-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
catholicism and the Jewish people - a test case for authority
- Thread starter Australian Baptist Student
- Start date
Australian Baptist Student
New Member
Good night.
Good night, Ed [/QB][/QUOTE]
Sorry Ed!!!!!
I got confused re all the replies.
Good night, Dan
Good night, Ed [/QB][/QUOTE]
Sorry Ed!!!!!
I got confused re all the replies.
Good night, Dan
"The church is not supposed to act re what is normal or accepted for the time."
The Church is against usury. At one time that meant charging interest on any loans. Why? Because one couldn't invest money readily with any prospect of receiving recompense. Now that banks, etc. give interest, one is allowed to charge a reasonable amount of interest on a loan, but not gouge someone with very high interest charges. So making a loan at 10% 1000 years ago may be considered a sin whereas now it isn't. Perhaps it would have to be 20% now for it be usury.
Civil laws and expectations change. The anti-war protests in the US in the 60s and even now would not have been tolerated by earlier societies that stressed individual's rights less.
Judging actions from prior periods of history based on current standards is foolish.
"Remorse is likewise not dependant on another also expressing remorse. It is a heart's response to sin, and is between you, God and the victims."
I don't believe in corporate sin--sin is an individual thing. Something in this case that I wasn't alive to commit.
"Priests and saints lied in open court to achieve the murder of Jews."
Something you have yet to prove. I believe assuming someone committed something wrong without adequate proof is another sin too--rash judgment.
"Transubstantiation was the basis of the charges which led to the murder of thousands of Jews." Does this mass murder concern you? Do you feel grief for the victims? Anger at the priests who so acted (in the name of your church)?"
Murder implies the Jews were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of. You have not proven this in the least. If they were guilty of blasphemy or heresy I believe the punishment at that time was death, something we would not see imposed now but the given punishment for that age. I don't feel grief for people would commit crimes that are put to death. If they were not guilty, something you have not proven at all, then it was very unfortunate that they were put to death. After 500+ years I feel less anger towards the unproven allegations that you make than I do the Protestant revolt, nothing more than a land grab, civil revolution and plundering my many in the name of religon.
The Church is against usury. At one time that meant charging interest on any loans. Why? Because one couldn't invest money readily with any prospect of receiving recompense. Now that banks, etc. give interest, one is allowed to charge a reasonable amount of interest on a loan, but not gouge someone with very high interest charges. So making a loan at 10% 1000 years ago may be considered a sin whereas now it isn't. Perhaps it would have to be 20% now for it be usury.
Civil laws and expectations change. The anti-war protests in the US in the 60s and even now would not have been tolerated by earlier societies that stressed individual's rights less.
Judging actions from prior periods of history based on current standards is foolish.
"Remorse is likewise not dependant on another also expressing remorse. It is a heart's response to sin, and is between you, God and the victims."
I don't believe in corporate sin--sin is an individual thing. Something in this case that I wasn't alive to commit.
"Priests and saints lied in open court to achieve the murder of Jews."
Something you have yet to prove. I believe assuming someone committed something wrong without adequate proof is another sin too--rash judgment.
"Transubstantiation was the basis of the charges which led to the murder of thousands of Jews." Does this mass murder concern you? Do you feel grief for the victims? Anger at the priests who so acted (in the name of your church)?"
Murder implies the Jews were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of. You have not proven this in the least. If they were guilty of blasphemy or heresy I believe the punishment at that time was death, something we would not see imposed now but the given punishment for that age. I don't feel grief for people would commit crimes that are put to death. If they were not guilty, something you have not proven at all, then it was very unfortunate that they were put to death. After 500+ years I feel less anger towards the unproven allegations that you make than I do the Protestant revolt, nothing more than a land grab, civil revolution and plundering my many in the name of religon.
thessalonian
New Member
"in general, baptists have avoided persecuting, believing in seperation of church and state, and the freedom of people to choose their own beliefs."
