Amos

. . . or "handicapped ability to reason" because both rational and irrational are generated by the faculty of reason.

The faculty of reason wants immediate results because it is driven by the senses and aided by our short term memory (the lymbic system is its full extent).

Catholics have communion with the saints (lol) and can lean on the wisdom that has been accumilated for thousands of years and that is where the utility of Catholicism can lead to Pure Reason without the undesired influence of our thirst for pleasure without of pain.

Sojourner553

Remember we were originally discussing a specific TECHNICAL topic that falls under the Biblical Criticism and Archeology category.

On a GENERAL religious discussion post, your point applies. (You do realize this gives theists the right to bash atheists using generalities too, yes?)

I say, what is wrong with common courtesy? I would argue that the rationality degenerates to the level of mudslinging whenever one starts into general insults.

I try to stay away from generalities anyway: I am a business analyst by profession, and it is so common to see gross distortion/errors from an individaul making global /strategic assessments of cause and effect that were really not there when one drills down into the details.

NOGO had it right in his last post to me. Bede is really a decent guy. He has clearly stated he does not support the tortures/executions of the Inquisition. NOGO's fight (and mine) is with religious fundamentalists who would interpret Bede's writings to justify their ultra-conservative (and anti-democracy) doctrines.

So why bash a basically decent guy? Of course his IDEAS are free forum for bashing (where we can). But then, Bede gets to do the same to our ideas (where he can).

PS. It's been my observation whenever one descends to the level of personal attacks, rationality is quickly replaced with emotionalism.

I can't say I don't engage in some of this myself -- I just generally try not to "begin" the descent into the muck.

Frankly it is EASIER to emotionally insult than to rationally engage in discussion, which is the real reason I think some people like to resort to the former....

Sojourner

brighid

Sojourner,

When you speak of atheism and atheists, or even communism and communists and the ills, etc. are you condemning every atheists and communist, or are you making a collective statement about the Institution of Communism or the collective idea of atheism?

The term Christianity is, at least when I use it (and I feel in most cases when non-theists in the forum us it) as a collective term to define a very broad and diverse Institution. They are not say ALL Christians are evil, but that Christianity as an Institution has done some pretty evil things and still does. That is why (and I include all people theist and atheist alike) I get irritated in this specific discussion.

I read those statements and I didn't take it as a condemnation of every Christian person, but rather as a condemnation of Christianity (specifically at that time, as well as with present day evils that are indisputable even by Christians.) I did not interpret these statements as you did and perhaps that is because we see through different lenses of interpretation. None the less, the thread was further derailed by reacting through an obfuscation of THIS topic by the elongated discussions regarding the demerits of atheism, communism etc. and this is what I have seen as a "typical" tactic from some Christians when having this discussion - the line of reasoning that other people did it so it's not so bad. That is why *I* got irritated. I hope that clarifies my position better.

I can understand how a "Christian" would be sensitive about this and perhaps we need to do a better job at differentiating meanings, but it is very annoying to be accused of condemning every Christian that has ever lived and presently lives because we attack "Christianity" and its ideas and practices IT has and still does lend support to through Scripture, historical tradition and within Catholicism by Papal Bull, edict, etc.

I would however actually like a Christian to address the points I made regarding how could THEE Church, guided by the Hand of the Holy Spirit EVER be capable of one episode of the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc. ? EVERY time I ask this question I get an almost identical response ... refusal to engage in further conversation because it's "emotional."

I think that premise speaks to the very specific claim made by Catholicism (and later Protestanism) that Jesus/God/Holy Spirit "leads" the Church. Wouldn't you say that IF this indeed the case that their is atleast an argument available to challenge this claim and furthermore, the actual presence of this loving, omnipotent, just God of Christianity?

The entire existence of "witches" as defined by the Church through the Malleus Maleficarum do not and never had existed (despite Amos' declarations to the contrary.) and therefore certainly credibility issues come into play. From a psychological standpoint the MM is quite interesting and I think the psychology behind the motivations for this heinous, diabolical, twisted work of misogynist mythology speaks more accurately as to what was going on then even any Papal Bull supporting it.

