SDA's slaughter their own?

Here are some quotes about Billy Graham by Dr. Carroll, and I'm even nice enough to ACTUALLY QUOTE and SOURCE it for you!

"Billy Graham is a fine Christian preacher and I admire him for that."
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=308542&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=Billy+Graham&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

"It is God, and not the Catholic Church, Who judges whether a soul was in "invincible ignorance" that the Catholic Church is Christ's. I never meant to imply otherwise. As for burning at the stake, this was a penalty universally imposed on heretics by Christian nations because they were seen as revolutionaries, enemies of all men, rather like the Communists of the 20th century."
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=321970&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=Billy+Graham&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

Below is the post that Bob has been misquoting all this time:

"In a recent post I tried to clarify my position on this issue. I certainly do not advocate the restoration of the butning of heretics, because in the present climate of opinion it would hurt the Church, and I do not think it should have been done in the past, because we should not deliberately inflict such great pain, nor deprive the heretic of the oppotunity to repent. But I do understand why it was done in the past, for the reasons that several posters have stated. Billy Graham would have been seen as a heretic in the past, and he is in fact a heretic now, though he does love Christ and has done much good."
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=321125&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=Billy+Graham&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

The bolded portions show that he does not believe that Billy Graham should be burned at the stake, and that he does not believe in this method. The italicized parts seem very out of place, and go against the bolded portions, which most likely means his point was not clearly made. Dr. Caroll frequently makes retractions and/or corrections for information that came out not how it was intended. Either way, what Bob has insinuated is pure libel, as you can see for yourself by looking at the source.

The Catholic Church is Holy, even if its members are not. Being 2,000 years old, and with countless, COUNTLESS people who were or who claimed to be Catholic in the past, what sins exactly should he apologize for? He HAS apologized for ALL of the sins of Catholics in the past. He himself did not commit these sins; the Church itself did not commit these sins. Catholics did. He apologized for them. You, my friend, wouldn't ever be satisifed, which is clear in your writings.

Bob, this is pathetic. You stand here and say how the Catholic Church is not sorry, but the SDA Church is, but your language shows just the opposite. Look at these words, that have no bearin g on the action: feeble, 75 year old, aided...

You throw anything you can to make the act look more "understandable" or "justifiable."

Hypocrite. If it's wrong, why are you putting on all that window dressing? Isn't sin - sin?

Bob, I have never denied that Catholics have done horrible things. I do deny:

1) That the exaggerated numbers are wholly true or entirely necessary to advocate to make the point

2) That this is a characteristic of the church (a logical fallacy)

 

The point "being so faithfully obfuscated by the RC posts so far" - is that the blatant Contrast between the SDA offical statements published on this thread regarding the one feeble 75 year old retired pastor who was charged with "aiding" some of the monsters that carried out the atrocities in RuWanda - VS the classic "denial" and even "demonizing of victims" seen not only in the published RC material BUT ALSO by RC members on this message board - for CENTURIES of slaughter, murder and torture - COULD NOT be greater.

What? - still no answer?

Attempt to obfuscate by pretending that the "entire post is not readible" so your snippet misquote is "all the reader has " just would not be "compelling" to someone like me that is not "turning a blind eye to the details" posted here so far.

Why use those tactics?

Why "pretend" you don't understand the points being made?

Dr. Carroll himself SAID that Billy Graham WOULD be burned at the stake by the RCC in the dark ages for saying the SAME things he said in the 20th century.

Dr. Carroll ALSO said that the RCC has never apologies FOR ANY specific atrocity.

Now perhaps you "need" the quote of the SDA church "quoted in bold already" --- REQUOTED by way of contrast.

Coming up --- again.

(This just isn't that hard people).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is what the SDAs are publishing to the world on this incident

http://www.adventist.org/news/data/2003/01/1045672278/index.html.en

I know this is hard for some RC posters to read - when they are "seeking" the opportunity to "equivocate" the RC armies killing fellow Catholics and killing of Christians for centuries - but try just reading the statements above and "contrasting it" to the RCC's actions in the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Try "harder" to understand please.

The article quoted "shows" SDA pastorS writing to the ONE 76 year old feeble elderly conference leader saying that THEY (the pastorS) and their congregations will be killed the next day if something is not done.

The article that was quoted - says that HIS crime was in "writing back to them" that "There is nothing I can do".

