"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.

[Jagella]

So, yes, this is an RCC error.

I obviously agree that the Inquisition was an "error" on the part of the Catholic Church if by error you mean a great evil. But if you try to say that Protestants have committed no such errors, then I disagree. Luther had a lot of disagreements with Rome, but the punishment of heresy was not one of them. Who do you think executed the alleged witches at Salem? It wasn't the Catholics.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Their silence speaks volumes (in that they did not listen to, follow, or know Christ, despite their claims to the contrary).

I agree that we need to take care when any person makes a claim that she or he follows Christ. It's easy to talk, but sincere action is much tougher. And sincerity in the context of this discussion is what we really need to fear!

Why?

Are you going to claim that Christ commanded His followers to persecute, steal from, torture, and even murder so-called 'heretics'?

Christ said that those things would be done TO His disciples; they would not done BY His disciples.

But I thought you said you did not want this thread to be about Christ and Him not preaching violence?

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.

Your OP is about the Inquisition, yes? That was conducted by the RCC was it not?

The Protestants did no better than the RCC, persecuting and murdering so-called heretics (and I am sure that they persecuted and executed those who belonged to Christ in the process as well, the same as the RCC). The Protestants were not listening to Christ any more than the RCC was listening to Christ.


Before you bring up some other religion, the only religion that God sanctioned was the Temple/Priesthood/Law given to Israel through Moses... even though the priests and the people corrupted themselves, worshiping false gods, handling the law falsely, etc. That religion - the only one that God gave and sanctioned - was meant to lead to Christ.... NOT to yet another religion calling itself "Christianity".

Christ and "Christianity" are not the same thing.

Belonging to Christ and belonging to "Christianity" is not the same thing.

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?

Perhaps in hiding, or being persecuted, or already on the receiving end of the "Inquisitors" (the RCC).

Perhaps, but I'm not aware of any Christians who thought that the Inquisition was "unChristian" when the Inquisition was at its height. Can you cite any examples of Christians who opposed the Inquisition believing it ran counter to the gospel tale?

It is not like there were recording devices in the 'courts'; or an internet onto which one could write and not be erased.

It seems to me that few if any Christians at that time thought that the Inquisition was in opposition to Christ.

Christians would have known it to be against Christ. Anyone who knew and listened to Christ would have known it to be against Him and His word.

It depends on which "word" you're referring to.

As stated, I am referring to the words of Christ.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[bluethread]

So, yes, this is an RCC error.

I obviously agree that the Inquisition was an "error" on the part of the Catholic Church if by error you mean a great evil. But if you try to say that Protestants have committed no such errors, then I disagree. Luther had a lot of disagreements with Rome, but the punishment of heresy was not one of them. Who do you think executed the alleged witches at Salem? It wasn't the Catholics.

You are aware that Protestants are protestant catholics. Any honest examination of Proestant doctrine would quickly see that Protestanism follows the RCC tradition. Such is not the case with eastern doctrine, which is more closely aligned with what could be called the "jewish" tradition.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

I will say the obvious: This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy we are talking about here.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you cite a direct quotation in which you think I made such a fallacy? It's important to understand that fallacies are mistakes in logic, so you should point out what logic I employed that is presumably mistaken. I don't think the OP at least has any fallacies because it consists of citing some history and asking what that history tells us about how Christians interpret their beliefs.

I wasn't saying you yourself made such a fallacy, but that it was the topic you brought up.

When your thread title includes '"True" Christians' (quotes yours) then the first thing that comes to my mind is "True" Scotsmen. At least to me, the parallel is so obvious that it couldn't be made unknowingly. Perhaps I was wrong.

[Jagella]

Now of course, I'm not going to respond to tam directly. I and other people are unable to debate with tam, since of course she's apparently the only one who can hear Christ, thus meaning that in terms of debate...she can never be locked down. No matter what point anyone raises to her, no matter what quote from the Bible we provide, she's given herself a get out of jail free card, in that she can just say "That's not what Christ teaches, that's not what the Christ I hear and obey says" (or words to that effect) and to be technical...we can't prove her false. She can't prove herself right either, but if she doesn't care about that, why should we?

The goal of Christian apologetics isn't an objective assessment of evidence and a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from that assessment. Rather, apologists start at a conclusion they want to believe and then work backwards looking around for reasons to believe that conclusion. So in the context of this discussion, the conclusion is that Christ could never have said anything to have incited the Inquisition. No other conclusion is acceptable, and any and all evidence that does not support this conclusion will be either ignored, explained away, or simply rejected.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by Jagella]

So in the context of this discussion, the conclusion is that Christ could never have said anything to have incited the Inquisition.