However I do agree that the Inquisitions did more to harm and murder "heretics" then they did to actual "witches", except in specific areas that seemed ripe with Catholic and Protestant strife and such accusation was leveled rather viscious and maliciously, neighbor against neighbor. I do not find the murder, torture or false imprisonment of ANY person, heretic, witch or otherwise to be an acceptable practice for secular institutions and I personally find it worse of Institutions claiming to be possessed of thee every loving, perfect God.

Regardless of the actual numbers of who was tortured and murdered and the what for ... the heart of the matter is as I stated in my "emotional" response to this discussion. HOW could this happen? That is the question I want answered. I do not want historical anything. I want a theological/divine reason why this could and DID happen within the reach of THEE Holy Church, supported by numerous Popes (who are allegedly THEE conduit to God), all of whom are inspired and guided by THIS God.

Brighid

Dr Rick

Lynn, you are still posting strawmen and are off-topic.

"Both of us are only scraping the surface of the evils inflicted by those who worship the Christian God...The history of religion, including Christianity, is one of cruelty and oppression…As in the past, Christianity and all of religion to this day inflicts terror and war on the hapless people caught in the grasp of superstition and hate...Christianity has caused suffering and death for millions and millions of people.It is a source of suffering and death."

The above statements are true. They are not personal attacks, but they counter the trivialization of the Inquisitons and the attempts to rationalize them. Christianity is relevant to the discussion because it was one of the motivators behind the Inquisitions. You are the one that introduced the statements that Christianity is "evil by nature" and "All Christians are evil" If you want to argue for or against those assertions, please start another thread and stop posting your fallacious inferences here.

It was moved after you derailed the exchange with gratuitous off-topic posts such as this one:

No one ever said or implied "that "only" Christians/ or theists have done atrocities (or the worst atrocities)," No one has denied that "there ARE good Christians around" nor has anyone tried to "draw a simplistic line to categorize all theists into one category." No one blamed Bede for the Inquisitions.

You introduced all of those strawmen.

The Inquisitions were not motivated by communism and did not involve Russia, China or "democratic pluralism;" there was no reason for you to introduce those topics on this thread.

Pot, kettle, black

It was an analogy: I could have started it with "Non-Swedish fundamentalists can be irrational and it would have been just as illustrative.

The topic of this thread was on specific events (the Inquisitions) before you derailed it with fallacious generalities about ideologies and specious strawmen

Only if the specifics are relevant. It's extraneous fluff to bring-up that a fundamentalist likes ballet, eats tuna fish sandwiches, or is an atheist unless they are motivating factors

Sure, if being Saudia Arabian or Al Queda motivates him. Conversely, if Islam doesn't motivate him, the use of the adjective "Islamic" would be inappropriate.

Include additional descriptive terms if they are germane; leave them out if they are not.

Then call it Stalinism or Maoism, not atheism or theism.

The topic was never about general ideologies until you derailed it with fallacious inferences, strawmen, and gibberish about communism and Bertrand Russell. It has never been about specific individuals even though you keep trying to change the subject to them:

Would you please get back on topic?

And yet another strawman.

Rick

Bede

I have added the following to my FAQ:

What legal system did the Inquisition use?

The Inquisition is not comparable to modern justice – it was tardy about allowing a defence, defence witnesses could be reluctant to come forward through fear of incriminating themselves and defendants enjoyed nothing like the same measure of legal protection that they do today. The identity of accusers and some witnesses was hidden while there was no right of silence. Furthermore, 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.

This won't satisfy the headbangers, of course, but should address the concerns of objective observors.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Yellum Notnef

I`ve moved this post to "elsewhere" since I don`t want it to hinder the chance of this thread ever becoming productive.

brighid

Thank you Bede for that legal perspective. That is the way things worked back then, and there is a reason why we don’t have the strictly Roman system anymore and it is because it was unfair, dangerous and at times rather heinous. I also find the current thinking of the present American administration that police should be able to use torture in confessions if the confession is “true.”

However, this still fails to answer how such cruelty was able to find commonplace within the confines of the Church and within the “secular” authority it so closely maintained power over?