Please actually "read" the article that was posted and then "used" as "IF" it was ANYTHING like what the RCC has done in the dark ages.

Yes! Actually read it.

Yes! actually see the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

One piece of evidence used by the prosecution was a letter sent to Ntakirutimana by Seventh-day ADVENTIST Tutsi pastors saying: “We wish to inform you that tomorrow WE WILL be killed with our families.” According to Reuters, “Ntakirutimana replied with the words: ‘There is nothing I can do for you. All you can do is prepare to die, for your time has come.’” The pastors were subsequently massacred.



This is "really really" hard for our RC bretheren to get - when the historic revisionism is trying to "equivocate" -- but please give it a shot.

In the face of seeing THEIR OWN Pastors being slaughtered the SDA denomination STILL had the integrity to apologize for the one 75 year old elderly man on the wrong side of that war who in any way aided the monsters in their work of extermination and who in anyway had ever been connected with any kind of SDA leadership in Ruwanda.

This case is a PERFECT example of the CONTRAST between the two demoninations showing the extremes of BOTH. Extreme integrity and open disclosure in this case - vs demonizing the victims (that we have seen practiced on this message board by the RC members -- still).

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Mr. Ntakirutimana arrived with a truckload of armed men and told them to start killing. Those who tried to escape were slashed with machetes or beaten to death. "

 

Yes, everyone. Look and behold! See how the Catholics deny actions, and see how the SDA firmly stands against its actions. Yes, read what Bob wrote as a firm non-denial:

He is feeble. I guess that means we should excuse it.

He is retired. I guess that means we can somehow say that this allows the SDA to take less responsibility.

He is 75 years old. Apparently he just didn't know any better.

He was charged. Yes, he is not guilty, only "charged."

He "aided." In other words, don't point the finger at him. He's really not all "that" bad.

"some of the monsters." Because he is not one.

Those are Bob's descriptors. Wow, what a firm stance. And if my assumptions about the descriptors are false, please feel free to show me one other good reason that you, Bob, have included them in EVERY SINGLE ONE of your defenses. I don't see you allowing anyone else to do anything of the sort.

 

By the way,

If you reread the top of part 1 you will see that "those" "doing" "the" "killing" "were" "SDAs""also".

" Some of the 10,000 to 40,000 (Seventh-day) Adventists killed in the Rwandan genocide died at the hand of fellow Sabbathkeepers (Seventh-day Adventists). "

This is an iteresting tidbit also:

"The immediate past and present presidents of the Africa-Indian Ocean Division of the General Conference believe that it is best to forget the past. "

 

The article makes it clear - that SDA pastors were being killed along with their families and fellow church members.

Your point that some of those doing the killing were ALSO members of SDA churches from another tribe - is valid - as is the case for the other christian groups represented in those tribes as well.

BUT the salient DIFFERENCE between SDA and Catholic ORGANIZATIONS is the utter rejection of this by the CHURCH in the case of the SDA church EVEN THOUGH it is SDA pastors being killed it is STILL the SDA denomination that is offering an apology for anyone with any connection to Adventists on the side of the "monsters".

By CONTRAST - the RCC model (EVEN when it is a case of Catholics killing Catholics - Popes calling each other antichrist and torturing their OWN Cardinals before tossing them over the sides of their papal warships) - is to demonize "the losers" and (as some members EVEN HERE have done) find justification for the torturers and murderers.

AND As Dr. Carroll points out emaphatically - NOT to apologize FOR ANY specific atrocity done by the RCC in the dark ages.

So the CONTRAST is that a NON-organization "action" is BEING apologized for by the SDA where even ORGANIZED action by the RC denomination is NOT (emphatically NOT) apologized for regarding the atrocities of the "dark ages".

Thanks for the opportunity to point out - and keep pointing out - that contrast.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that in the perfidity of the anti-SDA authors that seek "anyone in the Ruwanda tribes that happens to be an SDA" as their "excuse" to bash - and then the RC members efforts to "equivocate" that to the actions of the RCC itself in the dark ages -

there is NO corresponding action by SDA authors to charge the RCC with catholic-killing-catholic crimes in the case of massive events - like WWII and German Catholics vs Allied Catholics killing each other.

The REASON that SDAs don't make the claim "yes but some of those Ruwandans doing the killing were ALSO Catholic... or yes but the germans were catholic soldiers" is because it is NOT a case of attacking the RCC just because some members of an army happen to be Catholics. (As in the case of the perfidity of those attacking SDAs here).

