Amos

In defence of the Catholic church I would argue that the very fact that people were killed for their beliefs proves that the inquisitors were justified for doing what they did. If this is true it can also be stated that they did not kill enough people if they missed even one heretic (I assume you meant that only those who were willing to die for their faith were killed).

The argument is based on Rev. 3:15 where both cold and hot are OK but lukewarm is not. It goes on to say that those who are lukewarm keep saying "'I am so rich and so secure that I want for nothing.' Little do you realize how wretched you are, how pitiable and poor, how blind and how naked."'

To identify those who are cold it is easy to point at a Catholic who will believe everything the you tell him about God for as long as he is in your company. He just doesn't know and has no religious convictions apart from what the Cathechism once taught him when he was child. He has no convictions, no testamony and no personal relationship with Christ.

Those who are hot are already in heaven where they are without faith, and therefore without doubt and don't believe anything because they know everything. In other words, they have the mind of God and do not know pain, or suffering and will never be tried because there is nothing to be tried. They are solitary individuals who will see those who are lukewarm as if they are torn between heaven and earth and will remain there until they die (which is when the goodies are supposed to come).

According to those in heaven (the counsel of the Church) it is OK to be suffering and thus suffering in effort to resolve our faith is not a wrong in itself. Things go wrong only when those who are lukewarm try to lead others into their way of thinking and try to impose upon others a personal relationship with Christ that will not only cause them to suffer for the rest of their life, but will simultaneously rob them from eternal life that would have been theirs had they waited for God to knock before they opened the door to their heart (Rev.3:20).

It should be noted here that during the entire Renaissance period many people were "hot" (as defined above) and therefore had a clear vision of what it was like to have been made lukewarm. A good image here is to compare cold Catholics with caterpillars and those who are hot with butterflies. The cocoon stage exist between these two and if left to mature on their own all (?) caterpillars will someday become butterflies and this would be, and still is, the Catholic churches' perspective on the manner of salvation. The relative short incubation period here is the time we spend in Purgatory where there is no faith (the "cleansing of the temple" is evidence for this) and so it is easy to see that those who proclaim salvation and have faith are witches, or, what at one time were called witches now who are eager and willing to spiritually fornicate others and lead them into eternal salvation (that we see as damnation in the saved sinner paradox) in effort to increase their own richess in heaven.

On this basis witches are easily identified. As "cold," no confession of faith is possible (outside Catholic doctrine) because no relationship with Christ exist (and no personal prayer exist because spontaneous prayer is made in response). As "hot" no confession exist because those are now beyond faith and doubt (might even be informers).

This would mean that anyone who is willing to die for his faith will have the burning desire to be united with Christ and therefore is willing to die for his faith.



Notice the distinction made by "personal view of God" that conflicted with Catholic theology. This means that the Inquisition was not about how well people remembered their Cathechism but if they had a personal relationship with Christ and still had faith in Jesus (to them this combination was an absolute contradiction and evidence of hell on earth).

Bede

The modern thing, would you not agree, is the powerful accepting freedom of conscience. It is no surprise the oppressed did.

The church was wrong to punish heretics and very wrong to allow them to be executed. The only punishment it should allow is excommunication as all organisations have the right to exclude those that don't follow their rules - just like if a II board member converted they would have to leave the post. And excommunication should not be accompanied by civil sanctions. Power corrupts and I for one think the church should fight only with words.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Calzaer

Yes, there is such a rule. It's called Appeal to Novelty.

Notice Bede has at no point bothered to explain to us imbeciles why his stuff is better than ours except to say that his stuff is "modern".

Amos

If we believe that the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe it would follow that it can also be the cause for its demise and eventual destructionl.

If the above is true, which I believe is true, it would also follow that freedom of conscience is ours but that not all will be beneficial and therefore dissent should not, or not always, be tolerated if it leads people away from the root that led to its prosperity.

cjack

Ah, but how big of a difference was there realistically between church and secular jurisdiction?

Your own faq (regarding the burning of heretics) says:

"Burning was...used by the Holy Roman Empire to deal with traitors and heresy was widely seen as a particularly serious kind of treason. Although the church never specifically sanctioned burning once a heretic had been ‘relaxed’ to the secular arm, it was always perfectly well aware that this would be the result."

To me, it seems a bit disingenuous to say "oh, well those people were tortured and killed by the secular authorities, not by the church" when there really wasn't the sort of division of authority we have in modern times.

I mean, how many people were "relaxed" into the loving arms of the "secular" authorities with a nudge and a wink by the Inquisitors?

Dr Rick

So, right from the start, Bede used "modern scholarship" in his replies.

In the old days, scholars actually used facts in their refutations, but "modern scholars" have found the ad hominem to be so much more enlightening.

After being reminded that this assertion:

...doesn't come close to reflecting the true death toll, the other thing a "modern scholar" can do is invent strawmen that completely sidestep the issue. Here the "modern scholar" is ignoring the fact that thousands of Jews died as a result of expulsions from Spain and is instead explaining why "executions" were done and who did it.

