Protestantism caused Atheism ?

[KeithE]

[Matto]

[Sandy]

[Matto]

[Dave Roberts]

Matto, you obviously don't know some of us who are here to say we have a prejudice against the Cathoic Church. In one place where I served, the Catholic priest was such a good friend, his congregation invited me to help in the "roast" celebrating his 40th year as a priest. In another community, I have preached in a Lenten Service at the Catholic Church. I have worked alongside several priests across the years in community issues. Catholics are not my enemies, they are my brothers and sisters, just as are all other followers of Jesus.

[Tim Bonney]

No Dave, Matto doesn't know any of us well. Nor does he appear really to understand the US religious scene.

While I was in Cedar Falls the UMC church I worked at had very good relationship with the Catholic Church next door to us. My best friend in one community I pastored was the local priest and he and I participated with a Presbyterian pastor in a weekly Bible study together. Matto draws a stark and bizzare picture of the Catholic Church and then has us attacking his straw man creation from his far right Catholic leanings.

As to abuse Matto, I'd like for you to actually prove the 10% figure for Protestants that you just pulled out of thin air. I've seen no stats that make the abuse rate that high. Nor do abuses by any church or pastor excuse or mitigate the abuses by some other church or pastor. Evil is evil and there is no excuse for abuse anywhere.

[KeithE]

[Matto]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Matto]

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

One Unified faith today around the world, consistent in teaching on faith and morality. It is also unified with the early Church the same Catholic Faith handed on from the Apostles. It is the One Church Divinely established by Christ and governed by Christ's Apostolic Government.
There is only one Church established by Christ on Peter.

When Protestantism broke from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church it went into error, and that error begat yet more error. Till today we see thousands of conflicted doctrines in Protestantism, and totally opposing doctrines, they all say were inspired by scripture.

This is not the unity of the One Faith practiced by the Apostles and early Christians.

And we see that morality has become relative in many teachings in Protestantism, compromising with the world. Teaching that contraception is fine, and abortion is justifiable, and that homosexuality can be solemnified.

This is all the end result of protestantisms original error, where the steady erosion of the Christian faith has finally resulted in the acceptance of evil and depravity, and to even celebrate it.

When Protestantism has gone so far as to justify evil, then there is no longer witness to the world, the world justifies this evil already. To justify evil is to be one with the world, and apart from Christ and His Salvation from sin.

When Protestantism has run it's course in watering down the faith, and compromising with the world people may as well be atheist, why believe anything if Protestantism gives the same message the world holds to.

Not only has Protestantism sent an inconsistent conflicted set of doctrines to the world through relative interpretations of scripture, it has introduced that relativism to morality. It ordains practicing homosexuals to be pastors in their churches, rather than calling them to repentance. Further it seeks to call homosexual unions marriage, something God established between only man and woman.
Having no set teaching on faith and morality Protestantism ultimately has accepted evil and depravity even into their sanctuaries. These are official teachings accepting what is evil.

These teachings are completely alien to and antithetical to Christianity.

Yes we are called to love the sinner, but we are never permitted to accept the sin. Affirming sinners in sin is not love.

[Haruo]

[Matto]

[Matto]

I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize to anyone that is offended by my opinions, my intention is not to hurt any person.
I have many Protestant friends on line and off, and I hold nothing personally against them. But I make a huge distinction between Protestants themselves and Protestantism as a set of divided doctrines. As a Catholic I see Protestantism as a heresy but I don't see Protestants themselves as heretics.

So when I mention Protestantism in general terms it is not a personal attack on anyone, no reasonable person could say it was, in that sense.
So whilst I love Protestants as my brothers, I seriously hate Protestantism the heresy, because it brings division in the Body of Christ, and sends conflicted doctrines to the world that reduces the Gospel impact.

The thread was inspired by the article in the first post, this article was by a Protestant that suggests that Protestantism leads to atheism, I just added a Catholic perspective to that theme.
This Protestant author made a very brave observation about " Protestantism ", and I admire a person that can take an honest look at his beliefs with such introspection. This Protestant author does not hate or have it out for Protestants any more than I do, but he made some seriously honest insights into Protestantism as a system of belief.

I don't believe Protestantism is beyond criticism, nor do I believe Catholicism shouldn't be criticized. I think that truths are discovered through the critical method, the sharing of dissenting views.

Islam for instance for the most part does not tolerate criticism of it's tenets or it's history, and this reflects in it's closed attitude to new learning and better understanding. It produces an insular society that just unquestionably accepts what it is told.
The consequences for not accepting what it is told can be extreme, so in effect a totalitarian regime is imposed on the mind those that may have a dissenting view of things. It is the institution of fear over the minds those that might disagree. This intolerance of dissent or questioning of the belief exposes a system of thought that is unsure of itself, not confident that it could withstand reasoned criticism. So it inevitably imposes the fear of severe sanction or intimidation to up hold it's position.
That is why the sciences have been stunted in the Islamic world, where earlier it showed promise. But science instead flourished in the West, because it welcomed questioning and critical thinking. 