Ya, that's why the KKK arose. This is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow statement. Baptists have persecuted as much as anyone. One of the ways they persecute is by lying about other peoples beliefs and about the historical issues surrounding the which you do daily on these boards. Truth matters little when it comes to other peoples beliefs. Distort them in a manner such that we can get the most milage out of the lie is the game. You point at the sinners in the Catholic Church and say, "look what they teach.". No we do not teach persecution of the Jews. But that has never stopped anyone from doing it. You say that because of the sinners in the Church there is no authority in the Church. Gee I guess we should throw out the two books of Peter because he catered to the Jewish Christians in Galatians, or all of Paul's works because he said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not, I do". So does that mean that he could not be infallible in writing scripture at least and also in his day to day instructions of the faith. Hardly. Your logic is not sound.
" Equally clearly, baptist history is far from perfect! That is just my point!! We know we are fallable, we know we are just forgiven sinners clinging to Jesus."
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT AS A CATHOLIC. I DON'T CLAIM ERRORS WEREN'T MADE BY POPES. IT IS YOU THAT SET THEM UP ON THIS PEDASTAL FOR ME. YOU HOLD THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH ACCOUNTABLE FOR ONE CATHOLIC PRIEST OR TWO THAT GOT THE PEOPLE PERSECUTING JEWS. Yet when the tables are turned on you, oh we're just sinners. Those who do not follow their faith will committ atrocities. Those who do will still make errors from time to time but will repent.
" We would not presume to preach our own history as an infallable guide to morals."
WHat are you talking about? We don't preach our history as an infallible guide to morals.
" We know we need to conform all our behaviour to the inspired God breathed words of Scripture, and accept nothing of ourselves as equal to that."
Once again this is a Protestant TRADITION. It is your words, Baptist Manefesto 289 I will call it. These words are nowhere found in the Bible. Now prove them but make sure you don't ignore 2 Thes 2:15 as you Baptists always do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya, that's why the KKK arose. This is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow statement. Baptists have persecuted as much as anyone. One of the ways they persecute is by lying about other peoples beliefs and about the historical issues surrounding the which you do daily on these boards. Truth matters little when it comes to other peoples beliefs. Distort them in a manner such that we can get the most milage out of the lie is the game. You point at the sinners in the Catholic Church and say, "look what they teach.". No we do not teach persecution of the Jews. But that has never stopped anyone from doing it. You say that because of the sinners in the Church there is no authority in the Church. Gee I guess we should throw out the two books of Peter because he catered to the Jewish Christians in Galatians, or all of Paul's works because he said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not, I do". So does that mean that he could not be infallible in writing scripture at least and also in his day to day instructions of the faith. Hardly. Your logic is not sound.
" Equally clearly, baptist history is far from perfect! That is just my point!! We know we are fallable, we know we are just forgiven sinners clinging to Jesus."
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT AS A CATHOLIC. I DON'T CLAIM ERRORS WEREN'T MADE BY POPES. IT IS YOU THAT SET THEM UP ON THIS PEDASTAL FOR ME. YOU HOLD THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH ACCOUNTABLE FOR ONE CATHOLIC PRIEST OR TWO THAT GOT THE PEOPLE PERSECUTING JEWS. Yet when the tables are turned on you, oh we're just sinners. Those who do not follow their faith will committ atrocities. Those who do will still make errors from time to time but will repent.
" We would not presume to preach our own history as an infallable guide to morals."
WHat are you talking about? We don't preach our history as an infallible guide to morals.
" We know we need to conform all our behaviour to the inspired God breathed words of Scripture, and accept nothing of ourselves as equal to that."
Once again this is a Protestant TRADITION. It is your words, Baptist Manefesto 289 I will call it. These words are nowhere found in the Bible. Now prove them but make sure you don't ignore 2 Thes 2:15 as you Baptists always do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trying2understand
New Member
Absolutely!
Bravo!
Well said!
GraceSaves
New Member
Colin,
This seems to be your big question:
I assumed it meant that if you followed the official teachings of your church, you were guarenteed that you would not sin by so doing.
If I follow the teachings of my Church, I will not sin in doing so. It has never been an official teaching of the Church to persecute anyone, to hurt anyone, or anything of the sort.
