin a new inquisition. First, the numbers in Catholic Churches are declining just as fast as many other faiths. All one need to do is Google, "Declining Catholic Numbers" to find many articles about how quickly people are leaving the faith, like myself. Catholics do want Protestants to "return to the fold", because according to their doctrine of faith one is only saved by being Catholic. The plan they have is not to be forceful as they were in the past, but rather to continually offer a chance for Protestants to reform, similar to how Protestants would want Catholics to give up their faith and join the Protestant faith.I would love to see some of this evidence for a Catholic waged war that you feel is ongoing. From all that I have read, it seems the Catholic Church has learned the error of its ways, and would like to try a more diplomatic approach to make you rescind your beliefs. If they have faith they are right, why is this the wrong thing for them to do? Would you not do the same thing to a Catholic friend that you had faith would not be saved due to his erroneous faith?

This is a question I have always had for Protestants and perhaps you can finally help me.What is wrong with the idea of Faith plus Works? (which you are correct, is the Catholic view)
How is the concept of believing, but also showing that belief by living your life in a Christ-like manner, i.e., giving to the poor, feeding those who need it, treating people with respect, etc..., considered a bad thing? I find that of my Catholic traits I still have, the last one I want to lose is my willingness to get out and show love and support for my fellow humans. Creating a better world at the same time. Why is it that Protestants do not want their congregations to show the same love they show to Christ to the rest of the World?

Right, I was mainly asking for his point of view. Especially considering that one of his main arguments against Catholicism is the Council of Trent, which included canons specifically against Protestant beliefs of that time, one of which was:
"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining of the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."So, it is excommunicating the protestants for believing they do not need to do works. Obviously this was before Protestantism fractured in smaller sub-groups so it only applies then. But as the Council of Trent is one of Faith's main points, I thought it important to bring up.

My fault, I shall correct that in all future posts. Yeah, that is the sentiment I meant to portray with that comment. Live the Gospel, if you will, to show that you are a follower of Christ. The other way sounds far too close to the old practice of indulgences that the Catholics used.

Right, so it is possible in Protestantism to be saved without performing any works of charity, love, or compassion? If it is not, then I do not see the point in removing them from the reuqirements for salvation. If we are still required to live a christlike life, why is this loophole allowed to exist? I would not agree with this statement. If a God exists, it was he/she/it that permitted our spirit to even have an opportunity to work toward salvation. And it is he/she/it that will allow that salvation. One still requires the faith that you speak of and I am not in agreement that somebody must boast because they do good works. I have watched many people do good works without even needing a thank you for doing so. In fact, as far as I was taught in Catholic Sunday School growing up, good works should be done for no praise, no thanks and no expectations of reward, even salvation (which is still determined by god). Well, yes and no. The Catholic faith, similar to the Protestants, says that all of our sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Sure, we should confess them when it is possible because that is admitting before the priest and God that you are not perfect, you are not Jesus, but you try your hardest to be and you are willing to admit when you are wrong.I find this issue Martin Luther had to be something I could see coming out of either main branch of Christianity. The stakes in this game of life are absolutely enormous when you look at it through the lens of religion. We are talking about everlasting life, who would want to f*** that up? Luther was going above and beyond what is actually called for when it comes to confession because he was extremely frightened of not achieving this ridiculously amazing prize that was put in front of him. I think that we should always look at the world with a works based consciousness, in agreement with the Catholic Church, even no longer being Catholic. I understand that you can never know if you have done enough, but you also can never know if you have chosen the correct faith! I say if we have the option to help, we should (as I now know you agree).However, I also do not think that Jesus' message was simply have faith. In fact, it would make sense that works are part of the requirement as well, since Jesus sent his apostles out to perform miracles and do good deeds in his name. These were points for debate and the Catholics that formed the Councils of Trent actually invited Protestants to debate these specific points of theology. However, the two invited to the council did not arrive. Perhaps if they had, we would have a completely different form of Christianity in this world.Also, I am aware there was probably a lot of fear of death held by the two invited protestants. Okay, so we do good works because Jesus commanded...but we do not feel that his command to do good works was a requirement? I get what you are saying, only faith in Jesus is required and that faith leads to good works, so they get done. But, it seems like this plan gives individuals a loophole should a specific good work not appeal to them.As far as not striving for perfection, the Catholic faith tells us also that we will never be perfect, we will always be flawed and we will sin. I think that striving for perfection is a great ideal, even though it is pretty much unattainable. Yeah, I think I got a little better understanding of it now.

