In general, who are more tolerant of differing religious views--Protestants or Catholics?

That's really a hard question to answer as tolerane is based on person to person. However, if I was forced to give an answer, I would say protestatns because they diverted off the catholic religion so in my understanding would be the most tolerant to a different religion.

You can't put all Protestants in the same boat.

You have some such as Anglican who for example accept almost everyone and everything

And you have penticostals who don't even accept other Protestants as valid Christians and will doom to hell anyone that is immoral.

Though I have personally known relatively few Protestants -- being raised a Catholic myself, I am somewhat more acquainted with things from that end. I have a few Catholic friends -- most are not very tolerant of my beliefs. Generally, we rarely discuss them. :)
I have a good friend who is married to a former Catholic nun. Though they'd known me for some years, apparently, in that time he had failed to ever mention to her that I practice Buddhism. The first time she came to my home, upon looking into my bedroom and seeing all the Buddhist iconography and statuary -- she quickly made the sign of the cross a few times before hurrying from the doorway with a somewhat disconcerted look. Though she had composed herself within minutes.
Though he has made subtle attempts to perhaps "convert" me over the years, he has for the most part since given up, and agreed to let things be, somewhat respecting my choices. :)

In general, who are more tolerant of differing religeous views--Protestants or Catholics?

Since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has positively fostered tolerance of other faiths and denominations almost as an article of faith.

The most intolerant Christians are found at the right edge of the evangelical movement, and the intolerance of many of these is positively unbiblical and pathological.


M:)RGANITE

That's really a hard question to answer as tolerane is based on person to person. However, if I was forced to give an answer, I would say protestatns because they diverted off the catholic religion so in my understanding would be the most tolerant to a different religion.
Some religious tolerance is institutional. As Pere Chuck says, most Protestants, especially those in the middle of the road Anglican Communion, are extremely tolerant, but those at the right edge of the evangelical movement are pathologically intolerant and volubly so. Most of the hate ministries come from that stable (which is not the stable in which Jesus was born!).

Roman Catholicism, in contrast, since VII, has become increasingly tolerant of other faiths and denominations in ways that some Pentecostalists and some Baptists will never be able to approach.

I point you towards the work of Jack Chick as a prime example of a spiritually sick and socially disabled 'christian.'

His basic message is that if you do not walk the "Chick Way," then you are going straight to Hell. Chick even condemns other Christians who do not aubscribe to his twisted thinking and scriptural distortions and denioes that they are Christians at all. He greatly errs, not knowing the scriptures.


M:)RGANITE

Jesus - not Chick - is the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

In general, who are more tolerant of differing religeous views--Protestants or Catholics?

Religions with more open views and broader minds tolerate differing religieous views, unlike some other religions who I dare not mention!

Im not afraid of anything or anyone morganite!!
LOL why do u say that I'm a republican right winger? :D

But don't tell me that Islam religion i.e muslims are torlerant to religions such as Christian, Protestants and / or Catholics..?
I respect their choice of worship but that's it.

I think it really depends on the person and how open they are to people themselves, its all about respect for another person's choice. We may not like who/what they worship, celebrate or the customs, but we should at least respect it as their choice.

You can't put all Protestants in the same boat.

Right... and you can't put all Catholics in it either.

I know extremes in both groups: Catholics and Protestants who are not only tolerant of each other - but who truly recognize that they are members of one faith.. . so more than just tolerance, but full acceptance...

There are lots of good groups out there like this (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9405/mission.html)

... but on the other hand there are sad examples of the opposite end of the spectrum on both sides too...

Im not afraid of anything or anyone morganite!!!!

But dont tell me that Islam religion i.e muslims are torlerant to religions such as Christian, Protestants and / or Catholics..???
Krs, could this be a baby out with the bath water here? I believe that judging an entire faith on a few extreme branches of it just as others do of Christianity is not only not wise but not spiritually fit. For those who are spoiling for a fight, any excuse will do-- and extremists of anything tend to have that approach. This tactic is used not only between extremists in religions, but races, nationalities, genders, generations, etc ad nauseum. Once a person learns the bigger picture (which this information age is offering to us, thankfully) I think it becomes almost impossible to fear anyone or anything other than the misguided actions by the misinformed.

Im not really judging an entire faith really, my best friend at college was Muslim. Lovely girl actually and so was her family. Their culture isn't one for me, but I respected their choice.
Shame I haven't heard from her in over 9 years :(
She was involved in an arranged marriage, he promised her the world, he promised that they would marry in Malta and live in malta, that was her dream... Once they married he told her they need to go back to Libya for business, and gone... diseappared!

So maybe its more a mixture of their beliefs and culture that gets to me, besides I'm a woman and to me it doesn't show any respect for a women their religion.

Sorry but its just how I feel.

I hope I'm not getting judged now.

Im not really judging an entire faith really, my best friend at college was Muslim. Their culture isnt one for me, but i respected their choice. So maybe its more a mixture of their beliefs and culture that gets to me, besides im a woman and to me it doesnt show any respect for a women their religion.
I think its important to separate a religion from a culture to an extent. Looking at American Muslims, I tend to think this is possible and necessary since many of them make an entirely different seeming Islamic faith occur here in the US. And while some of the cultures in the Middle East are not appealing to me, I think those cultures may be a dying breed evolutionarily-speaking and that, I believe, is some of what fuels the extremists' fight more than their actual religion. (By the way, I think I live in a culture that is "dying" from a similar evolution of change too.)

A way of life is the kind of thing that people feel compelled to defend their version, all people. But some of it needs to change and change it will, like it or not LOL. You only need review history to see massive proof of that. In the long run it won't matter who is more tolerant-- this group or that group, Protestants or Catholics, Muslims or Christians, Democracies or other forms of government-- because only the tolerant will survive. The majority of us will eventually learn to make it work for everyone or kill ourselves off refusing to learn that. I believe this evolution is part of the plan the Creator created. We eventually take care of the harm caused by the "misguided actions of the misinfomed" by simply outnumbering them-- having changed ourselves, one by one, into something more informed and more guided, if you will.