As for saints, they were human. Anyone who looks at them as beyond human is not looking at them through the eyes of official Catholic teaching. Some of them were low-down and dirty until they truly embraced Christ, and the only things we should model our lives after, in regards to them, is their love. Anyone who is following in a saint's footsteps in regards to their sin is a fool who wouldn't know what the Catholic Church was if it fell in his lap.
You keep reasking the question like it's not being answered. These historical tragedies, if you accurately reported them, are the works of individuals and their own personal ideas, not the official teachings OF THE CHURCH.
God bless,
Grant
This seems to be your big question:
I assumed it meant that if you followed the official teachings of your church, you were guarenteed that you would not sin by so doing.
If I follow the teachings of my Church, I will not sin in doing so. It has never been an official teaching of the Church to persecute anyone, to hurt anyone, or anything of the sort.
As for saints, they were human. Anyone who looks at them as beyond human is not looking at them through the eyes of official Catholic teaching. Some of them were low-down and dirty until they truly embraced Christ, and the only things we should model our lives after, in regards to them, is their love. Anyone who is following in a saint's footsteps in regards to their sin is a fool who wouldn't know what the Catholic Church was if it fell in his lap.
You keep reasking the question like it's not being answered. These historical tragedies, if you accurately reported them, are the works of individuals and their own personal ideas, not the official teachings OF THE CHURCH.
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
Hey fellas,
Are any of you patriotic? I fail to see how, when the United States stood idely by as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis put to death millions of Jews, often in horrible ways, throughout Europe. Oh sure, we got involved...when we got attacked on our own soil. But before then, it wasn't our business.
Last I checked, you guys still live in the United States and support this nation. Even though we didn't act to save the lives of innocent Jews until it was in our OWN best interest.
God bless,
Grant
Are any of you patriotic? I fail to see how, when the United States stood idely by as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis put to death millions of Jews, often in horrible ways, throughout Europe. Oh sure, we got involved...when we got attacked on our own soil. But before then, it wasn't our business.
Last I checked, you guys still live in the United States and support this nation. Even though we didn't act to save the lives of innocent Jews until it was in our OWN best interest.
God bless,
Grant
thessalonian
New Member
Bob Ryan
Imagine baptists dragging n*$*ers behind a car and burning their Chruches. Oh wait they did do that and they also supported repressive, abusive slavery.
http://www.detnet.com/wilke/klan1.html
Imagine baptists dragging n*$*ers behind a car and burning their Chruches. Oh wait they did do that and they also supported repressive, abusive slavery.
http://www.detnet.com/wilke/klan1.html
So, how does the RCC justify canonizing such scandalous people as saints? Why are certain horrific popes still among the list of "Holy Fathers?"
Baptist is not synonamous with KKK. Yes, there were people who claimed to be christian (baptist and probably other denominations) who also belonged to the KKK. That is not the same as having lead officials of the Baptist denomination ordering the annihilation of all black people. The situations are not the same, no matter how hard you try to make it so.
Are you limiting that to Baptists? If there were Catholics in America during those times, I'm sure they had slaves, also. By the way, are any of you familiar with how the African slave trade came to the Americas? If I was RC, I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger on that one.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
"And yet we DO fellowship with our Catholic bretheren in spite of all that."
DanPC
I suppose we shouldn't fellowship with witch burning or KKK Baptists either, should we?
Lets pay careful attention to the details for a change.
IF you had Baptist "Popes" declaring that the KKK principles/agendas were noble, Godly, to be rewarded AND IF you had those "popes" engaging in and ordering FURTHER KKK activity. Then YES you would have the SAME problem today.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" REFUSING EVEN TODAY to condemn those specific KKK-endorsing actions that they so Papally endorsed in the past -- then YES you WOULD have the SAME problem as the RCC today.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" controlling ALL of Christendom for CENTURIEs - burning bibles, torturing desenters and refusing to identify these SPECIFIC even TODAy as "bad" - then YES you WOULD have the same problem as the RCC today.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" and their followers TODAY - asserting that THE World Empire that SUPERCEDED pagan Rome WAS the Baptist church and they THEY controlled the deeds/hearts of men during the "DARK AGES" - then INDEED you WOULD have the SAME problem as the RCC does today - only for Baptist as well as Catholics.
If...