I get exactly what you are saying and why you do believe that you are saved.However, I believe that the bolded parts really speak to why I wanted to continue this topic from the other thread. Your claim there was that Catholics are not Christians and yet, they believe every single one of these bolded items exactly the same as you do. This is why I do not understand the Catholic/Protestant War at all. The similarities (especially in such true key theological issues) really should be tying all of these groups together as brothers and sisters in Christ, but neither of the groups wants to forget the tumultuous past and agression that the other showed their group.I find this particularly interesting considering the person they all claim to follow wants them to forgive their enemies and turn the other cheek.The question I would then have is, "Could there be anyway to end the constant bickering between the different Christians and get them to actually work together? Or, are these slight differences really so important to salvation that choosing to work together would be negative?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

They will not say that they are saved, because whether their faith in Jesus was enough is not determined by themselves. Similar to other branches of Christianity, that determination about their faith is up to God only.And, as Catholic Scoentist said, the works are you showing your faith in Christ through action. If you believe in Christ and his message to love one another and help one another that naturally leads to acting this love out in the world. But again the main tenets are extremely similar between the two branches of Christianity, correct? If they are not, please provide me some examples.You even state that works are important to the Protestants, just not required for salvation, what is wrong with a group of Christians saying that living your faith through your life is required, still seems kind of similar to me.Another HUGE difference that I can think of the transubstantiation. According to Protestants, the eucharist is simply a metaphor for the body and blood, whereas to Catholics it actually is the body and blood. A major difference, but could be looked at as minor if we realize that the important part is that they believe Christ was God. Plus, what someone believes in their mind does not have any bearing upon how your faith sees it. Ahhhhhh.....The classic Protestant misinformation about the Catholics and their Saints. Catholics do not pray to saints, but rather through Saints. They are asking one who the church states was loved by God to intercede on their behalf to God. They are not expecting the Saint or Mary to actually help (at least in the correct theology), but rather that their word to God will help God to act. Actually, one is not required to pay to have their loved ones names read during the prayer for the departed. Nor are they required to donate for a mass to be dedicated to a loved one's memory. There is an option to donate and many choose to do so, but it is not a requirement. This comes down to a simple difference in interpretation and nothing else. When Protestant hear: "This is my body", they take it to mean, "this represents my body and my sacrifice". However, when a Catholic hears it, they hear, "This IS my Body". If it is blasphemous to have a difference in interpretation on words that could be taken either way, then yes. However, this is still a very minor difference with huge interpretive results....you are both still uttering the same words, again the belief truly resides in the mind where God could see it...no reason to serparate the groups out for this. That is nice, and I left the Catholic Church too, because I could not resolve the concept of a parent deity figure without any evidence to substantiate it. I personally was taught the bible and taught others the bible while I was going through Catholicism. Yes it was interpretation based on Catholic Doctrine, but your interpretation is based on Protestant doctrine.What my statement is is that the reformation was truly slight differences, all that affect only a person's personal faith in their mind. The churches (both of them) should stop trying to control individual thoughts, that has already been proven to not work. Someone already stated earlier in the thread, at least Catholics and Protestants are praying to the same God, shouldn't they be worried about those who are not, such as Muslims and Buddhists?

That is not like that at all, but thanks be to Godwin!My questions are:"Did Jesus say to turn the other cheek?""Did Jesus say to love your enemies?""Did Jesus say that it is our job to condemn one another for differences in opinion?"If he said any of that, then those who refuse those items are strictly refusing to trust in the gospel, correct?If that is the case, then Ian Paisley commanding Northern Irish people to burn Catholic Churches and Catholic homes is not putting his paith in the Gospels, correct? (I will agree that the Catholics torturing Protestants to confess also did not have faith in the Gospels, if those items were said)