This is why tolerance in any form is one of my favorite topics. Sorry to have veered so off specific topic, Starman.

I think its important to seperate a religion from a culture to an extent. Looking at American Muslims, I tend to think this is possible and necessary since many of them make an entirely different seeming Islamic faith occur here in the US.

And while some of the cultures in the Middle East are not appealing to me, I think those cultures may be a dying breed evolutionarily-speaking and that, I believe, is some of what fuels the extremists' fight more than their actual religion.

(By the way, I think I live in a culture that is "dying" from a similar evolution of change too.)

A way of life is the kind of thing that people feel compelled to defend their version, all people. But some of it needs to change and change it will, like it or not LOL.

You only need review history to see massive proof of that. In the long run it won't matter who is more tolerant-- this group or that group, Protestants or Catholics, Muslims or Christians, Democracies or other forms of government-- because only the tolerant will survive.

The majority of us will eventually learn to make it work for everyone or kill ourselves off refusing to learn that. I believe this evolution is part of the plan the Creator created.

We eventually take care of the harm caused by the "misguided actions of the misinfomed" by simply outnumbering them-- having changed ourselves, one by one, into something more informed and more guided, if you will.



Val. I wish that I could be as hopeful as you seem to be that intolerance has a self-destruct mechanism built into it, and that it is inevitable that in time the whole structure that is intolerant will fall under its own weight.

The reason I do not rush to embrace your proposition is because intolerance, like mice in dirty houses, is self-perpetuating, and the intolerant will continue to raise, mostly, intolerant children.

It is obvious that the intolerant are more active in their intolerance than the tolerant. The intoerant are more likely to resort to heated rhetoric, badinage, and physical force including weapons to press their perspective on us laid back tolerant ones.

To use but one example, that of fascism, it has surfaced frequently throughout history under a varietym of guises, but its identity can not be hidden. Nazism is one of the prime examples of a movement imposing its will on others whether they would or no, and extrierminating all opposition to it.

An equally sinister occasion when fascism was the dominant factor in political movement was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, patricularly under Stalin who disposed of more 'enemies' and was responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler's political machine was.

Nazi Germany stamped on France, and subjected the French to its murderous will. This is within living memory, but the last general election saw the fascist leader Henri la Penne [sp?] and his Nazional Front Partry take second place in the country, because he used the same rhetoric that Hitler used, only against immigrant rather than against Jews. There is a real possibility that la Penne could emerge as ruler of France at the next national election.

It has well been said that "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them," yet we see the emergence of Nazi fascist political movements in almost every nation in the world. In the USA the brutal flag of Nazism is hoisted by white supremacist movements, and by vestiges of the KKK, but it is far from moribund. Europe has hordes of skinhead Neo-Nazis, British voters return Nazional Front council members in large connurbations where they frighten the weak minded into supporting them in their racist agendas.

Arizona has passed a resolution that English will be the State's Official language, and the idea is to stop printing forms in Spanish and other minority languages.

Intolerance for any reason except on grounds of absolute morality is a present evil, and a continuing cause of disaffection, fear, susopicion, and turning minds against groups that fascists choose not to enfold as a worthy part of society on grounds of arbitrary differences.

I have to say that my most powerful distaste for intolerance on racial, religious, or poklitritical grounds is enlivened when the intolerant are, or claim to be, motivated by religion, particularly Christianity, because theye is nothing in Christianity that permits intolerance or the suppression, harassment, and perscution of men, women, and children because they are different and march to a different drum.

And that, dear Val, is why intolerance troubles me. To be intolerant one has to deny the humanity of others, and to suppress any positive emotion or acceptance of others that contradicts the impulse to silence them or do them harm.

Intolerance is a sure sign that a person's insight is fatally flawed. Intolerance is a sure sign that whatever degree of intelligence a person has, it is overridden by his or her mean and spiteful spirit. Intolerance is not only a socially sickness, but a disease of the mind, and is a constant evil. I wish so dearly that you were right, but I greatly fear that you are not, but would to God that you were.

Lackaday!

M:)

Well put Morganite. I find the whole premise of this thread to be akin to sowing seeds of divisiveness and that's the last thing this world needs.

Well put Morganite. I find the whole premise of this thread to be akin to sowing seeds of divisiveness and that's the last thing this world needs.


Really?


What is the premise of this thread?


What did Morganite just say?

Really?Yes.



What is the premise of this thread? Share it with me.



What did Morganite just say?Are you blocking him, look up on this page.

Since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has positively fostered tolerance of other faiths and denominations almost as an article of faith.

The most intolerant Christians are found at the right edge of the evangelical movement, and the intolerance of many of these is positively unbiblical and pathological.


M:)RGANITE


The official Cathoilic stance does seem to tilt the scale.

On the other hand perhaps the Protestant extremists are just more vociferous? I know one thing, there is nothing more ridiculous than one human being judging another human being's eternal destiny or even motives for that matter and then going out of his or her way to deal out punisdhment--either psychological, or physical. It smacks of hubris.

Yes.

Why?



Share it with me.

Why should I? You already claim to know what my motive in posting is.


Are you blocking him, look up on this page.

Morganite isn't blocked.
I only ask because in view of your "commentary" you seem to have completely misunderstood the premise of his post.

I probably should have separated my agreement with maorganite and my next sentence. It would be confusing.

I agreed with Morganite that intolerance does not seem to be a trait that will self-destruct itself.

The other statement about divisiveness refers to that fact that if tolerance = good then you are basically asking which religious sect is better which presumes then that the other is less good. It bothers me when someone tells others that their religion is less good. (My English skills are superlative, no? :)) That's just my opinion of course.

I probably should have seperated my agreement with maorganite and my next sentence. It would be confusing.

I agreed with Morganite that intolerance does not seem to be a trait that will self-destruct itself.

The other statement about divisiveness refers to that fact that if tolerance = good then you are basically asking which religious sect is better which presumes then that the other is less good. It bothers me when someone tells others that their religion is less good. (My English skills are superlative, no? :)) That's just my opinion of course.



