"True" Christians opposing the Inquisition?

[Jagella]

Nowadays in our relatively safe secular world many Christian apologists feel free to criticize the Inquisitors as acting against what Jesus said rather than in obedience to what he said. So when a critic of Christianity cites the Inquisition as an abuse on the part of Christianity, the apologists respond by claiming that Jesus never preached violence against or persecution of unbelievers. Instead he preached only love and forgiveness--or so they say.

Although there are many problems with this apologetic, I'd like to discuss one problem that I haven't seen discussed much. That problem is the silence on the part of Christians who presumably realized that the Inquisitors were acting against the morality Christ preached.

Question for Debate: When heretics were being burned at the stake, where were the brave Christians who with Bibles in hand sternly accosted the Inquisitors demanding that they stop acting against what Christ said?

It seems to me that few if any Christians at that time thought that the Inquisition was in opposition to Christ. The modern apologists don't oppose the Inquisition based on what Jesus said but on what modern atheists have said.

[rikuoamero]

Wouldn't fleeing persecution require one to be going against an authority put in place by God?

You might like to consult my earlier post that addresses that question.


Must a Christian obey the government no matter what is asked of them?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 449#930449


JW

It might amaze you but in the minutes between my posting my earlier comment and now this reply, I had gone and read that "Must a christian Obey the government" post of yours. So basically, I know you so well that I am able to anticipate with perfect accuracy which posts you're going to link me to as a response.
Your post there does not serve as a response to what is being talked about here. This thread, as posted by Jagella is about the Inquisitions of the Christian Churches of centuries past and asking where where the "real" Christians, Bible in hand, to protest this practice. I joined in by pointing out that both Peter and Paul apparently say that such practices are to be praised.
The post you link me to is about whether or not Christians are to obey governments " we believe no human government or institution has the right to command us to kill them or engage in any process or procedure to that end.
".
That is a different topic to Inquisitions and the seeming lack of other Christians protesting the practice (I say seeming because I honestly do not know if any Christians did protest it at the time).

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by rikuoamero]

QUESTION May a Christian appeal to governmental authorities for justice under existing laws?

Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral in obedience to Jesus command to be "No part of the world" We take this to mean, amongst other things, not to take sides when it comes to which ruler or political party is in power or to do anything to change rulers or parties such as voting, being involved in revolutions or armed conflicts. We hold to this position no matter how evil or oppressive a regime may be, trusting in Gods promises to bring all wickedness, suffering and oppression to an end with His kingdom.

That said, there is nothing in the bible that indicates a Christian cannot enjoy the protections rights and legal privileges extended by those authorities. Jesus explained his case before Pilate who was in a position to free him from his illegal arrest and the Apostle Paul even appealed to Ceasar when he couldn't get justice in the local court. Thus Christians have the right to state their case to the rulers and authorities and seek relief from persecution by any legal means available to them.

A recent example of this is the Jehovah's Witness writing campaign. Presently Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia are undergoing severe persecution in the country of Russia were their right to freely meet together for prayer, bible readjng and worship is being denied. Jehovah's Witnesses and sympathizers were invited to respectfully write to Mr Putin and various other high officials in that country, asking them to review our case since freedom of worship is in fact guaranteed by the country's constitution. The campaign was not one to stirr revolution or revolt, but rather to bring their plight to the attention of those in a position to bring relief.

CONCLUSION Christians are to submit to the ruling authorities (as long as they are not asked to violate bible law or principle) no matter how unjust those rulers might be in the sense they are not to push for revolution or social change. They are however permitted to use any legal channels that exist to seek justice or relief from persecution.

RELATED POSTS

How did the international community react to Russia's ban of Jehovah's Witnesses?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 59#p863659

Further Reading: Dear Mr Putin by TomHarley
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

This reads like so much a formulaic answer, that you didn't put much effort into posting it. In fact, I highly suspect you just copied and pasted it from somewhere.

For example, did you not think about the following?

That said, there is nothing in the bible that indicates a Christian cannot enjoy the protections rights and legal privileges extended by those authorities.

What if the authorities do NOT extend protections, rights and legal privileges? What if under that authority, there are NO such things for Christians?

Thus Christians have the right to state their case to the rulers and authorities and seek relief from persecution by any legal means available to them.