DanPC
The only shouting re history is a failure of some to judge others based on what was normal or accepted for their times.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" TODAY defending KKK actions and even black-slavery as "IT WAS normal for the times" - then YES you WOULD have the same problem as the RCC does today.
DanPC
I don't deny abuses happened but heretics were persecuted for the same reasons that terrorists are now--they disrupted law and order.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" TODAY claiming that they had the right to torture and kill runaway slaves BECAUSE "like terrorists today - they disrupted law and order as ordained by the Baptist Pope"... Then YES you WOULD have the SAME problem as the RCC today.
Only in the RCC case it was more an issue of "Thought Police".
Perhaps when yours does the same. I had no part in any of the abuses of the past.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" TODAY saying "We will not apologize for anything related to slavery UNTIL Catholic apologize for all the evils they sponsored in the course of history" - then YES you would have the SAME problem for Baptists as you have for the RCC today.
But until then... The RCC is "unique".
In Christ,
Bob
DanPC
I suppose we shouldn't fellowship with witch burning or KKK Baptists either, should we?
Lets pay careful attention to the details for a change.
IF you had Baptist "Popes" declaring that the KKK principles/agendas were noble, Godly, to be rewarded AND IF you had those "popes" engaging in and ordering FURTHER KKK activity. Then YES you would have the SAME problem today.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" REFUSING EVEN TODAY to condemn those specific KKK-endorsing actions that they so Papally endorsed in the past -- then YES you WOULD have the SAME problem as the RCC today.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" controlling ALL of Christendom for CENTURIEs - burning bibles, torturing desenters and refusing to identify these SPECIFIC even TODAy as "bad" - then YES you WOULD have the same problem as the RCC today.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" and their followers TODAY - asserting that THE World Empire that SUPERCEDED pagan Rome WAS the Baptist church and they THEY controlled the deeds/hearts of men during the "DARK AGES" - then INDEED you WOULD have the SAME problem as the RCC does today - only for Baptist as well as Catholics.
If...
DanPC
The only shouting re history is a failure of some to judge others based on what was normal or accepted for their times.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" TODAY defending KKK actions and even black-slavery as "IT WAS normal for the times" - then YES you WOULD have the same problem as the RCC does today.
DanPC
I don't deny abuses happened but heretics were persecuted for the same reasons that terrorists are now--they disrupted law and order.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" TODAY claiming that they had the right to torture and kill runaway slaves BECAUSE "like terrorists today - they disrupted law and order as ordained by the Baptist Pope"... Then YES you WOULD have the SAME problem as the RCC today.
Only in the RCC case it was more an issue of "Thought Police".
DanPC --
Perhaps when yours does the same. I had no part in any of the abuses of the past.
IF you had "Baptist Popes" TODAY saying "We will not apologize for anything related to slavery UNTIL Catholic apologize for all the evils they sponsored in the course of history" - then YES you would have the SAME problem for Baptists as you have for the RCC today.
But until then... The RCC is "unique".
In Christ,
Bob
GraceSaves
New Member
Is it just me, or is "autonomy of the local church" being used waaaaaay to often to excuse evil deeds done by Baptists? Since each church is independant, if some Baptist preacher was a KKK member or a child molestor...it doesn't really effect the Baptist Church because you can just cut off the connection with them by claiming "local autonomy." That's the worst cop-out I can think of.
God bless,
Grant
God bless,
Grant
Who's excusing evil deeds of anybody? It's not a copout if the governing authority of that church does what--say the AoG did in the case of Jimmy Swaggart--and defrocks him. (Sorry to continually use his name, but it's just a quick example that pops in mind.) Just like the Baptist minister that (I think) Show me referred to. He's serving time in prison, so I'm guessing he'll no longer be allowed to minister where he was.
You want we should bring up each and every sin of the lay people of the RCC, also? We're just talking about church leaders and officials so far.
It's not a copout if the governing authority of that church does what--say the AoG did in the case of Jimmy Swaggart--and defrocks him. (Sorry to continually use his name, but it's just a quick example that pops in mind.) Just like the Baptist minister that (I think) Show me referred to. He's serving time in prison, so I'm guessing he'll no longer be allowed to minister where he was.You want we should bring up each and every sin of the lay people of the RCC, also? We're just talking about church leaders and officials so far.