It is commendable that you have respect for other people's religion. But as all matters concerning moral decisions, one has to weigh one duty against another. Here we have two, our duty to respect other people's feelings about their religion, and our duty to bring injustices to their attention if they are or seem unware that what they consider good is an injustice.

You choose the first--but I feel that the latter deserves more weight.
Actually, judging by the commentary my question has received I would say that those who choose the latter are in the majority on this forum.

If I understand the question correctly, Starman is not asking about individuals, but organizations. To that end, I offer these brief thoughts. 1. I don't believe there was ever a Protestant Inquisition. 2. Though not mentioned in the original question, I know of no country that is predominately Muslim where any other religion is tolerated in practice. 3. In the good old U.S.A. anyone can bring their religion in and worship any way they want to, excluding human sacrifice, of course.

If I understand the question correctly, Starman is not asking about individuals, but organizations. To that end, I offer these brief thoughts.

1. I don't believe there was ever a Protestant Inquisition.
2. Though not mentioned in the original question, I know of no country that is predominately Muslim where any other religion is tolerated in practice.
3. In the good old U.S.A. anyone can bring their religion in and worship any way they want to, excluding human sacrifice, of course.
1. I direct you to Foxe's Book of Martyrs. That should bring you up to speed on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. During the reigns of Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, persecutions between Catholics and Protestants were extensive and violent. American Protestants hated Irish Catholic immigrants, and the Christian inspired Ku Klux Klan hated, persecuted, and murdered Catholics, Jews, and non-Anglo Saxons. All in the good Ol' US of A! The Christian based Aryan nation, and a White Supremacist Church whose name escapes me are just as hateful and intolerant. Here and now! Christians in the US of A still have some way to go to reach Christ's ideal for treating those of different faiths. There is no mention in scripture, not even a hint of a suggestion, that Jesus spoke badly of any religion outside his own.

2. What difference it makes how other countries favour or disfavour different faiths? Are Christians called on only to be good to those who are good to them first? What did Saint Peter say about that kind of conduct? "Render not railing for railing, or cursing for cursing, but contrariwise blessing."

3. In principle the US is a tolerant country, but in practice it is not always so. Like many other countries it has its share of prejudices, whether against colour, gender, or faith. It is not perfect, but if the rleigious right will behave itself and begin to act like a rleigion and abandon their political agendas, then it will be a better place. If I was to preach a sermon on this subject, my text would be, "My kingdom is not of this world!"


It comes down to motes and beams.

Though I have personally known relatively few Protestants -- being raised a Catholic myself, I am somewhat more acquainted with things from that end. I have a few Catholic friends -- most are not very tolerant of my beliefs. Generally, we rarely discuss them. :)
I have a good friend who is married to a former Catholic nun. Though they'd known me for some years, apparently, in that time he had failed to ever mention to her that I practice Buddhism. The first time she came to my home, upon looking into my bedroom and seeing all the Buddhist iconography and statuary -- she quickly made the sign of the cross a few times before hurrying from the doorway with a somewhat disconcerted look. Though she had composed herself within minutes.
Though he has made subtle attempts to perhaps "convert" me over the years, he has for the most part since given up, and agreed to let things be, somewhat respecting my choices. :)

The late British comedian, Gus Allan, of Flanagan and Allan fame, who was Jewish, told of his experience with the landlady of his theatrical digs when he played a theatre in Liverpool, England. She called him early every morning, "Because you will want to attend daily mass!"

He says he walked about every morning for an hour before going back to the boarding house and bed, but he didn't dare risk her displeasure by telling her he was Jewish.



LOL

I would say Catholics - the post Vatican II Catholics - are more tolerant of other religions.

I would say Catholics - the post Vatican II Catholics - are more tolerant of other religions.

I would agree with you if all actually dealt with others in the spirit of VII. Expericnce shows us that not all do, and that is a matter for sorrow, even for the Vatican.

Not all Catholics deal with others in the spirit of the Vatican II Council. Not all Protestants deal in the spirit of religious tolerance. Not all Muslims believe in co-exisiting peacefully. A person can go on and on and never come to an end.

What I stated is just my personal belief, based on my religious upbringing and experiences.

1. I direct you to Foxe's Book of Martyrs. That should bring you up to speed on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. During the reigns of Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, persecutions between Catholics and Protestants were extensive and violent. American Protestants hated Irish Catholic immigrants, and the Christian inspired Ku Klux Klan hated, persecuted, and murdered Catholics, Jews, and non-Anglo Saxons. All in the good Ol' US of A! The Christian based Aryan nation, and a White Supremacist Church whose name escapes me are just as hateful and intolerant. Here and now! Christians in the US of A still have some way to go to reach Christ's ideal for treating those of different faiths. There is no mention in scripture, not even a hint of a suggestion, that Jesus spoke badly of any religion outside his own.

2. What difference it makes how other countries favour or disfavour different faiths? Are Christians called on only to be good to those who are good to them first? What did Saint Peter say about that kind of conduct? "Render not railing for railing, or cursing for cursing, but contrariwise blessing."

3. In principle the US is a tolerant country, but in practice it is not always so. Like many other countries it has its share of prejudices, whether against colour, gender, or faith. It is not perfect, but if the rleigious right will behave itself and begin to act like a rleigion and abandon their political agendas, then it will be a better place. If I was to preach a sermon on this subject, my text would be, "My kingdom is not of this world!"


It comes down to motes and beams.
Your point #1. The Church of England was very little different from the Catholic Church in that era, formed so a king could divorce his wife, and Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees, a religious group. #2. We are talking tolerance, or lack thereof, here. I fail to see your point here in relation to the question. #3. How many cases can you cite where people are jailed, tortured, or denied access to services due to their religion in this country?

Since I am married to a Catholic and know his family well, I cannot say anything bad about the Catholic faith. The Catholics I know are loving and enjoy the Christian community just as most Protestants do.