Okay, so, these sourced quotes are just misinformation...:"I say to the Dublin government, Mr Faulkner says it's "hands across the border to Dublin". I say, if they don't behave themselves in the South, it will be shots across the border!"
-Seems to be anti-turning the other cheek.This is a battle that has to be won -- no ifs, no buts!
-Not exactly love thy neighbor."I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine."
-Not exactly loving one's enemy.This one was attributed, but it was shouted by him at a reporter, so seems legit to think it was him:"I will kill all who get in my way"
-Again, not Christian sentiments.Look, I understand that he was in a war, but don't the Gospels tell you that it is important to love at all times? Wasn't that the message that Jesus preached? First, I am still waiting for verification of your stats. Everything I have read states that the population of Europe was around 75 million people during this time period and that less than 1% of the total population was killed during the inquisition, which would mean...less than 750,000 people. Now, I am not saying the Catholic Church should have done this at all, but we will need proof of tens of millions.I also do not think it was accidental and that it was far more politically driven than religiously driven. The Catholic Church had control over the entire Roman Empire. How obligingly did the Romans give up control of that area to the Roman Catholic Church? Or were the Catholics murdered in the hundreds of thousands as they were first founded?Look, I understand the Catholics were f***ed up in the past. So were the protestants, so was everyone!!!! However, to continue this on into the present day and state that the Catholic Church is staging a new Inquisition once they achieve power again is inane. Especially considering that their numbers are dwindling and that with further education we will only see that loss of faith increase with time."If we hold everyone guilty for the sins of their fathers, then there is no one left in this world that is innocent"
-Tempe 12ft Chicken-ABE-Sources for quotes:
http://www.billionquotes.com/index.php/Ian_paisley
Ian Paisley - WikiquoteEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Why is it Blasphemy? Where in Scripture does it say it is Blasphemy? Where does it say that Jesus is the sole intercessor and that God will listen to no others? Where does scripture state that those in Heaven cannot hear prayers?This whole idea that everything you get comes from scripture seems to be unfounded and is far more based upon doctrinal interpretation....hey, just like the Catholics! You guys should tots work together.

This reply is not in response to this message, but rather is about some issues I see with your descriptions of Protestantism...You keep claiming that if is it is not in all of Protestant doctrine then it does not count against Protestantism. However, isn't this simply an issue with the fact that there are so many denominations within Protestantism?This is why you constantly fall back onto Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola gratia, and Solus Christus as the only Protestant doctrines. All that this does is allow you to compartmentalize different protestant groups out of your definition of Protestantism so that your hands seem clean of misdeeds through the ages.You cannot do this, however. When the Puritans came to the Americas, they were a distinct Protestant sect. They had their central leaders who arrived in the Americas with them. Therefore any actions taken by them to convert or slaughter the native peoples are a mark against Protestantism as a whole, because these decisions came from leaders within their church on what to do. They were CHURCH decisions, based upon biblical reasons. You cannot remove them by stating that their views are different because they are still Protestant.With the Catholic Church, you are dealing with an organization that did not fracture as much internally and so you can make this sweeping claim of "It was Papal Doctrine". It is unfair to require a similar request of Papal Doctrine for Protestant crimes when there is no Papacy. The nearest thing would be the leader of a specific movement of Protestantism, such as John Winthrop. He is the highest leader in the Puritan Sect. Decisions that come from this gentlemen have the same authority to his followers that the word of the Pope has for Catholics. To say otherwise is simply equivocating and trying to save face from the sins committed by your ancestors in the past.Look, I will never state that the Catholic Church is innocent, far from it. However, to try and claim that because only specific groups did violent acts (under the command of their religious leaders) that there is any difference between them and the Catholic Church is a fallacy. These Protestant groups got their instruction from their religious leaders to convert, enslave, or kill those who did not believe in their God. The Catholic groups got their instruction from their religious leaders to convert, enslave, or kill those who did not believe (or believed differently) in their God. Both groups claimed this instruction was divine. Both groups were merciless to those who they mistreated. Please explain the difference between these two ideas, cause I am missing it.The big sticking point to me is still this whole idea that the Catholic Church is continuing the war against Protestantism. I understand that Rome still states you are wrong in your viewpoint of God, but that is because they believe you are. If I am to respect your beliefs, why should you not respect theirs? The goal of any religion is convert the unbelievers to their viewpoint, where is the surprise in the fact that the Catholics did this? Yes, they used violent means during violent times, the same that Protestant groups did against the Natives. Are the Protestants still at war with the Natives? I highly doubt that Rome could gather enough support for an actual conversion parade against Protestants, bringing back conversion or death is highly unlikely.Also, STOP bringing up anathema. I have already pointed out that you feel that Catholics are going to Hell and Catholics feel the same about Protestants (although, that was never taught at any church I ever attended in 20+ years). THAT is what anathema is!!! You are excommunicated from their church, which should not matter because you don't want to believe what they do. Likewise, their beliefs make them incompatible with your church. so they are in essence excommunicated because they do not believe the correct things according to you. You are both under anathema from one another, it is simply that the Catholics are willing to lay out the ground rules of what constitutes a Catholic.

