Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 01-22-2003, 03:01 PM

The apologists posting on this thread have shown us that:

1) Atrocities motivated by non-theistic ideologies such as communism were motivated by atheism.

2) Atrocities committed for non-theistic reasons mitigate those that were committed for religious reasons.

3) The good or charitable works motivated by theism negate atrocities motivated by theism

4) Criticisms of theistic arguments and atrocities are blanket condemnations of all theists

Rick :banghead:

beyelzu · 01-22-2003, 03:05 PM

dr rick,

i dont see why you feel like you are banging your head against a wall. i mean the apologists are just being rational. we should follow their example.

i did like your summation.

Dr Rick · 01-22-2003, 03:14 PM

...I'm just a "headbanger.":banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Rick

01-22-2003, 03:38 PM

The church banned trial by ordeal at Lateran 4 in 1215. The Inquisition did not use it. They used the inquisitio legal procedure (still used in modern European jurisdictions) rather than the earlier accusatio that required an accuser and an ordeal if the accuser was not of sufficiently good character to be believed over the word of the defendent. See Levack, if anyone is interested.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

zwi · 01-22-2003, 04:01 PM

Dr Rick may be interested to know that the benefits of the knowledge of Jesus Christ to the American Natives outweighed all the harm done to them by the Conquistadores and their successors

Not the benevolent actions of any missionaries, just the bringing of the Gospel was sufficient for the two Continents

Would you agree?

Zwi

Dr Rick · 01-22-2003, 05:07 PM

Torture was introduced into European law by the Church during the Inquisitions and remained in the European law codes for hundreds of years. European common law never justified torture.

"Trial by ordeal" was actively practiced through-out the 13th and 14th centuries even though the Latern council "officially" banned it in 1215.

The Inquisitions were first put into place in the 9th century by Emperor Charlemagne. The judicial system gave royal commissioners the emperor's authority to travel throughout the land inquiring and pronouncing sentence upon heretics and criminals alike.

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV officially sanctioned the use of torture. It's use was outlawed by Saxony, Switzerland and Austria only much later in the 18th century, and later still by England in the 19th century.

Unlike the Inquisitions, Roman law severely restricted torture. For example, a slave could not be tortured into testifying against his master (which was permissible under Grecian law), and in later times it was used only in cases against the State such as plotting to kill the Emperor.

Rick

Dr Rick · 01-22-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zwi
...Would you agree?

Of course.

Rick

01-22-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Of course.

Rick

Well I don't. If anything the gospel made it worse and was probably the cause for the upheaval in both continents.

Fr.Andrew · 01-22-2003, 06:23 PM

(Fr Andrew): Layman, I think I've misunderstood and owe you an apology. I've re-read your sentence:
"The fact is that Christianity did result in first the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition."
I thought you had garbled things and meant to say:
"The fact is that Christianity did result in the first discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition."
That's why I was arguing against you...and why I got snippy over what I regarded as your unwillingness to acknowledge what you'd written.
I beg your pardon.
I think it was the lack of punctuation that did me in. For clarity, I would have put a comma after "in" and after "first"---so it would read:
"The fact is that Christianity did result in, first, the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition."

NOGO · 01-22-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede.
the Inquisition was part of the development of Roman Law as still used in most of continental Europe today rather than the Common Law of England and America. Consequently and in common with modern European justice, it did not feature juries or the legal idea of a formal presumption of innocence. Instead, under Roman Law, verdicts are reached by the judge and formal proof, rather than just circumstantial evidence, is required for conviction.

The logical conclusion from this is that the Inquisition required formal proof that someone was a witch before burning them.

We are, therefore, to believe that this was serious stuff and quite fair to the accused. If I understand correctly this is Bede's point.

I, for one, find this very difficult to take seriously.
Since there were 100,000 such cases then one must conclude that there was 100,000 formal proofs of witchcraft.

Since there is no such thing as witchcraft then the 100,000 cases of formal proof are just bogus

So trying to describe how wonderful the process was is totally irrelevant.

01-22-2003, 03:01 PM	#131
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	So to sum it all up, The apologists posting on this thread have shown us that: 1) Atrocities motivated by non-theistic ideologies such as communism were motivated by atheism. 2) Atrocities committed for non-theistic reasons mitigate those that were committed for religious reasons. 3) The good or charitable works motivated by theism negate atrocities motivated by theism 4) Criticisms of theistic arguments and atrocities are blanket condemnations of all theists Rick :banghead:

01-22-2003, 03:14 PM	#133
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	...because, don't ya know: ...I'm just a "headbanger.":banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Rick

01-22-2003, 04:01 PM	#135
zwi Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sarasota FL Posts: 60	Its Ok according to the Pope Dr Rick may be interested to know that the benefits of the knowledge of Jesus Christ to the American Natives outweighed all the harm done to them by the Conquistadores and their successors Not the benevolent actions of any missionaries, just the bringing of the Gospel was sufficient for the two Continents Would you agree? Zwi

01-22-2003, 06:23 PM	#139
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	Apology to Layman (Fr Andrew): Layman, I think I've misunderstood and owe you an apology. I've re-read your sentence: "The fact is that Christianity did result in first the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition." I thought you had garbled things and meant to say: "The fact is that Christianity did result in the first discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition." That's why I was arguing against you...and why I got snippy over what I regarded as your unwillingness to acknowledge what you'd written. I beg your pardon. I think it was the lack of punctuation that did me in. For clarity, I would have put a comma after "in" and after "first"---so it would read: "The fact is that Christianity did result in, first, the discouragement of the practice and assistance to abandoned children, and then to an outright prohibition."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-22-2003, 03:05 PM	#132
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	dr rick, i dont see why you feel like you are banging your head against a wall. i mean the apologists are just being rational. we should follow their example. i did like your summation.

01-22-2003, 03:38 PM	#134
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	The church banned trial by ordeal at Lateran 4 in 1215. The Inquisition did not use it. They used the inquisitio legal procedure (still used in modern European jurisdictions) rather than the earlier accusatio that required an accuser and an ordeal if the accuser was not of sufficiently good character to be believed over the word of the defendent. See Levack, if anyone is interested. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

01-22-2003, 05:07 PM	#136
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Torture was introduced into European law by the Church during the Inquisitions and remained in the European law codes for hundreds of years. European common law never justified torture. "Trial by ordeal" was actively practiced through-out the 13th and 14th centuries even though the Latern council "officially" banned it in 1215. The Inquisitions were first put into place in the 9th century by Emperor Charlemagne. The judicial system gave royal commissioners the emperor's authority to travel throughout the land inquiring and pronouncing sentence upon heretics and criminals alike. In 1252, Pope Innocent IV officially sanctioned the use of torture. It's use was outlawed by Saxony, Switzerland and Austria only much later in the 18th century, and later still by England in the 19th century. Unlike the Inquisitions, Roman law severely restricted torture. For example, a slave could not be tortured into testifying against his master (which was permissible under Grecian law), and in later times it was used only in cases against the State such as plotting to kill the Emperor. Rick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.