As far as accepting non Christians religions as true. It would be against the faith of Catholics and Protestants as the Bible teaches about the divinity of Christ and the Trinity and about the only way to the Father is through the Son.

That said, I have been in Protestant churches that bash Catholics. As a thoughtful Christian, I address the speaker as I think that talk, especially from the pulpit is judgemental and hurtful. It is, incidentally, usually ex-Catholics that bash their beginnings.

The fact is, everyone is different and thankfully, there are different churches to accommodate the person to make them comfortable. For instance, I have nothing against the Penticostal Church. That said, they are a bit charismatic and enthusastic for me. The person who loves to dance in Church and speak in tongues should love this form of worshipping. It has a place for a lot of Christians.

Hope I was helpful. Have a blessed day.

A passing thought: Tolerance is not the same thing as agreement. We may argue loud and long over something, but at the same time tolerate the other person, knowing that he is certainly allowed his opinion. We may never agree.

In general, who are more tolerant of differing religeous views--Protestants or Catholics?

I do not know. What does it really matter. Does not matter to me. What is important is that fighting and division between certain denominations end. That we all come together with our belief of Christ and stop looking at the differences but look at what we all believe to be the same and learn how to except and love each other unconditionally.

Joe

I do not know. What does it really matter. Does not matter to me. What is important is that fighting and division between certain denominations end. That we all come together with our belief of Christ and stop looking at the differences but look at what we all believe to be the same and learn how to except and love each other unconditionally.

Joe
Yes, we (Christians ) are all the same. We have the promise of Jesus. That pretty much covers it for me.
I agree with what you said - except we don't love each other unconditionally. For love, to be love, inherently has to have its boundaries & standards. If (hypothetically speaking of course) I killed your mother, you would still love me, right? Unconditionally, right? See my point? You can just say "love one another" instead of the condition or uncondition and then I would agree with the entire post. Cheers!

Retro:Loving unconditionally is not an emotion, It is praying for enemys as well as friends and family. It is the act of not hating when sometimes the actions can be hateful.

Thank you sexybeasty,

Praying for enemies as well as friends and family. The act of not hating even when the actions of other can be hateful.

You said it right there. I do believe Retrotia will understand what I meant better now.

Sure, I understand what seybeasty says about praying is a kind of unconditional love. And not hating back someone who hates you is a kind of unconditional love, but I never said I had a problem with any other kind of denomination of Christian, so I'm glad you figured it out anyway!
Jesushelper, you need to not be so sensitive & fly off the handle so easily. I can tell by your post you were practically shouting.

O.K. now you two need to kiss and make up... mother says. LOL

AND clean your rooms!!

I think I just had my 1st falling out with some of another Christian denomination! LOL:o

Yeah retro, mama almost put you two in the corner and you can forget dessert. O.K. you can have a little ice cream. I'm such a softee. Hee hee.

Your point #1. The Church of England was very little different from the Catholic Church in that era, formed so a king could divorce his wife, and Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees, a religious group. #2. We are talking tolerance, or lack thereof, here. I fail to see your point here in relation to the question. #3. How many cases can you cite where people are jailed, tortured, or denied access to services due to their religion in this country?

1. The Anglican Church had a much broader base than Henry's divorce. Check it out.
2. Tolerance is a dirty word to some Christians. I am, not of their number.

3. The Ku Klux Klan, a Christian organisation that had new life breathed into it after WW II by a Mehtodist Minister hates Jews and Catholics, and has tortured, maimed, lynched, abused, and prevented many from exercising their loegal right to cast a vote. All in the name of Protestant White Racial Superiority in the USA. Where have you been?

Irish immigranmtsn were treated as second class citizens because they were catholics swamping a Protestant country. The Chinese who built the railroads were treated the same because they were heathens.

Those who will not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

M:)

Hello I thought we were having an open discussion? :o

Not a falling out? :eek:

I was just trying to state the sexybeasty said it so well. I was pointing that out. How I feel the same way and I wanted to mention that to you Retro that, sexybeasty said it best and that is how I feel too. For some reason all weirdness happened.

I do not get it on how all the wierdness came from? If you could fill me in that would be great! :D


Joe


P.S.

Sexybeasty I enjoy your sense of humour and making things light. Do you want Retro and I too kiss and make up now? Here it is. The best I could do. :p

Hi Jesushelper!

Knowing fully that taking offense does not come from the Lord, I found myself defending myself after you did take offense, so I was rightfully confused.
The statement you made about loving others unconditionally seemed out of place for what we were referring to at the time. However, the original question actually does suggest more than people of the same Faith, so I can see YOUR point in stating love with a broad brush.
In 1Thessalonians4:9- Now about brotherly love we do not need to write you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.
In other words, I thought we were discussing the differences caused by denominations of Christianity.
If your post was related to ALL peoples, then I can see the agape love makes sense.
So, I apologize for the upset or misunderstanding.

Peace brother. Have a good day.

Hey JesusHelper, I was going to give you a rating, but the board said I need to spread it around more, as I give too many to you. Hey, when Big Brother speaks...

Anyway, I was going to say I loved you throwing the kiss to Retro, and might I say what a cute little boy you are. LOL

Oh yeah, I promised you two ice cream...

Hey retro, I am glad you made up too. Misunderstandings are easy to have when we write our answers on threads. I have done it, too.

Morganite brought up the KKK. Of course, every group has fringes, we all know that. I am more interested in the main body, so to speak. I believe Vatican II has been brought up more than once, so let me play the bad guy here and ask a serious question. Do the Knights of Columbus still take their bloody oath? We all hope that no Pope will ever demand that these men honor that oath, but how do we know that? If a Pope insisted, would not these men be oath bound to carry out extermination of all Protestants? Or have the Knights disbanded? They seem to be the opposite number from the KKK.

Morganite brought up the KKK. Of course, every group has fringes, we all know that. I am more interested in the main body, so to speak. I believe Vatican II has been brought up more than once, so let me play the bad guy here and ask a serious question. Do the Knights of Columbus still take their bloody oath? We all hope that no Pope will ever demand that these men honor that oath, but how do we know that? If a Pope insisted, would not these men be oath bound to carry out extermination of all Protestants? Or have the Knights disbanded? They seem to be the opposite number from the KKK.
Paul said: "Test everything and hold fast to the truth."