RATHER - the point SDAs raise about the RCC in the dark ages is INSTITUTIONALIZED slaughter, torture and murder that IS defended AS WE SEE IT also defended on this forum by Catholics.

INSTITUTIONALIZED atrocities for which the RCC according to Dr. Carroll DOES NOT apologize.

This is a simple concept - and I understand the "need" of the RCC posters to obfuscate and duck the point --

But I also appreciate the repeated opportunity to - highlight it. The "contrast" is "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you have no case. Your "clear" proofs are so convoluted it takes me several times to even try to grasp what you are trying to say. You keep making faulty connections all day long; I've seen through it, and I'm done listening to this trash.

 

Haha, that's funny, coming from a blatant anti-Catholic.

"Anti-SDA" is wrong! But "anti-Catholic" is a term we unjustly call you! Riiiiiight, Bob.

 

your "own" sources in the links provided by the anti-SDA members - have not shown any such thing.

Your "own source" quote the public press as saying that a 75 year old man cooperated with the monsters - but did not claim that he "drove 10,000 Adventists to their death" as you propose.

Your "own sources" show that 10,000 Adventists were killed and that of all the thousands of people doing the killing - most were from non-Adventist churches AND 4 were charged of crimes connected to this that ALSO happened to be SDA.

These are YOUR sources!!

And the "CONTRAST" is that even though these FOUR were clearly NOT carrying out any SDA doctrine/policy/teaching/tradition/dogma/ in that regard - the SDA church STILL apologized for their actions.

The RCC "by contrast" (as Dr. Carroll states) does not "apologize for ANY specific atrocity" that it did in the dark ages - not EVEN today.

And the RC members (like Cathconvert) STILL continue to "demoninze the victims" of the RCC in the dark ages.

What a CONTRAST!!

How could "even a child" miss it??

In Christ,

Bob

 

In World War 2 Presbyterians and Lutherans, two organisations that had previously aided one another in missions work stood on opposite sides of the trenches and killed and maimed one another.

In that same war people from Italy (Catholics) also went to war against nations that had many Catholic people (France) on the other side of the trenches, and the same killing and maiming went on.

Hence any denominations people can be led into war.

Nothing justifies what went on in Rwanda, nothing justifies what went on in the days of Catholic dominion.

Yet the point that we fail to see is where the church is now. Rather than promote hatred and murder, we need to focus in on the fact that the churches are to follow the final instructions of Jesus Christ and to be out there telling people of the ressurection of Jesus Christ.

 

We do not hold the Lutherans or the Methodists or the Catholics guilty as "a denomination" because there were soldiers on both sides of WWII. Those were not "denominational actions".

In the same way - if 10,000 Adventists are killed in Ruwanda (including Adventsit Pastors, members etc) and then we find that among those either doing the killing or in some way aiding them - 90% of them are affiliated with some Christian church (and among them 4 are found to Adventist) we "still" do not typically describe that as a "denominational action" unless we are just out "church-bashing".

What WE DO find as a "demoniational action" is when the doctrines of the church - AND the church top leaders promote torture and slaughter. When EVEN centuries LATER the members ARE STILL demonizing those that the church tortured and slaughtered. THAT is a problem that a "christian church" has no "excuse" for continuing to practice.

Which is the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Digging yourself in a hole, methinks.

Please provide actual, historical quotations of Church documents espousing "doctrines" which "promote torture and slaughter," as well as quotations from "the church top leaders" which "promote torture and slaughter."

This is your own definition, not mine. This is your basis of why your attacks on the Catholic Church are justifyable. From your own mouth.

Now, back it up. Because if you do not, using actual Catholic Church quotations, then your entire argument FAILS COMPLETELY and is TOTALLLY INVALIDATED.

So, Bob, I'm waiting.

 

Still waiting...

 

Sorry about that - I have been visiting some RC message boards.

Here you go -- "see" if you find anything about Catholics publishing the truth about the Catholic church and its torments inflicted on its victims in the dark ages - over which it presided.

Notice that the blind devotion and appeals to ignorance about what the church was doing - is exactly what these Catholic sources address.

Enjoy.

I "wait" for the cogent objective thoughtful RC reply that takes in the full details above and the breadth of the implications of the clear references to Papal authorship of torture, extermination, cruelty ... etc etc

In Christ,

Bob