Either "modern scholars" have a very dry sense of humor, or we need to remember that "very rarely" is a very relative term for "modern scholars".

Here, we see how "modern scholars" can help us understand that the murders of thousands of "heretics" under orders from the Pope don't really count. Besides, not every one in a position of authority ordered the deaths of thousands. Sure, that happened, but some had only a few dozen murdered. That's just gotta' count for something.

The strawman is the tool of the "modern scholar", it seems. Of course, how this is supposed to deflect criticism of Kraemer's and Sprenger's MALLEUS MALEFICARUM is something best left to "modern scholars".

Here, we see how the "modern scholar" sets-up the strawman. He's responding to this:

"In stark contrast to Roman and modern European justice, the Inquisitional "trial by ordeal" was predicated upon the belief that the innocent would be divinely protected from the pain and harm of torture. Unlike the Inquisitions, Roman law severely restricted torture."

...and twisting the meaning to refute this made-up argument:

Of course, no one on this thread ever posted anything remotely like:
or but "modern scholarship" isn't what it used to be. That's why the ad hominems are so handy:

...they're so much easier than coming up with facts and stuff.

"Modern scholarship" means never having to even come-up with facts; it's entirely adequate to just say, "been there, done that."

Obviously

How much more convincing can a "modern scholar" get?

Any questions?

Please don't question "modern scholarship."

NOGO

I believe that the powerful do not care what the average man thinks except when it gets in their way (power, money etc.).

I do not think that Roman authorities cared about what Paul was teaching and who believed in what. It obviously became a threat to their power later on. It is a bit like Irak. Geoges Bush does not hate Iraquis nor does he care what they think. He just does not want them to govern themselves except in very mundane things like sewage, garbage, traffic regulations etc.

On the other hand Jews considered Paul an apostate and many of them, even the lowly, would have stoned him to death for his ideas.

I am sure that you can see the difference.
This is exactly where we disagree when it comes to the subject of this thread. You deny that the Christian faith had anything to do with the killings and the fear instilled in anyone who used his head for more than just nodding.
I, on the other hand, believe it is part and parcel.
No one is allowed to disagree with God.

Like early Christians, today's Christians do not have the power but even the most lowly believe and are confortable with the idea that something really aweful is happen to all the unbelievers.

nermal

Woof.
I've noticed that your posts seem like the kid at the end of the holiday table who keeps talking but never gets acknowledged. The conversation just goes on around him.

Now I see why.

Ed

Amos

[
Thanks nermal, that was a good observation. We'll just let the post stand on its own.

Tharmas

Bede,

I appreciate the work you’ve put into this. I have a minor criticism and a suggestion for further expansion.

First, the criticism

I believe your definition of “Auto da Fe” tiptoes around the issue to an extent that borders on disingenuousness. The fact is, in common English usage the term has come to mean a public burning at the stake, regardless of its technical derivation, in much the same way that “apocalypse” has come to mean cataclysm. Your recognizing that fact, and recognizing the very real historical reasons behind the alternate or changed meaning, would in my opinion lend more credibility to your explanations of the fuller scope and implications of “Auto da Fe” (which are themselves informative and worthwhile).

Second, the suggestion for expansion

The Inquisition was not confined to Europe, but very quickly found its way to the New World. In legend, some of Columbus’ sailors, perhaps even Columbus himself, were “crypto-Jews,” that is, secret Jews supposedly converted by the Inquisition but secretly practicing their Jewish rites, fleeing the Inquisition. In any case there was soon (early sixteenth century) an Inquisition in Mexico City that was not aimed at the native population but rather at Jews, even though by law Jews were prohibited from sailing to the Americas.

The net effect was to drive the Jewish populations of Mexico northward, so that the earliest European settlers of my part of the world, Texas and New Mexico, were likely conversos, or converted Sephardic Jews.

I first became aware of these legends about fifteen years ago when a crypto Jewish community emerged among Indians in rural New Mexico; supposedly they had been hidden for centuries. The kids were baptized and brought up as Catholics and were told as adults by their parents that they were really Jews who had been in hiding for four hundred years. Apparently one of the interesting features was to study how the community’s Jewish rituals had evolved in the centuries of isolation.

As someone who is as interested in folklore as in history, and especially in the interplay between the two, I love this stuff!

Here are some links, offering different degrees of historical reliability.

http://www.texancultures.utsa.edu/hi...rtortillas.htm

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/sephadic.htm

http://nanrubin.com/html/melton.html

http://pages.prodigy.net/bluemountain1/estrada1.htm


Anyway, I thought you might be interested in how the Inquisition came to, and affected, the Americas.

One fact I will definitely vouch for: whatever the reason, when you request tortillas in a genuine Tex-Mex restaurant, you will always be asked “corn or flour?” In fact, that’s one way to tell if it’s genuine Tex-Mex.

Regards,

Tharmas