Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


A TERRORIST ORGANISATION NEEDS CONDEMNING FOR EXISTING EVEN IF IT IS NOW A CHARITY!  OR A RELIGION!

Hypothetical situation, the Nazis brutalised in Germany and were instrumental in starting a world war.  They started to revise their ideas and ended up a charity.

Nobody loves this charity no matter what it does.  Can you blame them?

Why are the Nazis still the Nazis but not a new organisation?  Why not tear it all down and rebuild something else?  Why is the evil past given the honour of bad Nazis now become good?

The Catholic Church is rebranded terrorism - ISIS will always be to blame for terrorism no matter how much it improves in the future.  And so will the Catholic Church. 

In his encyclical against Protestantism, Pope Leo condemned the following Protestant doctrines.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

Exsurge Domine

The Holy Inquisition was the Roman Catholic killing machine created to destroy all dissent from orthodoxy as defined by the pope in Rome. It has its roots in the Bible itself which seeks the murder of heretics and witches in the name of God and at the command of God. The Bible claims to have been written by God and all true Christians accept this claim. What the Inquisition is most remembered for is the burning of witches and heretics to death at the stake.
 
Even today the Church puts its seal of approval on publications like Reasons for Hope which say that heresy, disagreeing with the Church leaders in faith or morals, should be a crime (page 198).
 
Recently, Patrick Madrid's Church approved book, Where is That in the Bible? on page 160 admits that the Inquisition went too far at times but stated that God instituted it. It quotes Deuteronomy 17 with approval . This text commands on God's authority that heretics be stopped by violence from spreading or preaching their errors. There God commands that such evil must be purged from the midst of his people. That is the important point. It means that if the people of God can't use violence today, they have other alternatives. But they must not allow heretics to preach.

MURDEROUS CHRISTIAN DOGMA-MONGERS

The Bible does not sanction the convert or die approach unless you were originally a believer in the true religion. The first five books of the Bible give many examples of people who God commanded must be destroyed for their heresy.
 
Fr Alexius Lepicier was a professor of the College for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome. He reissued his book in 1910. It was called, De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis. It contained a long attempt to prove that the Church had the right to put heretics to death. Pope St Pius X got a preface written to express his warm approval of the teaching of the book (page 588, Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1928). In a letter received from the Protestant Truth Society in September 1993, A.J. Roberts informed me that a Father de Luca of the Gregorian University in Rome stated that it was the duty and right of the Church to kill heretics. The priest said that in 1903. In Catholicism and Christianity (page 586-7) we read that this priest, who it tells us was a Jesuit, published in two volumes a work called Insitutiones Juris Ecclesiastici Publici which made a distinction between heretics who thought that erroneous doctrine was Catholic doctrine and ones that did not care. He gave seven reasons why a Catholic who leaves the Church should be forced to come back and punish him if he remains steadfast in his infidelity. The Jesuits published a paper called Civilta Cattolica which said that the Church could and should and would force itself on heretics in an edition dating from July 1902. A Jesuit called Fr X Brors created a book of apologetics stating that ex-Catholics deserved to burn in Hell forever and if they deserved that they deserved earthly death. For the sake of the Church’s reputation this statement was deleted from subsequent editions. The 1910 Catholic Encyclopaedia argued that the Church had the right to use the state to force ex-Catholics to return to obedience to her (page 587).
 
St Thomas Aquinas said the same as Father Brors. He also taught, “Heresy is the most terrible of all offences. To corrupt the faith is a far worse crime that to corrupt the coinage. If the coiner be deemed worthy of death, how much more the heretic” (page 419, Apologetics for the Pulpit). Ludovico a Paramo wrote a book for the Holy Inquisition in 1398. He said that the Inquisition is right to persecute and hand over heretics to be killed because heresy is against the unity of society. The thought seems to be that since heretics must expect their followers to die for false doctrine that they must be destroyed.
 
In Radio Replies, First Volume, we read, “St Thomas taught that heretics should be put to death. He had in mind such men as had been Catholics, and who laboured to destroy the faith of other Catholics after their own lapse from the Church. And even then he puts the question speculatively. And he was quite logical going by the premise that wilful dissent from Church teaching is divinely impermissible. He argued that one who unjustly takes his neighbour’s life by murder deserves death at the hands of the state. But he who destroys the faith of another robs him, not only of his temporal life, but of his eternal life, which is far worse. The state, therefore, which is bound to safeguard the well-being of its citizens, would be justified in putting such a man to death”. Later we read, “In practice he does not say that it should be done” (page 217, Question 1066). The last quote is only to shut up the governments of countries who would not like to tolerate a bloodthirsty religion. It is obvious that it is not sincere. Never does the New Testament teach the abolition of the death penalty for murderers. Before the Law of Moses it was taught by God at the time of Noah that it was right to kill those who murdered others. When this law that was not part of the allegedly abrogated Law of Moses was not done away it is still in force. And the killer of souls should be killed before the killer of earth-life.