The Ku Klux Klan is a real Protestant organisation dedicated to the destruction of Blacks, Jews, and Catholics. If in doubt, ask the FBI. Not all Protestants are as bloody minded as the KKK, and few mainline Protestants would use rape and murder to further their political ends. However, for Protestanmts to remain silent while some of their number commit terrible depredations against an innocent population is to tacitly condone their actions.

The supposed Oath of the Knights of Columbus is an anti-Catholic libel intended to frighten small Protestant children and others of weak intellect. In popular Protestant anti-Roman mythology the Oath of the Jesuits was said to be the foundation for the oath of the Knights of Columbus. Not only is the oath putated to the Jesuits by shameless libellers a patent falsehood that Lucifer is proud to owen, but so also is the supposed "bloody oath" of the Knights of Columbus.

Anyone who is interested in this can check this reference in any law school library. The citation is H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for February 15, 1913, at pp. 3215-3220.

This unseats the vile calumnies and demonstrates that neither fictional Oath is credible, and the Congress of the United States of America accept this as the true case and is entered into the Congressional Record. Referring to the claimed bloody oath of the Knights of Columbus, the Committee on Elections declares:

"This committee cannot condemn too strongly the publication of the false and libelous article referred to in the paper of Mr. Bonniwell, and which was the spurious Knights of Columbus oath, a copy of which is appended to the paper." (H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for February 15, 1913, at p. 3221)

The Roman Church has had to suffer many such calumnies. One that was once widespread and poular is the book that pretends to be "THE AWFUL DISCLOSURES OF MARIA MONK." The whole thing is a work of fiction that grew out of Protestant hatred for their Catholic brethren in the late nineteenth century.

My position is that if you disagree with a particular theological or ecclesiastical position, inventing, repeating, and perpetuating lies about it is a Plutonian business in which no one worthy of the name of 'Christian' ought to be engaged.

Jews have had massive lies and libels directed at them, and it is to a great extent the Christian dislike for Jews that gave Hitler as much licence as he had to begin his extirmination of them.

It is a cause of serious concern for all men that a certain group of like minded will publish any falshood if it suits their agendas, regardless of whether it is the truth or not. Such is not the work of God, for God does not need either lies or liars to move his work along.

Someone owes the Knights of Columbus an apology for bearing false witness agsinst them in contradiction and defiance of the divine law.

.

M:)RGANITE

<><


>

Morganite brought up the KKK. Of course, every group has fringes, we all know that. I am more interested in the main body, so to speak. I believe Vatican II has been brought up more than once, so let me play the bad guy here and ask a serious question. Do the Knights of Columbus still take their bloody oath? We all hope that no Pope will ever demand that these men honor that oath, but how do we know that? If a Pope insisted, would not these men be oath bound to carry out extermination of all Protestants? Or have the Knights disbanded? They seem to be the opposite number from the KKK.

You might be uinterested to know that there has been a major shift in Catholic-Luteran-Methodist censensus over the doctrine of justification. Thus, and I quote:

Largely as a result of the changes brought about by Vatican II, ecumenical dialog has permeated much of Christendom in recent decades. This includes various Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialog groups which have tackled the justification question since the early 1970's. The 1998 Joint Declaration was largely based on the efforts of those groups.

Partial agreement was jointly reached between the Lutheran World Federation (ILWF) and the Roman Catholic Church. The Joint Declaration had been circulated among the 124 Lutheran denominations who formed the Federation; a significant majority approved the document. In 1998-JUN, the Lutheran World federation Council unanimously approved the Joint Declaration.

Also in 1998-JUN, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, responded on behalf of the Vatican. He said: "I wish to stress that the consensus reached on the doctrine of justification, despite its limitations, virtually resolves a long disputed question at the close of the 20th century, on the eve of the new millennium."

In 2006-JUL, at its general assembly in Seoul, South Korea, the World Methodist Council added its approval. The assembly consists of representatives of 76 different Methodist communities worldwide, and is held every 5 years.

??

Nobody... EVERYONE thinks THEIR religion is the one and true religion! Yet these are the same people that say EVERYONE was created by G_d. So which is it? :)

Everyone is created by God.

In response to Morganite's post about the KC oath I went to the web. Not about to look at the 3 mil plus hits, but found enough to learn that the particular oath is likely false. Also learned that the Catholic church forbids it's members to be part of any secret society. (eg. Masonic) so this raises the question, is there actually a Jesuit society, and is it secret? Does the Knights of Columbus exist, and is it secret? If they do, then how do we know just what they stand for. Are they potentially dangerous? The organization I am affiliated with forbids (as much as possible) membership in ANY secret society. So how is it that the RC is selective in which secret societies it forbids?

As to the growing ecuminicism, I read in the Book of Revelation that there appears to be a world-wide church in the end time, so it's going to happen, but it is not portrayed as a good thing, but an evil one.

In response to Morganite's post about the KC oath I went to the web. Not about to look at the 3 mil plus hits, but found enough to learn that the particular oath is likely false. Also learned that the Catholic church forbids it's members to be part of any secret society. (eg. Masonic) so this raises the question, is there actually a Jesuit society, and is it secret? Does the Knights of Columbus exist, and is it secret? If they do, then how do we know just what they stand for. Are they potentially dangerous? The orginization I am affiliated with forbids (as much as possible) membership in ANY secret society. So how is it that the RC is selective in which secret societies it forbids?

As to the growing ecuminicism, I read in the Book of Revelation that there appears to be a world-wide church in the end time, so it's going to happen, but it is not portrayed as a good thing, but an evil one.


You will find answers to your questions here:

US Jesuit Conference (http://www.jesuit.org/)

Knights of Columbus (http://www.kofc.org/un/index.cfm)

As to your reading of Revelation, that is open to various interpretations. Some foolishly insist that it is the UN.


