Toto

The Grand Inquisitor’s Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Kirsch is a copyright lawyer and a literary critic for the Los Angeles Times who writes commentary on Biblical themes for the literary set.

The only Amazon reader review so far rates it as a 3 and notes: as if loathing the Inquisition is a bad thing. :huh:

Chili

Well it would help if he gave us a definition of a true Christian.

DCHindley

"The Inquisition" was different in each kingdom. It varied in application from mild to wild. Spain's version was the worst. They were dealing with all sorts of Christian and semi-gnostic heresies, real and imagined, not to mention Moorish and Jewish populations that had been forced to convert but secretly practiced their former faiths. Those infidels! (Oops!, That's actually a good thing here .... better make a note) The Moores of Spain were equally intolerant when they previously ruled Spain.

Folks who accurately describe the techniques of the various inquisitions are no more "revisionists" than those who accurately describe the injustices poured out on American Indians, women or African Americans in the name of Manifest destiny and "White man's burden", Australian Aborigionies by English settlers, Indians (of India) and native tribes by white South Africans, or alternateively the good that loosers in history have also done.

I think it is unwise to set up modern values, arrived at by a long process of debate and investigation, as the yardstick by which to judge more ancient societies and cultures, who had not yet benefited from such inquiries.

DCH

andrewcriddle

From the Product Description This is a bad sign.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Catholic Church's Inquisition formally existed
from the Thirteenth to the Nineteenth centuries?

This is very short-sighted.

Jonathan Kirsch has not studied ancient history. The inquisition commenced under Constantine. The torture of the upper classes becomes a political reality in the fourth century via the evidence of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Codex Theodosianus. The execution of Hellenic priests and the utter destruction of ancient and highly revered temples to Apollo and Ascelpius, and his prohibition of temple services with effect from the year 324 CE target Constantine as a malevolent despot. The execution of his son and wife and related innocents shortly after Nicaea brand the despot as highly unstable, and tortured by the possession of supreme power over the entire Roman empire. One need only read Seutonius' Twelve Caesars in order to understand how it was that the supreme power at the top of the scap heap of imperial thugs with their armies eventually led each Roman emperor to excesses, failures, and corruption. Constantine needs to be understood as a Hitler. Its very simple. The evidence is in plain view. Its just our emotional baggage saying to us, "this cannot be the case". Put down the baggage. Examine the evidence without any preconceived bias. And if you can find any evidence of christianity before Constantine, let's discuss it in this forum. I would like to see it.

Jonathan Kirsch needs to expand his treatise back to the fourth century since it is in this century the christian church first appears in the archaeological evidence of ancient history, along with its Boss.

Best wishes


Pete

Joan of Bark

I thoroughly enjoyed Kirsch's last book, and I'm looking forward to reading this one also.

While Constantine takes quite a bashing (and certainly deserves it), I invite eveyone to read the Edict of Milan, written by Constantine with Licinius in 313.

This shows a different side of the man, no?

mountainman

Dear Joan of Bark,

No. What someone says, and what someone does may be two entirely different things. For instance, within a couple of decades of this date, Constantine can be justifiably held accountable for the mass destruction of ancient temples which were held in the highest esteem and tradition by the greeks of the eastern empire, he executed chief priests such as Sopater, he had his son and his wife and related innocents executed. Lucinius, whom we are to believe co-authored this Milan debacle, Constantine had strangled. The historian Victor tells us that:

So for the period c.326 to 337 CE Constantine is being described as a ward who is irresponsible for his own actions. This confirms that the examination of his words and the examination of his actions are not consistent.

The actions of Constantine need to be perceived as conducive to that of a supremely malevolent despot with respect to the civilian population of the eastern Roman empire c.324 CE. There is ample evidence to substantiate that he was in deed and in action (despite his pretty words) aptly characterised as a military dictator, who robbed the empire of its treasures and surplanted - both in physical form (ie: codex) and authority - the Greek academic literature of Pythagoras and Apollonius with the new testament.

Best wishes,


Pete

GenesisNemesis

If I was a Christian, it would be someone who follows the teachings of Christ. That simple.

Civil1z@tion

That's definitly incorrect. No equivalent of the Catholic Inquisition existed for Christians and Jews in any Muslim territory, much less Moorish Spain. In fact, where Catholic nations were mostly kicking out or forcing Jews and Muslims to convert, in Al-Andalus (the Arabic name for Moorish Spain) Christians and Jews were allowed to practice openly and most of the Medieval Jewish texts and writers come from Al-Andalus. Certainly if the Muslims could be tolerant of Christians and Jews (though not giving them equal rights, at least allowing them freedom to practice) then certainly Christianity could have done so as well. However, they chose not to and violently suppressed not only non-Christians but even non-conformist Christians of the day.

penguinfan

I was under the impression that the French inquisition was actually the worst. The Church managed to wipe out an entire heresy. As for forced conversion under the Spanish inquisition, I thought this was a misunderstanding. The people who went through the inquisition were Christian on paper, the point of the inquisition was to make sure of it - ie, they were formerly Muslims and Jews, but decided to convert to stay in Spain. Could anyone shed some light on that for me?