Catholic accounting of its plunder...

First day of the new year and already we have Catholics and Nazis in the same sentence. See how those Christians love one another!

BTW, anybody have a count of how much Catholic church property was stolen from the Church? Gee, maybe I should call somebody a Nazi. Nah, I was raised better than that.

Yeah, that's what they all say.

 

You are convinced in your own mind that Catholocism is wrong, so much so that you compare it to both the Nazi party and the devil.

You don't encourage thinking; you encourage thinking like you do. No thanks, I don't participate in uncivil discourse. Good day.

 

Jimraboin is no more reliable than the Nazi's were. Look. If jimraboin accurately gives an account of what he stole, how does that make him less of a thief? Jim need to deal with jimraboin's credibility here.

Second, whether jimraboin adds his voice to echo Scriptures or not does not change the fact that Jim is a false teacher. Even the devil quotes Scriptures. Yet this activity cannot change the fact he is a liar and a cheat.
My logic is both sound and reasonable. Either refute my error by showing jimraboin's credibility or accept the fact that you have called evil "good".

Why must we accept everything jimraboin says simply because he can read what he took by force? If a thief steals your wallet, are his motives honorable and true by virtue he can accurately read the driver's license he took?

Pointing out the absurdity of the first post of this thread,

Carson

 

Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.

Since Hitler was catholic and many leaders in the catholic church supported and were members of the Nazi party it can't be said that using both terms in the same sentence is automatically un-christian.

Catholics have a strong history of anti-semitism and the first Jewish ghettos were started by them, not Hitler. Long before we heard of this man Hitler, the Catholic church required that Jews live in ghettos, wear identifying marks, were forbidden to intermarry etc.

Let's not also forget those who were murdered in their own holy land by the catholic church who tried to claim it for their own. These are only a few instances of the many crimes that were commited against the Jewish race by the catholic church.

Don't be so convinced in your own mind that you are right that you excuse such behavior as "christian." Surely this was not Christ-like in any way shape or form.
.

~Lorelei

 

Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.
</font>[/QUOTE]What they have in common is the fallen nature of man. No more.

Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews saved from the Nazis by Catholics and the Catholic Church how much the Catholic Church and the Nazis had in common.

 

Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews saved from the Nazis by Catholics and the Catholic Church how much the Catholic Church and the Nazis had in common.

Also ask the chief Rabbi of Rome (i.e., Rabbi Zolli) at the time who, after the War, converted to Catholicism and took - for his baptismal name - the baptismal name of Pope Pius XII: Eugenio:

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/more/zolli.htm

 

I am not supporting Catholicism or any other church, but everyone has egg on their face. Enough to go around for everyone.

If one wants to see what a church looks like just read the book of James and the letters to the Corinthians. There are those who are a snake in the grass and those who are very godly people trying to live for all that God wants them to. Some of course are misguided and are doing what they believe is right even though it is wrong. George Barna reported just a few years ago that the divorce rate was higher among those who attend church than those in the world. If someone read that they would conclude that the chruch is counter productive.

As a child I grew up in the Catholic Church and saw plenty wrong. But having been an SBC pastor I have I am still appalled at what I saw at times. I have seen men and women more controlled by the world than God.

If you look up the stats of the Baptist and Catholic Churches. I know these are older stats but I have not looked up any new ones lately. But from 1980-88 the RCC and SBC grew exactly the same nine percent. While the population growth was eight per cent. (A History of Christianity in the US and Canada by Mark. Noll page 465). That's pretty close to paganism if you ask me. An increase of one percent. Who's doing evangelism to make only a one percent gain over the population growth? Sounds like just a handful. When I was in an SBC seminary they told us that only ten percent of the people in SBC churches even witness on a regular basis and only eleven percent. But most of the people never lead anyone to Christ. How's that for evangelicalism. How many of those who lead someone to Christ are troublemakers in our churches? I don't know of any. They are too busy and are concerned about the welfare of the non-believer to be concerned with the color of the social order or the color of the carpet at the church. They leave that up to the committee. A committee is a race horse led by a camel.

 

Alright Jim,

All these things you are asking are threads in and of themselves, and ones that will get sidetracked with lot of bickering etc. In other words, they are never going to get coverd here is this one thread.

You seem like you have been doing some reading. I have a real question to ask you about all this stuff you are throwing out for everybody here. How much of the early christian patristic texts have you actually read from? I am not talking history books, or Eusebius, or William Carrol or Justo Gonzalez. I am asking if you have read pre-Nicean workds by some fairly early christians say, 2nd century?

These subjects would require fantasitc study to really get a grip on the situations and documents you are talking about. You would have to understand social and historical contexts of both political and philisophical understandings of each period you chose to study to do yourself scholarly justice.

Other than that, we can all go out and grab some old document, accusations, whatever and iterpret them anyway we see that supports our positions. You should know that is easy enough to do. There are two sides to all of this. What the real issue at the end of the day is, after looking closely at these things in context, and listening to both sides rant, you have to come to grips with what you really believe about what you have seen.

And like with a glass of muddy water, only time can produce clarity with all of these things in your inner concience. Ah, and your inner concience is the one thing you cannot appease by twisting some Scriptures or events to support your story. We can all do that quite well.

2000 years of ANY history, not just Catholic, cannot be understood or explained with knee-jerk answers. Even when they are right on, they are not believeable to many people in a time and culture removed from the ancient timelines. I am just saying, a thread cannot possibly alleviate your concerns.

I mean, look at these die hards on this forum. I think we chatter to represent our version of truth so those on the fences get the benefit of quitely observing the details, and doing their own study. You certainly cannot believe that we Catholics here are going to convince a DHK or BobRyan or Yelsew to the RCC do you? Or that they believe they will eventually come on over. Hey, who knows? But really, we all like representing our sides (the real truth), and we all feel better about it once it is off our chests.

 

See, here is an example. Simple question, but then you try to answer your own question with your bias. And then you insult your own answer presupossing we all would answer in your manner, which I wouldn't. Then, you insult us immediatly stating we would probably not know these never before mentioned things or accusations. Like, lets see, never heard of Eusebius or how Constantine invented the Catholic Church before. See how some of these poor souls may smell a rat and not think you sincere?
Hey, I was raised on Jack Chick and Alberto magazines.

You say 'ultimately' - so that we get the impression that no matter what we beleive it is 'ultimately' attributed to Eusebius or Constantine. And whatever we may find, will have been 'invented'. So you see then how you are setting up a rather bad and negative tone to a possibly sincere inquiry.

You get no good takers like this...

 

I'm new on this board and have spent most of my time reading rather than posting, but I need to put my 2 cents in here.

It saddens me beyond words that "Christians" are attacking one another so frequently here. I don't think anyone who was unsaved would come into a discussion like this and want to be a Baptist or a Catholic.

Isn't it the Great Commission to go out and make disciples of all nations? Maybe if we were more concerned about only that, rather than ripping apart one another's church, we'd create converts rather than create ridicule towards all Christians. Didn't Christ say that people would know we are Christians by our love of one another?