And when legal options are exhausted or unavailable? Just sit there and take it? Or flee, as you said earlier?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

A recent example of this is the Jehovah's Witness writing campaign. Presently Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia are undergoing severe persecution in the country of Russia were their right to freely meet together for prayer, bible readjng and worship is being denied. Jehovah's Witnesses and sympathizers were invited to respectfully write to Mr Putin and various other high officials in that country, asking them to review our case since freedom of worship is in fact guaranteed by the country's constitution. The campaign was not one to stirr revolution or revolt, but rather to bring their plight to the attention of those in a position to bring relief.

This is a tangent, but I want to ask why did you write the above the way you did? The problem I have is the first sentence; it's written as if you think I am unaware of the problem in Russia for JWs, and you're now bringing it to my attention in support of the points you're making.
Thing is, I've interacted on your Russian JW thread already, and I made mention of it in Post 9 of this thread when I said the following

Code: Select all

Like in your other thread about the Russians banning your group? Could've sworn you were talking about having a letter writing campaign, trying to help your fellow Russian JWs. 

I've long had a sneaking suspicion that the account called JehovahsWitness here on DC'n'R is actually used by several people. I am of course not going to complain to moderators - I have no evidence to present, but language like the above is just...suspicious.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

CONCLUSION Christians are to submit to the ruling authorities (as long as they are not asked to violate bible law or principle) no matter how unjust those rulers might be in the sense they are not to push for revolution or social change. They are however permitted to use any legal channels that exist to seek justice or relief from persecution.

How is what you are saying here NOT pushing for social change? Yes, the Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion...but currently that is not actually being enacted. The social scene at the moment is not one of religious freedom. Thus, if you succeed in your letter writing campaign and have the government obey its constitution, you will have just directly pushed for social change - you would have moved the Russian government at least a little bit away from authoritarian and more towards beholden to its own laws.
I wonder...does the JW organisation the Watchtower write to the US Supreme Court to try to get the Justices there to support one particular viewpoint of a case before them in terms of how it relates to the US Constitution? Or do they only do this when JWs/Christians seek "justice or relief"?

[JehovahsWitness]

What if the authorities do NOT extend protections, rights and legal privileges?

What if under that authority, there are NO such things for Christians?

In that case Christians look to God for the strength to bear with dignity, whatever test He allows.

Jesus warned his disciples that they would be persecuted and that some would even be killed; this has been the case for Jehovah's Witnesses under Hitlers Nazi regime where they were amongst the first detainees in the concentraton camps, Stalins Communist Russia where they were sent to workcamps in Siberia and presently in Eriatrea some of Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned for up to 25 years without trial for their faith. It is a historical fact that many thousands of Jehovah's have been imprisoned and have died due to the harsh conditions or been executed because they refused to violate bible law or principle. Jehovahs Witnesses have been banned, imprisonex formtheir faith or their worship has been restricted, at one time or another in practically every country on earth.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not masachists, we don't seek to do anything but live peaceably with our neighbours and serve our God without hindrance and if, as Jesus said it is possible to avoid persecution and loss of life by changing location, what many will choose to do, but this option is not always open and in that case we accept that the Christian calling will inevitably involve a degree of suffering. The reward for remaining faithful to God under trail is, we believe great, for God never forgets those who have suffered for his name.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

Were Jehovah's Witnesses persecuted by the Nazis?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 565#804565

May a Christian appeal to governmental authorities for justice under existing laws?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 611#934611

[bluethread]

But anyone (individual or group) speaking against the RCC would have been deemed a heretic and would have been silenced (in some way or another).

Throughout the earlier stages of the Inquisition, there were no Protestants, and so Roman Catholicism was the only Christianity available throughout much of the world. Even when the Catholic Church was challenged by Luther and the Reformation, the attacks on alleged heretics continued on both sides of the conflict. So you really cannot slip out of this problem by blaming the Roman Catholics.

This is only true in western Europe. In the East, the Orthodox did not have an Inquisition. If one were to find any justification for the Inquisition, it was an outgrowth of the Crusades that were an attempt to defend against the Muslim invasion of Europe. This may have been just an excuse persecute the ideas of the east, previously rejected by the RCC as part of the Great Schism in 1054. So, yes, this is an RCC error. Though the primary focus was on RCC heretics, the fact that the targeted groups held eastern doctrines, caused Jews to occasionally also be caught up in the practice.

[Jagella]

While Christians have every right to draw attention to the plight of fellow believers or even appeal to rulers for relief, they are not to attempt to remove rulers from office either by word or action.