Perhaps you could quote the relevant passages? 35 Puritans, armed with black powder rifles could do a fair amount of damage to the basic weaponry of the Native Tribes. Also, these groups were continually receiving more inbound travelers, so the first group is definitely not where their numbers stopped. Yes, they could have, had the native tribes worked together in any way. However, these were distinct groups that had their own governmental leaders and did not work together to formulate a large counter-strike. Even so, they would still run into the issue of being far outgunned by those coming across the ocean. Another thing is that many of these tribes simply wanted to live in peace until they were attacked. The Pequot tribe did not attack the Puritan settlements until they were provoked by those living there. Yes, this did happen, but the fact that the decimation of native tribes was done later on a much grander scale, should not take away from what the earlier settlers did to those they felt were heathens. Also, early settlers would make peace with one tribe to decimate another tribe (the true story of thanksgiving was it was a war feast to celebrate the combined white/native victory over another tribe), and then the settlers would turn on the tribe they had originally assisted.ABE - Not sure I trust the source when the lies include:
"The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation." - Not a lie.
"America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by diversity." - Not a lie, and slightly racist to claim it is
"The two-party system is broken, and we urgently need a viable third party." - Not a lie and would offer more options for Americans fed up with the bickering we currently see.Again, not sure I can trust your source when I do not even agree with these premises, much less that the slaughter of the native peoples was warranted.ABE - The topic of whether the Native Tribes were treated immorally by the original settlers in not exactly on topic in this thread. If you would like to continue to discuss whether it was justified I would suggest another thread. Unless you feel it fits into the topic of Protestantism verus Catholicism through the ages and whether the war is ongoing.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Realized the discussion was off-topic

This I agree with, even as an ex-Catholic. Works show your faith because they are examples of each individual living as Jesus instructed. This is why I do not agree that there is any ongoing culture war where the Catholic church is actively looking to reinstate the inquisition in this modern age, which is Faith's contention.

Actually, now that I am atheist I definitely fall under anathema from the Catholic Church. Plus, your group thinks I'm damned. However, I just don't care. Think what you will of my future after my death. I have zero problem being excommunicated.I joined this thread for three reasons:
1. To show that your point that Catholics are not Christians is ridiculous. The definition of the word Christian describes them as such and the fact that most of their beliefs are identical to Protestants also shows them as such.2. To show that the Catholic Church, under the Papacy, is not intending to begin another inquisition. They are fine as long as Protestants are under anathema, since according to them that sends you all to Hell for not being Catholic. The numbers of the Catholic Church are consistently diminishing with very few youth able to buy the story. Trust me, I taught youth group for nine years, I got to watch kids get confirmed to keep Ma and Pa happy and then never return. Also, it was the majority of students. You have also yet to show any support for your contention, so there is no reason to accept your premise at this time.3. That even though the Roman Catholic Church was evil, sadistic bastards in the past, the Protestants are not blameless. Both groups used what they thought was their God-given authority to subjugate, kill, enslave, and forcefully convert those who opposed them. Holding a grudge when you are just as guilty is pointless and instead of widening the fracture we should be working to bridge the gaps. So far, we only have this Earth as home and we must learn to work as a single tribe before we all end up murdering one another.I feel that I have made the points I intended, but please show me if you think otherwise. Rome versus Protestant should be over. Again, at least they have the right God, that is better than other religions in your eyes, right?