M:)RGANITE

You will find answers to your questions here:

US Jesuit Conference (http://www.jesuit.org/)

Knights of Columbus (http://www.kofc.org/un/index.cfm)

As to your reading of Revelation, that is open to various interpretations. Some foolishly insist that it is the UN.


M:)RGANITE

I looked at those sites, but didn't find the answer to what I asked. "Are these oath-bound societies? and is the oath public knowledge? As to the identity of the "Great Whore" that would be another lengthy thread, no doubt. I think she represents a final world-wide religious body. Lots of unity but no righteousness. Pretty hard to prove anything at this time though.

I looked at those sites, but didn't find the answer to what I asked. "Are these oath-bound societies? and is the oath public knowledge? As to the identity of the "Great Whore" that would be another lengthy thread, no doubt. I think she represents a final world-wide religious body. Lots of unity but no righteousness. Pretty hard to prove anything at this time though.

If the sites do not mention their secrecy or oaths, then you can be pretty sure that there are none. I have a relative who is a Jesuit and he denies any secrecy in the Society of Jesus. The Knights of Columbus are a charitable body, not a commando, uinit in the Catholic Church.

It is always foolish to accept the word of an enemy as to the character of their opponments. It is something like hearing your character described by your mother-in-law in the divorce court.

There are certain movements within Protestantism whose penchant for truth is non existent when dealing with Romanism and its institutions, and even when describing other Protestant bodies. The worst of these is the fiendish Jack Chick propaganda machine that stoops to deliberate lies to paint its victims as black as possible with no regard to truth.

Such are as poor sources of information as is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," etc, and the wise give them a wise berth.

M:)

Interesting that you bring up the "Protocols". They became public before my birth, and seem to be a plan to engineer society. I'm sure I don't know who wrote them, but the social progression, in the Western world at least, seems to be following the plan. Any idea where they came from, and how have they proven to be as accurate as they have?

Personally, I think that prodisant's are. Or even neither. Those whom aren't of any ''christian'' religion. I've been dealing with this issue on my other post's. I feel one of the only truly tolerant religion's is wiccan/pagan. Out of all the different religious types that I personally know wiccan's are most tolerant.

Being tolerant, in and of itself, will never impart everlasting life to those who are tolerant. Or intolerant either, for that matter.

Interesting that you bring up the "Protocols". They became public before my birth, and seem to be a plan to engineer society. I'm sure I don't know who wrote them, but the social progression, in the Western world at least, seems to be following the plan. Any idea where they came from, and how have they proven to be as accurate as they have?

They have not proven to be accurate, buit are a tussue of lies frombeginning to end. Anyone who believes there is any truth to be found wihtin their oages is in serious intellectual social and spiritual trouble. The Protocols are not a Jewish production. They have a long history. You will find many salient references to them here:

http://derson.igc.org/protocols.html

The Protocols are an excellent example of how a document originally manufactured as an engine of hate against one group of people can be forged into an equally dangerous and deadly weapon in the hands of ignorant fanatics to use against their enemies.

It is also a blot on the noble escutcheon of Christianity that some of their number do not shrink to employ the same practice against those whom they deem to be their religious enemies.


M:)RGANITE


,.

Being tolerant, in and of itself, will never impart everlasting life to those who are tolerant. Or intolerant either, for that matter.

Who suggests that tolerance imparts everlasting life? That is surely not the question. What seems very evident from the scriptures is that iontrolerance leads to death, spiritually and physically. Consider, if you will, the unquestionable fact that during the time Jesus was in Jerusalem he was surrounded by Roman temples to a variety of pagan gods, yet what do we find Jesus saying against them? He is not recorded as having expressed any intolerance towards them, nor of encouraging his disciples to fight against them.

That is not to say that he condoned them, only that he had other work to do and that he pursued his divine mission with an eye single to the glory of God.

It is an awful spectacle to witness those who claim to walk in the footsteps of the Master treading where he did not tread, saying things he did not say, and pretending in a most gravemanner that they are somehow serving Jesus Christ and God, when there is no call anywhere in scripture for Christians to persecute those who hold different opinions from them.

What is evident, is for those who believe in Christ to set their own houses in order and to not be consumed with what others might believe, nor to take upon their own shoulders a self-appointed ministry under the guise of saving the souls of men. To his apostles Jesus said, Ye have not chosen me: I have chosen you and ordained you. It is a far reach for a man to appoint himself when Christ has not called and ordained him, and an even further reach for a man to exercise intolerance towards othyers as if it were a Christian principle.

Tolerance is not to be equated with acceptance or condonement, but a man who follows Jesus does not make another man an enemy because the other man finds the supposed Christian to be harsh and abrasive in his denunciation of his beliefs.

Let all remember that the only and ulitmate judges will be God and Jesus Christ and those appointed by them to sit in judgement. As to the rest of us, we are to be tolerant, kind, loving, forgiving, and benign, and when we feel we cannot bless others, we are to pray for cleansing of our souls so that we can show the pleasant face of Christ and God to all men. This is never done with a scowl or mean words.

M:)

Personally, i think that prodisant's are. Or even neither. Those whom aren't of any ''christian'' religion. I've been dealing with this issue on my other post's. I feel one of the only truely tolerant religion's is wiccan/pagan. Out of all the different religous types that i personally know wiccan's are most tolerant.

It is not a person's denomination or faith group that makes them tolerant or intolerant, but rather their personalities. Like most people I have dealings with those of every and no religion and find a fair sprinkling of both ends of the tolerant/intolerant spectrum among all of them.

Merry meet.

M:)

1 JOHN 4:
"7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. "

JOHN 13:
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."


Protestants and Catholics have the same New Testament ? Right , believe in the same
God?

Then intolerance is dependent on the individual and not the denomination.

Who suggests that tolerance imparts everlasting life? That is surely not the question. What seems very evident from the scriptures is that iontrolerance leads to death, spiritually and physically. Consider, if you will, the unquestionable fact that during the time Jesus was in Jerusalem he was surrounded by Roman temples to a variety of pagan gods, yet what do we find Jesus saying against them? He is not recorded as having expressed any intolerance towards them, nor of encouraging his disciples to fight against them.

