Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

That's a good definition of mass murder. We are trying to define genocide, though. Also, using caps lock doesn't make your point any better. Message 148
Yes, please do so. Until we can even come to an agreeable definition of the words used in discussion, there can be zero hope of the discussion moving forward.

Hi Jar,Wanting to check my understanding of Sola fide (grace through faith) I read through the Wikipedia article and found this: I do find sound your arguments that the Bible does not teach grace through faith alone, but nonetheless that does seem to be the mainstream Protestant conclusion. The article calls it "foundational." But it also says that grace through faith "distinguishes *most* Protestant denominations," so I assume that at some point in its history your branch of Protestantism evolved away from this belief. Can you fill us in on the history?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

Hi Faith,It could easily be argued that some details of the definition of genocide are open to debate, but by and large what people are trying to tell you is true, that murder is not a necessary defining characteristic of genocide. This is from the Wikipedia article on Genocide: You can read a variety of attempts at defining genocide at the Wikipedia article on Genocide Definitions. There are a few which share your view equating genocide to the killing of people, but the majority recognize elimination of a race, religion or culture as the key defining factor and not the method.But we're not here to debate the definition of genocide. It isn't necessary to agree on which terms most accurately apply to the past deeds of Catholics and protestants since we can simply compare and contrast the deeds themselves.--Percy

Omigod, all those poor missionaries, damned to hell - what were they thinking! Who you accept on faith, and therefore by the doctrine of grace through faith the sins that you blame on your self-centered crabby nature are forgiven. Neither whim nor reason matter since forgiveness is granted based solely upon acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. Except that in protestantism everyone is saved by "asking Christ into your heart," accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior on faith alone.--Percy

People ignore that the culture of the native Americans raised young Braves who were trained to from small war parties that would prey upon other indian tribes and, of course, these new white men who appeared.Single families living miles from any other white people tried to farm and survive in this culture that made them as much fair game as the other anmals and game which native Americans saw as prey.At some point, life could not exist for white people unless this behavior ended.
It did not.Once it became clear that these indians could not control their young people who refused to change an ancient culture, massive white correctional force became necessary.
The Indian Wars and reservations were just the consequence of stopping the War Parties with a growing military force.Remeber, the indians have cars, Tv, radio, free food, housing, and all the advantages of this New Heaven and New Earth that replaced the old way of their people and allowed them to grow unto the 21st century the same way as the British forced India into this modern century or Mao pushed China forward, or all the other medieval cultures of the East.Think of this as Social Evolution for the advancment of humanity.
Remember that God himself does this on a big scale, too, from time to time:Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the force behind the ever unfolding Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).

All your post does is expose your utter ignorance of the subject. You speak as if the Indian tribes were one monolithic culture. Native American tribes were extremely diverse.We actually have very little idea what the cultures were like prior to a European presence. tens of millions of Native Americans died from disease before they ever had contact with the "white" people.Please study the subject before you post crap. A good start is 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before ColumbusYour post is ignorant and racist.

Well, I am a US Episcopalian which is currently part of the Anglican Communion. If there is a foundational principle to the Episcopal faith it's that you don't have to check your brain at the door. You are expected to think about what YOU believe and to question what you are told to believe.The Wiki article is a great example of the conflicts and out right contradictions found in the Bible. You can find support for just about anything if the only thing you use is quote mining. There's a verse in the Bible to support just about any side of any position. And my experience has been that there are Episcopal priest who hold either position when it comes to this issue and it's a point I've discussed with quite a few priests over my lifetime.My personal position is based not just on the Bible but also on the Liturgy, reason and logic. For example in the Liturgy there is the Confession. In the Confession you admit your failures, ask that those failures be forgiven and promise to try not to fail in the future. If all sins were already forgiven and justified through Christs death then that part of the Liturgy is pretty pointless.There is also the Closings to most services, for example "And now, Father, send us out to do the work you have given us to do, to love and serve you as faithful witnesses of Christ our Lord." Notice that we are asking God to send us out to do works.Next reason. I honestly believe that we are charged to try to leave the world a little bit better when we die than when we were born. That doesn't mean we have to do all that much, maybe just make one moment in one person's life a little better, but it does mean we have to do works.Finally logic. Logic tells me that I really can't know the outcome of a future trial and judgement until after that trial and judgement. I may THINK I know, but I sure could be wrong.There is one final point. I do not believe that I can earn salvation. Nothing I do even if I do make that one moment better for one person, adds weight to my case. It is what I am charged to do.But failure to do works can make a difference.I believe that GOD, if GOD exists, will be something more than some vain narcissistic teenybopper. I cannot quite understand a GOD that would automatically forgive a mass murderer who had faith in the concept that Jesus death already paid for his sins but would condemn the atheist who gave his live to save others.But all of that is irrelevant to whether or not I happen to be a Protestant. I'm a member of a recognized Protestant Chapter of Club Christian and so I am a Protestant.It really is that simple.

You do like to editorialize, don't you?