GraceSaves
New Member
Lisa,
Somehow, church officials are not allowed to sin like the laity? Granted, we should hope that they would not, and be GOOD leaders. We know that isn't always the case.
God bless,
Grant
Somehow, church officials are not allowed to sin like the laity? Granted, we should hope that they would not, and be GOOD leaders. We know that isn't always the case.
God bless,
Grant
thessalonian
New Member
"IF you had Baptist "Popes" declaring that the KKK principles/agendas were noble, Godly, to be rewarded AND IF you had those "popes" engaging in and ordering FURTHER KKK activity. Then YES you would have the SAME problem today."
bob.
I have to say you get the rabid dog anti-catholic award. congrats. There is nothing in any of your biggoted posts worth responding to.
Blessings though.
bob.
I have to say you get the rabid dog anti-catholic award. congrats. There is nothing in any of your biggoted posts worth responding to.
Blessings though.
Since no one else attempted to answer this one, I'll answer myself:
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/spanish/lascasas.htm
Does the name Bartolome De las Casas ring any bells?
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/spanish/lascasas.htm
Grant,
I never said that church officials were not allowed to sin. However, due to their positions and influence certain conduct and behaviors can not be swept under the rug and ignored. There is a difference between a "double standard" and a "higher standard." Church officials are held to "higher standards" and should be.
I never said that church officials were not allowed to sin.
However, due to their positions and influence certain conduct and behaviors can not be swept under the rug and ignored. There is a difference between a "double standard" and a "higher standard." Church officials are held to "higher standards" and should be.Australian Baptist Student
New Member
Hi thess, I do hold the whole catholic church for actions that were done in its name, officially, on the basis of papal bulls, canon law, church councils etc, and which lasted for over 400 years across all of Europe.
This seems reasonable to me.
Take care, Colin
GraceSaves
New Member
Colin,
Can you point me to the Canon Law that says we should physically persecute the Jewish people?
God bless,
Grant
Can you point me to the Canon Law that says we should physically persecute the Jewish people?
God bless,
Grant
Australian Baptist Student
New Member
Grant, read the posts. These were the official descisions of synods of bishops, papal bulls, canon law etc. As I noted above, carried out in the church's name across Europe for 400 years. What does it take to be official?
Do you obey your synod of bishops? Do you check what they say against Scripture? If the first, then had you lived in Europe in the 17th century, you would have persecuted Jews. Had you lived in Hungary in the 1930s, you would have persecuted Jews. This was the official policy of the catholic church. Cardinal Seredi, in his official capacity as leader of the Hungarian Catholic Church, voted in the upper house of parliament to exclude and boycott Jews (his Synod likewise voted to do the same). Within Rome, the Vatican view of this legislation was given in the June 24 edition of the Civilta Cattolica. Under the title of “The Question of the Jews in Hungary,” the paper approved of the legislation. Calling Hungary “the most solid and indestructible fortress of Christianity,” the paper noted that the “supremacy” of the Jews had become particularly “disastrous for the religious, moral and social life of the Hungarian people.” Stating that the “low birth rate among them (the result of their low level of morality)” makes it
possible to hope that their numbers in Hungary will diminish considerably, it continued:
“the Jews still remain the masters of Hungary.” It suggests that an ideal solution would
be “a peaceful exodus of the Jews from Hungary, which they have so abused.” Turning to more immediate situation, the paper demanded that “the anti-Semitism of Hungarian Catholics [is neither] vulgar and fanatical anti-Semitism, nor racist anti-Semitism; it is a movement defending national traditions.” Concerning the anti-Jewish laws themselves, it writes: “we will not go into the details of these proposed laws; we note only that they are inspired by the noble Magyar traditions of chivalric and loyal hospitality."
Would you have gone against the clear instructions of your cardinal, and synod of bishops, given also that these laws passed with the approval of the Vatican, to help your Jewish neighbours? I hope so.
Again, if the official actions of a cardinal, the descisions of the synod and the support of the Vatican do not add up to official church policy in Hungary, what would?
Take care, Colin