"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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I don't think the supposed silence is an issue; except on behalf of those religious leaders who supported and participated in the inquisitions. Their silence speaks volumes (in that they did not listen to, follow, or know Christ, despite their claims to the contrary). 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).

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).

(bible in hand not needed)

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. But, as mentioned, anyone speaking against the RCC would have been deemed to be heretics... then most likely persecuted, imprisoned, executed, etc.

The modern apologists don't oppose the Inquisition based on what Jesus said but on what modern atheists have said.

Not in the least do I base any opposition against the Inquisition upon the sayings of modern atheists.



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

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

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

NTS is an informal fallacy, though. It's a semantic trick meant to disassociate groups of people from each other; it combats "guilt by association", which itself is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. So NTS is not necessarily a fallacy.

To your point about the inquisition. If the premise is that a "True Christian" would never be silent about the evils of the inquisition, we would certainly have to wonder how many "True" Christians there were back then . If they were as rare back then as they seem, then it's implausible that we would have very many nowadays either.

I say these people truly were Christians, but that they failed to live up to Christian ideals. I don't think there is any contradiction in that. No one lives up to their ideals perfectly, whether those ideals are Christian or otherwise.

[showme]

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.

The Roman emperor Theodosius declared the Nicene Trinitarians as true "Christians", as in the only legitimate Imperial religion. That religion is represented and headed by the pope, who was the leader of the 12 cardinals which made up the office of the Inquisition. It still exist today under the name of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is headed by the pope, and it consists of 12 cardinals. Whereas it's purpose was to quell heresy, its foundational dogma, the Trinity, is simply one of the abominations of the earth, born of the "mother of harlots" (Revelation 17:5). It was the blood of the "saints" that the woman/church and the beast/Rome, she rode on, that was drunk (Revelation 17:6-7).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregat ... _the_Faith

[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!

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.

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 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. The Inquisition was obviously influenced by much of the gospel tale. A "heretic" was considered by the Inquisition to be a person who imperiled people's souls to hellfire by making claims that run counter to what the Bible god was believed to have said. They were deemed "the enemies of God," and were literally believed to be in league with with Satan. Heretics then were considered to be the worst kind of criminals who deserved the worst kind of punishment. One of the reasons the Inquisition burned heretics was because they believed that since the heretics would burn in hell, then the burning may as well start here on earth.

Not in the least do I base any opposition against the Inquisition upon the sayings of modern atheists.

Well, this atheist says never persecute anybody for what beliefs they hold. Christ never taught any such thing.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

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?

I'm going to actually use tam's answer for this.

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

Now you may be thinking to yourself "Egads! Rikuo agreeing with a Christian? The sky is falling down!"
No no, everything's fine. Just that I'm agreeing with tam, but for a reason she won't suspect.

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?

So, back to why I'm agreeing with tam. Well...why wouldn't the non-Inquisitorial Christians be silent? Two quotes come to mind.
1st Peter Chapter 4

Code: Select all

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation. 14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? 19 Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.

The general theme of this obvious. If a Christian suffers, this is a good thing, it should be something to celebrate, to rejoice over.

And also from Paul

Code: Select all

 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

So think about it. The normal everyday man Christian, who is not the Inquisition, is seeing the Church being inquisitorial. But...if he reads the Bible (which is honestly a big if back in those days), what does he see but rhetoric from literally the first Pope and Paul saying that what the Church is doing is a good thing? That God has established all authorities on Earth, that to be persecuted is a good thing, something to be celebrated for.

Now of course, tam can chime in and say this isn't what Christ teaches, what he taught...but of course, not everyone can hear Christ. So all the normal everyday Christian has if he wants to check what Christ taught is the Bible and the Bible has those two passages.

[Jagella]

[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.

NTS is an informal fallacy, though. It's a semantic trick meant to disassociate groups of people from each other; it combats "guilt by association", which itself is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. So NTS is not necessarily a fallacy.