A belief system that is confident in itself and sure of its reasonableness in the midst of extreme criticism, does not need to threaten those that dissent, or sanction those that question it. In fact it welcomes criticism with open arms, because it has the confidence in it's foundation in reason.
Unreasonable positions inevitably resort to threats and intimidation to impose itself on others, and does not tolerate any dissenting opinion, for fear that the dissenting opinion is more reasonable and logically correct. 

The ability to question and critique is a long standing Western tradition and value, that is why the right of free speech was something birthed and recognized in the Western world.
It was typified in the enlightenment saying " I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " And the blunter version " Let the scoundrel speak !! ".

When we read Aquinas for instance we see him first list all the objections of others and he even helped others by thinking up dissenting arguments himself.
Then he would with reason answer all the dissenting arguments and point out their flaws.
Then having exposed the flaws in the dissenting arguments would explain his position in reasoned steps.
Scholars were not afraid of dissenting views, they saw each other as vital sounding boards to come to the most reasonable position. It was not personally adversarial like people are today, it was a free thinking feast in the commonwealth of ideas. This was vital to the the bringing about of the Renaissance and enlightenment periods.

A real scholar is not fearful of being persuaded, in fact he wants to be persuaded, his whole attitude says ' persuade me '. Once he is persuaded by the reasoned argument, he considered that he had learned something.
For me that is the essence of scholarship, not fearful of dissenting argument but rather open to learning something from hearing a dissenting view.
That's why I love hearing dissenting positions, it puts me in a position to learn something I didn't  know before. I may not learn anything new, but there is a grave danger of learning something by my listening to dissenting views, I'm at least open to hear them.

I like to hear arguments against Catholicism and welcome the views of those that see it differently. It would detract from my search for knowledge and understanding to not allow people to voice a contrary opinion, or silence them from presenting the knowledge that they have accumulated on the subject.  

If you have survived getting to the end of this long post, I hope it clears the air for people not to take my opinions personally. 
Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for. SOCRATES

[Ed Pettibone]

And Mato, I for one do not dislike all Catholics it is Catholicism that bothers me. And indeed there have been far to many rifts in Protestantism. So we are left with Following God in communion with those whom we have a strong level of agreement. It is God whom we are to worship, not the community of saints with whom we assemble.

[Matto]

[Matto]

The Journey Home program tells the stories of a lot of Protestant pastors coming into the Catholic Church, the host Marcus Grodi was himself a Presbyterian pastor before becoming Catholic.

In these interviews you can see that Catholicism was not what they thought it was, until they studied it properly they did not understand just how complete, consistent and beautiful it is.



If there's anything I'd like to convey it's the beauty, consistency and the complete truthfulness of the Catholic faith. To share the wondrous things about Catholicism, that may be obscure to people that haven't seen deeper into it.

[Hal Eaton]

I haven't had (or taken) time to read all that's been said on this thread, but one thing stands out as the pre-eminent factor in much of what I have seen. (IMO)

In any person's search for a philosophy of life which grounds one in a proper evaluation of science, politics, religion,or whatever else is identifiable as a spectrum of the human experience, one factor is conspicuous. IMO

That supreme embellishment of the human psyche is the seductive and winsome attractiveness of ASSURANCE of one's ideas, commitments, and practices as indicative of self-righteousness, personal wisdom, and ultimate verification (heaven?). IMO

If one's choice (faith) is vague, dubious, or in some way short of providing that ASSURANCE, then the acceptable route to inner satisfaction with scientific matters is to commit to a branch of knowledge which answers at least many of the perplexing and seemingly unknowable mysteries of the physical universe (flat-earth? global warming? life on Mars?). IMO

If your interest is politics, ASSURANCE is granted by devoted membership to any of the various theories of government (Libertarian? Socialism? Liberal? Conservative? Dem or Rep?). IMO

And, finally, if religion seems to offer ASSURANCE, you are literally forced to accept one of the leading interpretations of who God is, what He wants, and which one of the answers grants the utmost ASSURANCE (Roman Catholic, Baptist, Rastafarian, Sikhism, etc. ad infinitum). IMO

It seems that the greater the commitment to any of these entities, the greater the need for ASSURANCE that your choice
is the right one. Thus, the less organized, or educated, or sound, or informed your choice is, the greater will be your public expression, your forceful argumentation on its behalf, and your denigration of all who are in any and all opposing camps. IMO

Unfortunately, that denigration ultimately is aimed at individuals whose ratiocination is bothersome . . . IMO

At least, it works that way with me. IMO

[Matto]

[Hal Eaton]

What do you think I am saying, Matto?

Howabout: Almost thou persuadest me to become a Roman Catholic (?).

But I obviously I do not need that kind of insurance . . .(Oooops!) . . .ASSURANCE!

IMO