That is not to say that he condoned them, only that he had other work to do and that he pursued his divine mission with an eye single to the glory of God.

It is an awful spectacle to witness those who claim to walk in the footsteps of the Master treading where he did not tread, saying things he did not say, and pretending in a most gravemanner that they are somehow serving Jesus Christ and God, when there is no call anywhere in scripture for Christians to persecute those who hold different opinions from them.

What is evident, is for those who believe in Christ to set their own houses in order and to not be consumed with what others might believe, nor to take upon their own shoulders a self-appointed ministry under the guise of saving the souls of men. To his apostles Jesus said, Ye have not chosen me: I have chosen you and ordained you. It is a far reach for a man to appoint himself when Christ has not called and ordained him, and an even further reach for a man to exercise intolerance towards othyers as if it were a Christian principle.

Tolerance is not to be equated with acceptence or condonement, but a man who follows Jesus does not make another man an enemy because the other man finds the supposed Christian to be harsh and abrasive in his denunciation of his beliefs.

Let all remember that the only and ulitmate judges will be God and Jesus Christ and those appointed by them to sit in judgement. As to the rest of us, we are to be tolerant, kind, loving, forgiving, and benign, and when we feel we cannot bless others, we are to pray for cleansing of our souls so that we can show the pleasant face of Christ and God to all men. This is never done with a scowl or mean words.

M:)
To your first paragraph above: I agree that Jesus said nothing about Roman religion or customs. I disagree with your conclusion as to why. Jesus plainly said that He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Israel had not yet rejected Him, and hence, He was not at that time dealing with Gentiles. Secondly, if He had made any remarks against anything Roman, the Romans would have aborted the Church. We would not have even heard of it! Jesus did, however, severely criticize the Publicans, who were probably the most numerous religious order in that day. He called them snakes, and said their father was the devil. Not much toleraance there!

Re. paragraph 4: Am I wrong in feeling that this is directed at me? How do you know that I have not been called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel? Does God only call priests of the Roman church?

Finally, if we feel that we cannot bless others, we are obligated to pray that God will grant repentance to them, and stand ready to provide guidance if they want it.

Ps. I don't scowl a lot.

To your first paragraph above: I agree that Jesus said nothing about Roman religion or customs. I disagree with your conclusion as to why. Jesus plainly said that He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Israel had not yet rejected Him, and hence, He was not at that time dealing with Gentiles.

Secondly, if He had made any remarks against anything Roman, the Romans would have aborted the Church. We would not have even heard of it! Jesus did, however, severely criticize the Publicans, who were probably the most numerous religious order in that day. He called them snakes, and said their father was the devil. Not much toleraance there!

Re. paragraph 4: Am I wrong in feeling that this is directed at me? How do you know that I have not been called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel? Does God only call priests of the Roman church?

Finally, if we feel that we cannot bless others, we are obligated to pray that God will grant repentance to them, and stand ready to provide guidance if they want it.

Ps. I don't scowl a lot.
GF: What you will find is that Jesus criticises Jews who do not live up to their religion. He is probably not disinterested in Roman religions, but he does not direct his followers to attack them. He sticks closely to his mission of fulfilling the old law and establishing the law of the gospel of Christ.

Although Jesus did say he was sent to the house of Israel, he was also the first Christian missionary to the Gentiles. Like the Sabbath day, it was meant o be a blessing not a burden to mankind.

If we learn nothing from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman we should learn that he was not intolerant to her faith, but encouraged her to set her life in order, which she did, and then became the second missionary to the Gentiles through her witness to her own villagers. That was the beginning of the Samaritan branch of the Christian Church.

What does that teach us? If nothing else, it shows us that hostility and intolerance is a poor missionary tool, and since Jesus did not use it, then we cannot use it and claim to be on his side or doing his will.

I cannot come to agreement with you as to what the Romans would have done if Jesus had criticised their gods. Romans were almost uniquely tolerant in matters of a religious nature, and with so many gods and temples among them they were used to some being favoured and some being. Romans did not look with disfavour on any religion, accepting that it was at least a matter for individual conscience.

Non-Sadduceean Palestinian Jews spoke loud and angrily against the Roman occupation, and the Zealots encouraged Jewish insurgents to make life hot for the Romans, but Rome did not quench or quell Judaism.

Since Publicans (tax gatherers) were an occupation rather than a rleigion, I will take it that you meant to write Pharisees.

M:)

I did indeed intend to write Pharisee. As to the Samaritan woman, Jesus did correct her. He told her that salvation was of the Jews, but went further and explained that those places of worship were no longer of any importance. God must be worshpped in spirit and in truth. She apparentlly accepted the corrections. More than can be said for many today!

GF: What you will find is that Jesus criticises Jews who do not live up to their religion. He is probably not disinterested in Roman religions, but he does not direct his followers to attack them. He sticks closely to his mission of fulfilling the old law and establishing the law of the gospel of Christ.

Although Jesus did say he was sent to the house of Israel, he was also the first Christian missionary to the Gentiles. Like the Sabbath day, it was meant o be a blessing not a burden to mankind.

If we learn nothing from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman we should learn that he was not intolerant to her faith, but encouraged her to set her life in order, which she did, and then became the second missionary to the Gentiles through her witness to her own villagers. That was the beginning of the Samaritan branch of the Christian Church.

What does that teach us? If nothing else, it shows us that hostility and intolerance is a poor missionary tool, and since Jesus did not use it, then we cannot use it and claim to be on his side or doing his will.

I cannot come to agreement with you as to what the Romans would have done if Jesus had criticised their gods. Romans were almost uniquely tolerant in matters of a religious nature, and with so many gods and temples among them they were used to some being favoured and some being. Romans did not look with disfavour on any religion, accepting that it was at least a matter for individual conscience.

Non-Sadduceean Palestinian Jews spoke loud and angrily against the Roman occupation, and the Zealots encouraged Jewish insurgents to make life hot for the Romans, but Rome did not quench or quell Judaism.