So Faith, it seems that you are completely stuck on holding individuals (albeit individuals with authority) responsible and hold the current incarnation of the church responsible for statements made by its leaders in the past. So, let us begin to look into Genocides created by both religions and whether you have any right to hold the current Catholic Church responsible for the sins of its members and leaders and also the Protestant churches for the sins of their members and leaders:Rwanda: We are all aware of the genocide that took place in Rwanda, but what is less known is that the Christian (Both Protestant and Catholic) Missionaries are considered to be partly responsible for some of the killings that took place. Church&Genocide"According to my findings, church personnel and institutions were actively involved in the program of resistance to popular pressures for political reform that culminated in the 1994 genocide, and numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists, and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings".So, in other words these individuals, both Catholic and Protestant, were not only passive observers but rather forcefully blocked legislation that could have prevented the genocide that was experiences in 1994. One difference is that the Catholic church finally came around prior to the genocide and began to push for a move to democracy and demanded expanded human rights.Irish Holocaust:
Irish HolocaustDuring the Great Potato Famine in Ireland, a single crop failed and forced a country to its knees.....or did it?"However, many people do not know that, at the same time, Irish farms were producing plenty of other foods including corn, wheat, barley, and beef."So, where did this food go to? Well, the Protestant and occupying British took the food to feed its people and then used the starvation as a means to proselytize the Irish Catholics."The starving victims were offered food in return for renouncing their Catholic faith and converting. During the famine there were more than 125 missions in Ireland for the purpose of converting Catholics."This does not seem to be following Sola Scriptura and loving thy neighbor as Jesus commanded. And this is forcefully starving individual Catholics, not the church itself.A Bloody Thanksgiving:
The American ThanksgivingBefore you go and claim that there were Catholics in America at this time too, remember that groups seperated into different regions of the US. The Spaniards (Catholics) controlled much of the Southern area of the US, while the British colonists (Protestants) controlled much of the North.I will forgo mentioning any Catholic crimes because I am not attempting to say that they did not commit them...I do not wear blinders. Instead, let's focus on genocides that took place in the Northern, Protestant controlled areas:"Ever diligent to claim their own advantages as God’s will, the Pilgrims thanked their deity for having pursued the Indians to mass death. However, it was not divine intervention that wiped out most of the natives around the village of Patuxet but, most likely, smallpox-embedded blankets planted during an English visit or slave raid."So, the death visited upon the Wampanoag was a gift from God? Given to the Pilgrims in the form of small-pox covered blankets? How you cannot see that this is mass death visited upon someone who believes in a different God is beyond me."A Puritan colonist, quoted by Harvard University's Perry Miller, praised the plague that had wiped out the Indians for it was "the wonderful preparation of the Lord Jesus Christ, by his providence for his people's abode in the Western world."Again, they are thanking their god for destroying their enemies, which screams of religious motivation to me. Even though it was not God, but rather their own deviousness with smallpox laden blankets."At the point where the Mystic River meets the sea, the combined force of English and allied Indians bypassed the Pequot fort to attack and set ablaze a town full of women, children and old people."These are the Christian values that your forefathers lived with. They ruthlessly murdered women, children and old people to weaken the Pequot nation. And you keep saying that these attacks were not religiously motivated, but then we have..."Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire...horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy."This was stated by William Bradford, leader of the Colony at the time and as it was a theocracy that made its way across the Atlantic Ocean, these deaths fall at the feet of Protestantism.Of...and after all of this murder, welcome to Thanksgiving:
This day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanksgiving for subduing the Pequots,"I doubt you will trust this last link because it is written by a Catholic. However, this individual does not try to sugar coat the Catholic past and is simply mentioning the crimes of Protestants in the same vein that Protestants always mention Catholic crimes. "Bad" ProtestantsThis paper discusses the immoralities of Martin Luther. Here is what the founder of Protestantism asked for in regards to the Jewish people:
"Safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
Set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn.
Their houses also be razed and destroyed.
Eject them forever from the country."This is not the person writing the paper that said this, but was taken from Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies".Martin Luther also promoted violence against other Christians, similar to those Catholics you are bringing up (and this is direct from your founder):
"the emperor, kings, and princes" should "attack this plague [the Romanists] of all the earth no longer with words but with the sword" and "wash our hands in their blood"."And then...he hated the peasantry as written in his book "Against the Murderous Peasants".
""Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret."This is what the leader of the Protestant reformation was asking for. Do you not see how this is asking for the murder and destruction of everything that is not Protestant? Again, Pot....meet kettle!Ah...and you keep claiming that there is no central authority in the Protestant reformation, but we happen to have a link to a source about how Martin Luther, "claimed himself to be the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture". This definitely sounds like we simply have a new pope in town, not a new religion.Enough about Martin Luther, you can read more if you would like to. However, let us discuss the next in line, Good ol' John Calvin."He beheaded James Gruet because he dared to write against him".So, someone spoke heresy against him and it was determined that the punishment for this heresy should be death...sound like any other institution that you may be raging about?"He believed that heresy was a capital crime. The right of the government to put heretics to death. During Calvin's reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546, 58 persons were put to death for heresy."Sure, it is not done quite on the order of the Inquisition, but they were just getting set up. Give them some time to get into full swing and gain enough of a following."He created a police state in Geneva."Yes, cause every forgiving loving Christian knows that the only way to love another is to force your own viewpoint onto them within the structure of a police state.Onto another big name!!!! Huldrych Zwingli!!"He wrote that the massacre of the bishops was necessary for the establishment of the pure Gospel."and"To compel the Catholic cantons to accept the new doctrines, Zwingli urged civil war and succeeded in persuading Zurich to declare war and march against the Catholic territories."So, murder of the Bishops was a good thing and war against Catholics is the only way to defeat them. Not sure that the Protestants are riding that shining, white horse into battle that you continue to place them on, rather they (like the Catholics church) are riding into war on a bloodstained horse, covered in the blood of those they murdered.I will skip James I, Queen Elizabeth, and William of Orange, please read their crimes if you are actually interested in learning.Now, the last one is your claim that the IRA was the first strike in the Troubles in Ireland and that is a complete and utter fabrication of history! Rather, the Catholics in Northern Ireland were persecuted, exiled, had lands taken away, and laws were written to hold the Catholics down. Sure, this could not have happened in a combined Ireland, but by remaining seperate, the Protestants were able to discriminate against Catholics and attempt to decimate their culture in the North. This was the reasoning behind the start of the troubles. yes the Catholics took the first shots, but it was after over 200 years of oppression in the North."1649 - Cromwell in Ireland. Massacres of Wexford and Drogheda. Confiscation of estates of Irish Catholics, many are exiled to barren Connaught.""1695 - Penal Laws enacted against Catholics. Catholics disqualified from government, franchise, judiciary, armed forces and professions. Estates split up. May not carry arms, own expensive horse etc. Soon Catholics own only 7% of Irish land.""Between 1695 and 1728 a series of Acts of Parliament were passed by a Protestant gentry anxious to consolidate their powers and worried that Louis XIV of France might attempt an invasion of Ireland. Also known as a "popery code," these laws forbade Irish Catholics from practicing their faith or bringing their children up in their own religion, and the vast majority of wealthy Catholics were stripped of their wealth, their positions, their estates and their homes, leaving them as paupers."One item I have as a reminder of the Troubles from when I was a Catholic is a rosary that is designed to be worn as a ring. By doing this Catholics were still able to pray their rosary but not be seen holding it because they could have been persecuted or killed for doing so.So, to say that the Catholics started the Troubles is to erase over 200 years of Protestant law-making specifically designed to denegrate another group within the confines of the country. So...loving your neighbor, which you claimed the Protestants in the North did not need to do because it was war, should have happened and the Troubles could have been prevented. Instead, even before violence, the Protestants chose to subjugate their neighbor because, "Hey, other people did it in the past."I reiterate, "Just because one group did something in the past, does not make it okay for a new group to proceed with these actions in the present."One thing from this website is in regards to your claim that the destruction of the Native Americans was not religiously motivated. I will leave you with the words of manifest destiny, which is what the Protestants used to claim that the Americas were theirs:
"That it was America's divinely assigned mission to expand westward across the North American continent and to establish democratic and Protestant ideals. The states wanted the Indians removed from their borders."Sorry one last thing, I really liked how this gentlemen ended this page, so I will include his final statement about Protestantism and make a small comment on it:"In conclusion, the Protestants in America were guilty of the same kinds of deeds that these critics of Catholicism object to in the historical Catholic Church. Using the same arguments as these critics of Catholicism, these acts of these Protestants are sufficient to demonstrate that Protestantism is false."He holds this comment to merely the Protestants in America, yet I feel that he has done a marvelous job of laying out how not only in America, but throughout their history, the Protestants have attempted to simply match the Catholic church in historical crimes. Something that definitely goes against the words of Jesus, something that destroys their claim to Sola Scriptura, and something that means their faith is based on the same misguided set-up as the Catholic church whom they despise.