But are Christians not to speak out against what they believe is a corruption and misuse of the gospel? The issue of this thread is not removal of any rulers from power but a recognition of what Christ is quoted as saying in the gospel tale. If the Christians who lived during the height of the Inquisition did not see the Inquisition as acting against what the gospel tells us to do, then why should any of us today see the gospel tale any differently? How is the modern interpretation of the gospel any more accurate than the Inquisition's interpretation?

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that our interpretation of the New Testament changes with the times. If the Inquisition wanted to use its power to destroy whomever they believed were enemies of the Bible god, then there is plenty in the gospel story to use as a basis for that destruction. Jesus is portrayed as preaching hellfire for sinners, an angry, vengeful god, and a deceptive Devil. These concepts are more than enough to fuel the paranoia and violence of the Inquisition.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Nowadays in our relatively safe secular world many Christian apologists feel free to criticize the Inquisitors as acting against what Jesus said rather than in obedience to what he said. So when a critic of Christianity cites the Inquisition as an abuse on the part of Christianity, the apologists respond by claiming that Jesus never preached violence against or persecution of unbelievers. Instead he preached only love and forgiveness--or so they say.

I cannot say that I have ever read where Jesus is attributed with ordering his followers to be violent against or persecute non-followers.

So - do you have any specific references?

That problem is the silence on the part of Christians who presumably realized that the Inquisitors were acting against the morality Christ preached.

It might be that Christians around the world were not privy to that.

It may also be that people calling themselves Christians (or whatever it was those who did these things called themselves) in that area where these things were taking place, were all active in the practice to one degree or the other.

Question for Debate: When heretics were being burned at the stake, where were the brave Christians who with Bibles in hand sternly accosted the Inquisitors demanding that they stop acting against what Christ said?

It appears that the bible was not the readily available mass produced book that exists today.
Certainly I have no illusions as to how different things were in those days in relation to how things are now. I suspect that there have been many historical instances where goodness has been forced to go underground/off the radar or face the risk of being crushed into non-existence. It may be the case that in doing so, we now are able to experience living in this relatively safe world.

It is good to understand the different ages as best as possible. We cannot know with any accuracy whether the message of Jesus - re those love and peace and turn the other cheek etc ideas, didn't have/ haven't had a positive effect on this world, or how - without such, the world would be a darker, less enjoyable place.

I think evildoers will use any platform they can get away with using in order to perpetuate the doing of evil. Goodness seems to have prevailed in spite of that. I like to stay truthful to the fact that evil does not always prevail and that Abrahamic Religions are not the all-evil thing that a lot of hard atheist like to claim.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

CONCLUSION Christians are to submit to the ruling authorities (as long as they are not asked to violate bible law or principle) no matter how unjust those rulers might be in the sense they are not to push for revolution or social change. They are however permitted to use any legal channels that exist to seek justice or relief from persecution.

How is what you are saying here NOT pushing for social change?

QUESTION Does not any successful appeal for justice result in social change?

Newton's third law of Motion: For every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Anything any individual or group of individuals do, will of course have an effect on society in some way, the only way to avoid this is to be completely motionless. Indeed Jesus recognized that while his disciples be "no part of the world" they wouldn't be taken out of the world; they would still have contact with, and an effect on, those around them (and visa versa). So Jehovah's Witnesses are not suggesting their actions have no effect on society, indeed they are happy to do community service and as individuals support any charities and causes they personally hold dear and of course to be be a loving and active members of their communities. They will not however take part in, or support any group, association or movement that exist with the sole pupose of creating social change through political means.

Our organisation's existence is entirely religious. If the exercise of our rights to avail ourselves of a legal system in order to freely practise that religion results in a corresponding change in society, that does not violate a Jehovah's Witnesses conscience. If those changes turn out to be positive that reflects well on the legal mechanism itself not on us, if it doesn't that is not, in our opinion, our fault. Jehovah's Witnesses have fought (and won) more cases before the United States Supreme court than any other religious organisation, this has without a doubt has a significant impact on American law and as a consequence the rights of other Americans. Jehovah's Witnesses see this as a natural consequence of being part of a society that reacts to legalities rather than part of a social justice movement.


JW



FURTHER READING

Thank Jehovah’s Witnesses for Religious Freedom’
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/geova_USAtoday.htm

Jehovahs Witnesses: current legal battles
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/