Followers of Christ are hated because their lives line up with their beliefs and the world hates Jesus. With the followers of religions, on the other hand, it is a distinction with a difference. The Bible tells us not to hate those who are lost, but have compassion upon them. We are to hate those whom the Lord hates, and the Bible tells us who He hates: outwardly religious people whose hearts are far removed from Him and His Truths.
Smears happen from RCs as well as against them, so your observation about those activities is off-setting as well as irrelevant.
I didn’t say RCC doctrine was from Satan - I said Mormon doctrine about Christ is the doctrine of demons. I do think, however, that there is no neutral corner in the spiritual realm and that any teaching that denies essential Christian doctrine (the deity of Christ, His sufficiency, etc.) is not of the Lord and must, therefore, be of Satan. I give you the “Revival in Lakeland” as an example. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2037402/posts
So when an RC claims any man or group of men to be without error when interpreting God’s will (if he sits in the right chair or whatever the conditions are), this is a lie from hell. Same with anyone’s claim that new birth requires works from the one who would be born again.
But how people on either side of an issue behave is not for me to define or defend. People are the rule for what is right or wrong - the Word of God fills that spot.
Regarding Mary worship - from this side of the fence, RCs deny it fanatically, but news reports and RCC pronouncements show otherwise, though the denials grow louder and more strident. Mary (and other idols) are worshiped by untold numbers of people around the world. The RCC has tried to assimilate cultures as it moves in, rather than reproving sin with the Word.
While many people err in claiming to know the official teachings of another religion, that is not a defense against false teaching within that religion. Arguing that the critique hasn’t stated the doctrine just so doesn’t, in and of itself, invalidate the argument.
That is interesting. Seems to me, that if the premise is flawed the conclusion drawn from the premise is flawed as well. Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with a new math kind of logic.
Amen.