aspen said:
Hmmm...so Catholic crimes against humanity makes them antichrist, but Protestant crimes against humanity were simply part of a learning curve?
Actually no. Catholic crimes against humanity are the fruits we can read of throughout over 1200 years of unrevised history where Rome has replaced Christ with a system of pagan/state sponsored brutality against Christians and non-believers alike. They have erected a monstrous false god within the Christian community that has deceived millions. Those fruits, the Catholic crimes, are still being experienced today by hundreds of thousands of victims worldwide who if not committing suicide and suffering in mental asylums as a result of the abuse heaped upon them by pedophile priests, are taking class action law suits against the church which is declaring bankruptcy to avoid huge payouts in compensation. Instead of rebuking her priests and handing them over to the appropriate authorities, they dump them on unsuspecting communities where they can continue to meddle and destroy the lives of children. One dumping ground of this nature was the Alaskan Yukon territories where the local native population of the Yapik tribe are still having to deal with the ongoing mental and spiritual damage caused by such ignorant and ugly actions of a church that has never known better. These crimes however are not what make her antichrist. They are but the biter results of being antichrist, and the evidence thereof.
As far as the crimes of Protestantism, there is no excuse either. That they were slow in learning their lessons is neither an excuse or is it a militating factor in their guilt. After all, they for the most part were simply carrying on what they had practiced previously as priests and bishops of Rome. Yes, it did take time to learn. Although sadly there are still lessons to be taught them by God that is why the reformation hasn't finished yet.
One thing however I would like to add. Many of the anti-Catholic persecutions that took place, particularly in Britain, was done in order to protect what freedoms Protestants had won. They knew full well that if Catholicism was to regain the throne of England, their freedoms to worship according to conscience would very quickly be rescinded, their leaders hunted down and tortured and killed, and the members of their churches forced to either change their allegiances or burn. Allow me to quote a Catholic source which fairly sums up the difference between the two lines of reasoning of Protestant philosophy and Catholic philosophy when it comes to freedom.
"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient,
he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty' . . .
Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself."--
"Civil and Religious Liberty," in The Rambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. ["The Rambler" was an English Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].
Based on the above quote, (and many others I could give regarding Rome's attitude toward "heretics") it can be concluded that while Protestants are in power, the Catholic church would take full advantage of religious freedom in full accordance with Protestant principles that govern religious liberty, however, in full accordance to Catholic principles, if Catholicism were in power every other form of worship would be forbidden with dire consequences to all who resist or stand against the dictates of Roman tyranny. And all modern Popes openly repudiate religious liberty, except that liberty which allows Catholic minorities to flourish. Hence the majority of Protestant aggression against Catholicism was never based on self promotion, but in self defense.
Thus the establishment of religious liberty in America was first a godly principle, second a Protestant principle, but also, a very risky principle; one that many American leaders of old recognized knowing the mind of Rome and the imminent influx of Catholics that would take advantage of the newly founded constitution guaranteeing their rights to practice their religion freely. The fear today for many Protestants ought not be the resurgence of Islam, but in light of the above, rather the majority held position of Catholics on the Supreme Court.
I will say this, it is hard to find creditability in someone who needs to see if spell check is working and might take a look at their "prediction" feature on whatever device they are using.