You do not deny that torture, and from this forced confession, et al. is wrong and you are morally outraged by it’s use. So beyond the typical human failings and historical context of action (that isn’t actually disputed in this thread, but rather the justification that said things are okay within that context) how is it that the Almighty Church directed by the Inspired Word of THEE God and the magical hand of the Holy Spirit could EVER possibly be (and continues to be in various capacities) the torturer, murderer, robber baron, Crusader, imperialist invader, cultural and religious destroyer and all sorts of very ungodly and immoral types of things?

Brighid

Amos

Sorry about the irritation, Brighid, but this is a philosophy board and the term "Christianity as an Institution" is made in the slumber of oblivion and this is precisely the cause of evil within Christendom.

But the Catholic Church is inspired and has no need for the Holy Spirit. Understand here that she is the Bride of the Lamb and would never share this position with objectors who must therefore each tear away peaces from the church as they think they can get away with. This, then, is the reason why you see evil in the history of the church while you are looking at justice and compassion in their dealings with marauders or protestors. The church's reaction here is made in effort to maintain the intergity of the church and further the truth within Christendom.

Perhaps I owe you an explanation here since you don't seem to know the difference between heaven and earth. The reason why the Catholic church has no need for the HS is because heaven exists only when "all has been made clear" and to recognize the HS in heaven would be a contradiction in terms. We therefore crowned Mary--who is the Bride of the Lamb--as the head of the Church and claim infallibility on her behalf as an Institution under God that moves through the ages to set out the parameters of morals and ethics wherein the melodrama of salvation takes place (and so make heaven available to all).

If this is true it must follow that there is no salvation outside the church because there is only one God in Christendom and he is ours because we created him.

They have been crashing ever since the Reformation and in a mild form of stoicism I aways think "we told you so." I think I did just that but must correct you in that we do not claim that popes are "[fully] inspired."

Sojourner553

To Bede, we do agree on Dr. Rick:


I see no reason to repeat my earlier posts to him: as I can tell by his personality type that he goes down screaming vindictive, insults even when he has been shown to be wrong.

I see no reason for me to drop down to this level of emotional behavior. Too much muck for me. Sign off!


I will make one last response to Brighid,

Comment #1 Most Christians would respond to your post that they agree that there were Christians in power who were evil during the time of the Inquisition (just as there clearly are some today). But they see this as part of a theme that all people are sinful: That is, they insist, the reason why all people need to accept Jesus as their savior is to salvage some decency in their behavior. Even though they believe in Jesus though, people still fall short, no matter what, to being naturally bad. It is because humans (unlike Jesus) are imperfect beings, and therefore are/will be stained in sin.

I was brainwashed by this indocrtination as well growing up. The first moment when I realized I was no longer religious, I wondered if this meant I would want to lead a wild debaucherous life. After searching myself in those early moments, I realized only then-- that I had chosen to be a decent person because that was what "I" had really wanted all along (ie not because of any belief in a future reward, etc).

Comment #2: When I debate Christians (etc), I do not ask why some have participated in evil (be it the Inquisition, wars, etc).

No. What I ask is...

How is it that good-meaning people (who are supposed to have the Holy Ghost for spiritual guidance) seem to have a hard time ever "knowing" if an action (a religious war, an inquisition, etc) is even wrong or not during the time period in which they lived.

That is: Why is it that people who are trying hard to follow "God's Will" seem to be unable to discern what "God's Will" really is?

Afterall: How can a person be judged on an absolute standard of morality if (1) it is not intuitively obvious what this standard of morality is and (2) people can't agree what this standard of morality is ( often within the same religion.)

Someone asked me once what it would take for me to believe in an active God. I told him for everyone to wake up and "intuitively know" like they had 10 fingers on their hands (or however many fingers they had), that God existed and what "his" will was.

Then any true "test" of morality would be the measure of how a person lived up to these true objective standards.

Sojourner





















Sojourner

Amos

You still are because that is not Catholic theology. Indoctrination of salvation is the enemy of salvation and therefore the enemy of Catholic doctrine.