Since Publicans (tax gatherers) were an occupation rather than a rleigion, I will take it that you meant to write Pharisees.

M:)
I must take exception to your statement that the Romans did not look with disfavor on any religion. Rome took draconian measures against Christians. It seems Christians would not worship the emperor, and that was a major no-no. No tolerance toward Christians there!

I must take exception to your statement that the Romans did not look with disfavor on any religion. Rome took draconian measures against Christians. It seems Christians would not worship the emperor, and that was a major no-no. No tolerance toward Christians there!

Roman persecution of Christians was unknown at the time of Jesus' ministry. Remember we are speaking of Jesus' teaching during his mortal ministry. The persecutions began at a much later date. The following are the ten major persecutions of Christians during the Roman Empire:

#Nero (64 A.D.)
# Domitian (c.90-96)
# Trajan (98-117)
# Hadrian (117-138)
# Marcus Aurelius (161-181)
# Septimus Severus (202-211)
# Maximus the Thracian (235-251)
# Decius (249-251)
# Valerian (257-260)
# Diocletian / Galerius (303-311)

The death of Jesus is around 33 AD, so there was no persecution, and the Romans did not favour one religion over another uless they suspected it of being seditious, in which case it was barred and iots members treated as enemy insurgents and locked up wihtout due oprocess.

Although this might not be the only, or even primary, reason for toleration, it should be remembered that not all Roman soldiers were actually Italianate Romans. Men from many countries within the Roman Empire served in the ranks of its armies.

Roman tolerance did not extend to religions perceived as threats to public order within the empire. Cults such as Isis-worship were banned from time to time when their practice caused unrest.

Judaism was widespread throughout the empire, but its exclusive monotheism combined with a strong nationalist ideology in Judaea itself led to conflicts with, and ferocious revolts against, Roman authority - although these were bloodily repressed.

Christianity was sporadically persecuted throughout Roman history, primarily to maintain public order. Groups that met privately (whether religious sects, trade guilds or even local fire brigades!) were viewed with suspicion by Roman authorities, who suspected such groups of plotting subversion.

In those days, it was imperial policy to remove troops as far as possible from their country of origin in order to prevent local uprisings. A Roman soldier who, after several years of service in his native country had been promoted to the rank of centurion, was transferred to a foreign station where he was later assigned to a new garrison.

This way, the entire body of centurions of any one legion constituted a microcosm of the empire. The vast extent of the Roman colonies formed links between Persia and the Mediterranean and caused the diffusion of the Mithraic and other pagan religions into the Roman world, including Canaanite opaganism, etc.

The point of this is that in remarking the wickedness of religious people, Jesus confined his attention to those who were Jews, and those who came to be his disciples, but is never found to be castigating those practising any other religion.

This should provide us with an excellent example of how to set our own houses in order, look to our own hearts, and refrain from persecuting those who do not walk alongside us. I thoight I had made that plain in an earlier post.


M:)

Morganite, you are very well read and articulate, but we will never agree on the way we define persecution. You believe we must respect another's beliefs, even if we are convinced that it is wrong and leads to eternal loss. I believe that every Christian has the obligation to challenge that non-Christian to think about the claims of Christ. Delicately, and kindly, of course. To me, not to present the claims of Christ amounts to dereliction of duty. Now, will you tolerate me?

Morganite, you are very well read and articulate, but we will never agree on the way we define persecution. You believe we must respect another's beliefs, even if we are convinced that it is wrong and leads to eternal loss. I believe that every Christian has the obligation to challenge that non-Christian to think about the claims of Christ. Delicately, and kindly, of course. To me, not to present the claims of Christ amounts to dereliction of duty. Now, will you tolerate me?

G, I have no problem tolerating you, but that does not mean that I agree with you on all points. I believe in the present disagreement that it hinges on whether Rome was persecuting Christians at the time that Jesus was alive and preaching. The Bible show that it was not.

I am in favour of delicacy an dkindness, and trust that you will not feel that I have been lacjking in those virtues when I have addressed what I believe are errors in your thinking and grasp of history etc. It is not personal, merely a rabbinical discussion by two rabbis [you and me] who do not share the same perspective on all issues - not uncommon in Christianity, as it is not in all faiths.

I understand your take on Christian responsibility and I do not argue with that in principle, but I also believe that every Christian has a divine responsibility to ensure that what they witness and challenge is true in the first place, and accurate in the second place, and, of even greater importance is that witnessing and challenging is done with the same broad generous love that Jesus had in him when he looked on the rich young man. Although the RYM rejected Jesus counsel, Jesus' response was not vituperative, but a sad andcontemplative observation to his disciples, equivalent to,

"Oh, dear. It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom because they love their wealth more than they desire eternalife. Oh, dear me, alas and lack-a-day!"

It is essential that if we believe that we are speaking for Christ, that we speak as he spoke, and it is well if we do not invoke his example when he cleansed the temple. That is something he effected by himself, and there is no record in the scriptures that he gave his ministers authority to do the same.

What did he tell them to do when men rejected their proclamations? He told them to wipe off the dust of their feet, and that God would take care of what needed taking care of in God's time. God's ministers are not sent out to be the instruments of either his judgement or vengeance.

If we can't do what we do in Christ's way, then we should get ourselves some other employment or hobby.



M:)RGANITE

Well, I can agree with most of that, Morganite.

In general, who are more tolerant of differing religeous views--Protestants or Catholics?

Tolerant? As a christian I believe the bible uncomprimized my catholic brother in law thinks it's a cult.

Excuse the spelling I'm tired

Personally, I don't think that it is FAIR to classify between catholics and protestants. I believe in absolute truth. I also believe in wisdom and being nice about absolute truth. I think you win people to Christ through love NOT condemnation. But hey, that is just me.

Being tolerant and religious differ from person to person and not from religion to religion, yet these to things doesn't mean much at the end if you are not saved, Cain was a religious man yet he killed his brother, anyone in the world can be tolerant which won't count much at the end