I was not going to respond to this because it is so off topic. But I cannot let it stand.I thought at first that the comment was based on utter ignorance or abject stupidity.I think though it comes from the same place as Faith's historical revisionism. There is a need by the fundie right to spin historical facts to meet the preconceived world view. It is lying for Jesus. The Great Leap Forward did not propel China forward. It almost destroyed the nation. It did kill millions of people and China stayed a primarily agrarian society.Edited by Theodoric, : forgot "not"
Thanks again Jar

As has been pointed out by Theodoric, you are massively incorrect and the Native American groups were incredibly diverse. For example, there were over 100 major languages and dialects in what became California alone.And there the peoples were not warlike. The number of attacks on the Spanish can be counted on one hand.Later, in areas outside of the Spanish conquest, disappointed Gold Rush settlers just slaughtered any Native Americans in their way, on occasion shooting everyone in a village. Other than the Modoc, in the extreme northeastern corner of the state, there was no organized resistance.It is good to learn something before one lectures others on a subject.

Are you simply not getting that "faith plus works" means SALVATION comes by faith plus works or what? It was discussed a great deal up thread that from a Protestant point of view works are the RESULT of the faith that saves, we are saved UNTO good works scripture says, but that salvation itself, justification, the remission of our sin, is through faith alone. It was this principle of the Reformation that drew all those anathemas of Rome against Protestants because they teach that faith plus your own righteousness or works is how you get saved.This is absolutely pivotal to the differences between the two systems. The Reformation is famous for its "Solas" -- Sola scriptura, that we rest on the Bible alone, rejecting Catholic teaching that tradition is equal to the Bible in authority; sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, that salvation comes by God's grace alone and not anything we can do to earn it, through our faith alone in Christ alone, not by our works or personal righteousness but trust in the work and death of Christ alone in our place.A few posts back you recognize that Faith Alone IS foundational to Protestantism, it's definitive of Protestantism. That's what I keep trying to say here. Justification by Faith is THE Protestant hallmark. This is a very recently concocted formula that is actually contested by some Protestant teachers these days, basically because it's too vague. It's why I wanted to make it very clear that forgiveness comes only through the DEATH of Christ and not some "acceptance" we do of some vague "Jesus." Faith is much more than just some vague possibly merely mental "acceptance." Faith in His death is a more accurate description of salvation. Except again that this is a very recent formula that some think is too vague, me included and it does give the very false impression that salvation is about some feeling we have, which is a BIG mistake. I never "asked Christ into my heart," I simply believed that He died for my sins. Likewise the current "Jesus loves you" formula is not something that was ever said until the last few decades as an invitation to the gospel.The gospel is more accurately something like this: "You are a sinner, you have violated God's Law, His commandments, even one little lie is an infinite sin in the economy of God. You cannot possibly pay for your infinite sins but God Himself became a man so that He could obey the Law perfectly in our place and then die for our sins in our place, and His death paid for all the sins committed by anybody. He did it for all who are willing to believe that He did this for us, who trust in His death for your own personal sins, repent of them, give your life to Him."Yes I know "Jesus loves you and all you need to do is accept Him into your heart" is the current formula and I'm sure many have been saved through it, but I think it's not as accurate as how I've put it above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Without getting into the details which could take us down many rabbit trails, and I certainly do not want to have to review the entire Protestant Reformation's theology of the Bible on a thread here, what jar believes is what Bible believers call Liberal Christianity. It's the corruptions that got started in many denominations back in the 19th century, though it had been undermining orthodox Protestant teaching among individuals for a long time before that, a corrupting influence which could be imputed to the Enlightenment emphasis on Reason as the arbiter of truth rather than revelation.The major American Founders Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine believed in Providence, in prayer, and so on, so they weren't really Deists, but they rejected the strictly Christian teaching of Jesus as God who died for our sins so they definitely weren't Christians. They were products of the Enlightment or the Age of Reason which had decided that anything supernatural was contrary to Reason. This could be said to be the basic Liberal formula although there are many variations on it.Apparently jar's church is a Liberal church. Most Anglican churches are these days but there are other denominations which are also liberal. There are two versions of some denominations, a liberal version and an orthodox version. Presbyterian USA is liberal, but Covenant Presbyterian and Presbyterian in America I think are both orthodox, differing on some point of church government but not on the gospel; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is liberal but Lutheran Missouri Synod is orthodox.Jar doesn't even adhere to his own church's reference to God as "Father" as he so often uses the blaphemous "She" to refer to God, and many other ways he likes to twist Christian teaching to suit his own ideas of what "not checking your brain at the door" means to his own peculiar brain.In any case as he's made very clear he rejects the Solas of the Reformation so to hold onto the title "Protestant" is just an empty formality that only serves to confuse the important issues.But I can refer to his system as Liberal Protestantism.

jar also uses "It" when referring to GOD at times to point out that making GOD a male is just another example of anthropomorphism.

How do you sex a god? But it is still a branch of Protestantism. It certainly ain't Catholicism.

Carefully. Really, really carefully.