We can read what St Thomas declared in Documents of the Christian Church (page 133-135). There we read that that the Church has charity towards the heretics but says that since charity is for the good of others and mainly for their salvation heretics should be forgiven but still destroyed when they relapse again. A close eye is to be kept on any heretic who claims to have reverted to Roman Catholicism.

In Volume Three, we read that it was right for the Church to use the state to execute heretics who had turned against Catholicism for the nations were wholly Catholic and the heretic was a danger to this purity (Question 1024). It approves of Aquinas who gave it this heart-warming thought.
 
Pope Leo XIII taught that St Thomas filled the entire world with the splendour of his teaching and that he handled every part of philosophy with acuteness and strength in his encyclical Aeterni Patris. This is implicit approval for this man called the Angelic Doctor who urged the Church to have a rabid hatred of heresy and to murder in the name of Christ.
 
The religionists who try to evangelise Catholics and get them out of the Church have to be in the same boat because they know that they are making Catholics sin in listening to them against their conscience. And so are those who do not reach Catholics but who would admit Catholics as members into their systems. They are indirectly ruining or would ruin the Church.
 
If Thomas did not say it should be done then he may have meant that though heretics should be killed we cannot kill them for it is better to jail them and try to make them sorry. But no doubt there would have been circumstances like when you can’t jail a heretic who is harming the faith and who can’t be persuaded to abjure his errors in which Aquinas would have to agree with killing him. It is like the modern doctrine that a murderer deserves death but you can only kill him when you can’t jail him to protect others which sees capital punishment as wrong but not in extreme circumstances like everything else.
 
Some argued that when Jesus gave the Church the right to exercise a coercive jurisdiction (Matthew 18; 2 Thessalonians 3; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 10, Acts 4) that forcing the faith on ex-Catholics was a duty. 1 Timothy 5:20 commands that sinners must be condemned and reproved before the congregation to scare the rest. When you force good behaviour on a sinner which the Bible certainly commands why not force faith on him?
 
If the faith is true and Catholics know it as they claim, then the faith can be forced on people the same way as a teacher can force the 1+1=2 belief on you.
 
The Church says that sincerity is enough for Catholics who are sincerely wrong in their theology but who mean to be orthodox Catholics and their sincerity will save them. This implies that morality is most important. When it is okay to force morality it must be more okay to force the faith on people. The Church says that God wants small sacrifices from the vast majority of us and so to force somebody away from a sex-partner or whatever is relatively unimportant – there are more important things. When people can be forced in these things why not in things like the faith for it would just be as important as the sacrifices?
 
In 1808, when Napoleon took over Spain, an officer Colonel Lemanouski and is men smashed their way into a Dominican monastery in Madrid where the monks had resisted them. They found torture-chambers there which were cruel and disgusting in the extreme even to them. Many of the victims of this Inquisition were dying. They then blew the monastery up.
 
Loraine Boettner wrote a book called Roman Catholicism which devoted Chapter 18 to defend his observation that the Catholic Church is intolerant, bigoted and persecutes heretics. It gives several quotes from leading Catholics and Catholic books (eg Catholic Principles of Politics, by John A Ryan and Francis J Boland, The National Catholic Welfare Conference, published by The Macmillan Company) that back this up. He inserted a quote from Monsignor Francis J Connell, the top theological expert in America who wrote in 1946 that Catholic rulers have the right to prevent other religions drawing Catholics out of the Church. The quote says this is only logical for Christ established only one true religion and commanded its acceptance under eternal damnation. I see that the Church would claim that if this is true then it is unfair to expect the leaders to promote eternal damnation and pull it on themselves by letting Catholics be led out of the Church. The leaders would not be able to lead if they disobey and let the religions reach out to Catholics for the fear of eternal damnation would immobilise them. The Church wants to take over every area it is in and stop smaller religions from evangelising though it says it will not persecute them will violence though it will tax them while claiming tax exemption for itself.

It is well known that the Catholic Church had many tortured to death for heresy and witchcraft in the past. The New Catholic Encyclopedia in its entry for Capital Punishment states that the state has the right under God to put certain criminals to death.

The Catholic Church had to give birth to the Inquisition. The religion then as a whole is connected to this evil.