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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by JehovahsWitness]

...Post 20 just proves my point. You've just given me everything I need to point to in order to say "See! JWs push for social change, despite what you've said earlier about Jesus teaching not to do that!" You've got court cases in the US Supreme Court that by their very nature, now act as precedent, are cited by lawyers in lower courts in other court cases.

Note, I'm not saying that pushing for change is a bad thing - what I'm saying is that you and yours are being massive hypocrites when you say "Jesus teaches us not to push for social change" and yet here you are doing just that.

[Bust Nak]

what I'm saying is that you and yours are being massive hypocrites...

Moderator Warning

You can't say that here.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 27 by rikuoamero]

The point I am trying to make is that Jehovah's Witnesses are not "pushing for social change" in that we are trying to bring about alternative or adapted political or social systems through "social justice movements". The only thing we as individuals and as an organisation "push" for, is the right to freely and peacefully practise our religion (which includes and encompasses having a positive influence in our communities). If by seeking to be permitted to exercise these rights through existing legal systems, there is a subsequent and corresponding change in any area of the world system, then that for us is not our aim and we feel no need to take responsibility for them whether those changes are deemed positive or negative.

To illustrate: Imagine a Christian chooses to leave his job in order to become a missionary in a foreign land. His vacated post is taken up by a veritable tyrant who makes the lives of the other employees lives miserable.The Christian didn't hire the tyrant, nor did he leave in order to have the tyrant take his place, he left for his own spiritual reasons but his actions created a need for a subsequent decision which, it turned out had a (negative) effect.

Jehovah's Witnesses pursue our spiritual goals in line with biblical directives. If in doing so, situations are created that necessitate other people making their own decisions, then so be it. We believe that each person is responsible for their own decisions and this can be extrapolated to the legal and social systems that exist, past and present.




JW


RELATED POSTS

Does not any successful appeal for justice result in social change?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 640#934640

FURTHER READING

Proposition 8, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Joel
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/09 ... -joel.html

Thank Jehovahs Witnesses for Religious Freedom
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/geova_USAtoday.htm

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

[Jagella]

Their silence speaks volumes (in that they did not listen to, follow, or know Christ, despite their claims to the contrary).

I agree that we need to take care when any person makes a claim that she or he follows Christ. It's easy to talk, but sincere action is much tougher. And sincerity in the context of this discussion is what we really need to fear!

Why?

Are you going to claim that Christ commanded His followers to persecute, steal from, torture, and even murder so-called 'heretics'?

As we have already seen, the gospels quote Christ as espousing much violence (e.g. Luke 19:27) and division among even family members. (Matthew 10:35) He routinely attacked those who did not believe what he said denouncing them as "blind fools." (Matthew 23) He insisted he was the only way to the Bible god (John 14:6), and all those who didn't accept this "way" were to suffer eternal consequences. (Matthew 10:28)

So if the Inquisitors were sincerely basing their actions on what they believed Christ said, then they would act violently if they thought they needed to. They would act to divide people between "true" believers and false believers persecuting the latter. For them heretics would be evil fools who needed to be weeded out. If the heretics were not destroyed, then many souls would never be saved.

Of course, that's just what the Inquisition did. As sincere Christian believers who were not reigned-in by secular society, they were free to do whatever they thought the Bible commanded them to do. The consequences were horrific.

Christ said that those things would be done TO His disciples; they would not done BY His disciples.

By telling Christians that they would be persecuted, the gospel tale induces paranoia in believers causing them to be suspicious and fearful of those who may differ from them religiously. We see this paranoia in the Inquisition suspecting dissenters as being in league with Satan and enemies of the Bible god.

But I thought you said you did not want this thread to be about Christ and Him not preaching violence?

If we discuss the Inquisition, then what the gospel says is very relevant.

Your OP is about the Inquisition, yes? That was conducted by the RCC was it not?

Yes, but Protestants had an inquisition of their own. Luther never rejected the Catholic Church's dogmas of Satan and witches. The Inquisition was perhaps at is strongest in Germany long after the Protestant Reformation.

Can you cite any examples of Christians who opposed the Inquisition believing it ran counter to the gospel tale?

It is not like there were recording devices in the 'courts'; or an internet onto which one could write and not be erased.

Tam, did you ever hear of "history books"? They record what happened, and they've been around long before Christianity and the Inquisition. If there were Christians who opposed the Inquisition at its height, then they are oddly missing from those history books.

By the way, you may not be aware of why the Catholic Church instituted the cult of the Virgin Mary. Mary was seen as a "kinder, gentler" alternative to the harsh Jesus. So as we can see, the interpretation of Christ as a sweet, wonderful guy is a recent phenomenon.