Well, did I "disassociate groups of people from each other," or are you accusing somebody else of doing so?

To your point about the inquisition. If the premise is that a "True Christian" would never be silent about the evils of the inquisition, we would certainly have to wonder how many "True" Christians there were back then . If they were as rare back then as they seem, then it's implausible that we would have very many nowadays either.

The term "true Christian" is an allusion to what many Christians say about those individuals whom they consider to be genuine Christians versus the "false" Christians. Some apologists argue that the Inquisition were "false" Christians, and I've decided to discuss whether that view is tenable.

I say these people truly were Christians, but that they failed to live up to Christian ideals. I don't think there is any contradiction in that. No one lives up to their ideals perfectly, whether those ideals are Christian or otherwise.

Well, standing by doing nothing while people are tortured and burned is very far from ideal, of course.

In any case, I think that the Inquisition were genuine Christians who knew the New Testament well and were influenced by what it prescribes. So the denial on the part of apologists regarding the Inquisition is wrong if not dishonest.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by rikuoamero]

Jesus didn't commission his followers to push for social change or denounce evil governments or authorities. Indeed Jesus was silent as to the position of the Jewish people under what many of them viewed as an oppressive Roman regime. 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.

Jesus taught his followers to leave such social justice in Gods capable hands. God will judge the Catholic church for the horrific evils it committed in the dark ages, and His memory is long! As for True Christians during those dark times, we (Jehovahs Witnesse) believe there was no true Christian organisation on earth at the time but there were honest hearted believers who were justified in avoiding persecution if possible. Indeed Jesus said, and I quote ...

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another."- Matthew 10:23

What they were not to do is compromise their beliefs and many didn't, being executed in the most horrific ways imaginable in punishment for reading or translating the bible into the common language so that ordinary folk could have easy access to the word of God.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS




RELATED POSTS


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

DID people really risk their lives to to translate and preach about the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 878#820878

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

Jesus didn't commission his followers to push for social change,

Oh? So your view is that no matter how evil or bad or corrupted the ruling regime is...don't change it? Don't push for change?

God will judge the Catholic church for the horrific evils it committed in the dark ages, and His memory is long!

Is this meant to be a comfort to those who are suffering under horrible regimes? Don't protest, don't try to change it, those who hurt you now will be punished in this mystical afterlife? 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.
Hmm...you seem to be advocating two very different things from what I can see.

As for True Christians, there was no true Christian organisation on earth at the time

Of course it makes perfect sense that Jesus would come down to Earth, do his thing and then not establish a true Christian organisation for about one thousand and eight hundred odd years.

but there were honest hearted believers who were justified in avoiding persecution if possible.

But not to change it, not to prevent it. Because that would be going against Jesus, and that's evil, that's sinful...and you don't want to be evil and sinful now do you?

Indeed Jesus said, and I quote ...

So what about the two quotes I provided from Paul and Peter? Persecution is something to be rejoiced, and Earthly authorities are put in place by God...and if you're persecuted [by an authority put in place by God], you're to flee to somewhere else? Wouldn't fleeing persecution require one to be going against an authority put in place by God? Wouldn't what Paul said make the Roman Catholic Church an authority put in place by God?
The teachings of this religion seem to be all over the place. It's all disjointed, there's no logic connecting one teaching with another.

What they were not to do is compromise their beliefs and many didn't,

Because apparently that's the highest good. Don't change your mind, suffer horrible, painful deaths instead says the loving God.

being executed in the most horrific ways imaginable min punishment for reading or translating the bible into the common language so that ordinary folk could have easy access to the word of God.

According to Paul, doing just this, which is what the RCC didn't want, is going against God. They were agents of God's wrath, authorities put in place by God.
Who are you to say the common people of back then should have had the Bible in their own language? Wouldn't a man who truly seeks God go through the effort of learning Greek and/or Hebrew and/or Latin?

[JehovahsWitness]

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