"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,

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)

He rebuked Peter when Peter attacked and injured the servant of the men coming to arrest Him. Then He healed the injured servant.

He taught that we are to turn the other cheek, to give to those who ask of us, to love our neighbor and even our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to bless those who curse us.

He did not retaliate against those who persecuted and executed Him. He asked forgiveness from His Father for them.

We are supposed to follow His example and we even have an example of Stephen doing just that. Stephen, who was stoned for His faith in Christ, who also asked forgiveness for those who stoned him just before he died.


We also know that there were false christs and false prophets among the people, and the only instruction given was that we not listen to them.


There is no instruction ever that we should persecute, steal from, torture, imprison, or execute them.


Once again, these things were going to be done TO those who belonged to Christ; not BY those who belonged to Christ.

and division among even family members. (Matthew 10:35)

That is not espousing violence.

He routinely attacked those who did not believe what he said denouncing them as "blind fools." (Matthew 23)

A - The inquisition was not a 'verbal' attack. (at least not solely a verbal attack).

B - Christ simply spoke the truth. The 'inquisitors' did not know the truth to be able to speak the truth, and this should be seen easily by their fruits and disobedience of Christ in the first place... aka by conducting persecutions, tortures, theft, violence, and executions.

He insisted he was the only way to the Bible god (John 14:6),

He said,

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Again that is truth. Not violence.

and all those who didn't accept this "way" were to suffer eternal consequences. (Matthew 10:28)

Those who do not follow the Way (Christ) and come through Him, do not come to the Father.


The irony here is that those who conducted the Inquisition followed the RCC (and 'her' kings) - they did not and were not listening to or following Christ (The Way, the Truth and the Life).

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.

That is not the example of Christ. He did not destroy the false believers or the heretics. He did not destroy the weeds. In fact, His words were the exact opposite (from Matt 13):

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.



And the parable explained:

“The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels."



**


On top of that: the instructions Christ gave us regarding those who persecute us is to pray for them - not kill them.


But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:44

But to those of you who will listen, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Luke 6:27-19


Please note also His words here:


All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.

The time is coming when people think that they are doing a service to God by killing those who belong to Him (or even just throwing them out of the 'synagogues'). But those who do such things have not known the Father or Christ.

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.

"... pray for those who persecute you..."

(but please make no mistake, the inquisition was meant to silent opposition - not to protect Christ or God, or even the people, but to protect the power and the wealth of the RCC and of whatever 'king' it might have been in bed with at the time)

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.

As I said:

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.


Protestantism came out of the RCC but carried some/much of her uncleanness (lies), and kept those during the formation of yet another denomination.

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.

Perhaps because you are assuming that there were many Christians, rather than few. Perhaps also because it hasn't sunk in to you that an individual speaking against the RCC would have been among those who were executed. (technically then they would have been recorded in the 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.

This is not the reason why as far as I know; but if it were, then it just shows even more that the RCC did not know Christ. As if He is not enough and/or not good enough.



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

[Jagella]

He said,

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Again that is truth. Not violence.

Religious exclusivity leads to paranoia and violence. The Inquisition saw only one way to Christ and to salvation of souls. The "heretics," then, preaching what for the Inquisition was a false gospel and a false Christ, needed to be destroyed. No doubt the Inquisition's paranoia was fueled by books like Revelation which portrays Christ as violently destroying anybody who got in his way casting sinners into a lake of fire. Believing that such a fate was real, the Inquisition desperately felt a need to prevent souls from ending up in that lake of fire. Their solution was to kill heretics.



As we all know, the Inquisition's means of execution was burning. They called this burning of heretics "Auto-da-fé" which means "act of faith in Christ." So Christ and the gospel story are central to the acts of the Inquisition. If there were no gospel tale, then there would never have been an Inquisition and not one heretic burnt.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by Jagella]

If there were no gospel tale, then there would never have been an Inquisition and not one heretic burnt.

The question is not, how many "heretics" have been burnt? Rather, the question would be, are Christians ever commanded to burn, "heretics?"

The point is, by your own admission, we have already established, there would be Christians who "do not use the mind properly." With this being the case, we cannot blame the "Gospel tales" if these tales, never instruct, heretics should be burned.

Attempting to blame the "Gospels tales" for something it never instructs, would be no different than Christians attempting to blame Atheism, for folks, such as Hitler, Stalin, etc.

So again, how can we blame the "Gospel tales" for the burning of "heretics" if it never instructs such a thing, with the actual evidence being, that the "Gospel tales" would rather condemn such action? In fact here is an example,

Luke 9:54-56
When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?� But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.�

So then, here is a clear example of this sort of behavior, being "condemned" by the "Gospel tales." So where would there be an example of the "Gospel tales" promoting such a thing?

If we have a clear example of the "Gospel tales" condemning such behavior, and we do not have an example of the "Gospel tales" commanding such behavior, then how in the world, can the "Gospel tales" be the blame for something it condemns, and never, commands?

[Tcg]

So then, here is a clear example of this sort of behavior, being "condemned" by the "Gospel tales." So where would there be an example of the "Gospel tales" promoting such a thing?

Matthew 13 includes a clear example of this sort of behavior being promoted:

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’�

[Jagella]

So then, here is a clear example of this sort of behavior, being "condemned" by the "Gospel tales." So where would there be an example of the "Gospel tales" promoting such a thing?

If we have a clear example of the "Gospel tales" condemning such behavior, and we do not have an example of the "Gospel tales" commanding such behavior, then how in the world, can the "Gospel tales" be the blame for something it condemns, and never, commands?

Well, obviously "condemning such behavior" didn't work. Jesus actually said he had come to "fulfill the law," (Matthew 5:17) and that brutal law included the execution of alleged witches and heretics (Exodus 22:18).

You really don't get that there is advocacy of violence and persecution in the gospel tale? Your mistake in logic is your false assumption that the gospel tale cannot be blamed for a particular act on the part of Christians unless the gospel tale explicitly commands it. However, the tone of rhetoric can have an impact on people causing paranoia in them. If I screamed about how evil Christians are, and then some of my listeners attacked Christians, then would you agree that I'm not responsible for those attacks because I never explicitly ordered those attacks?

[Jubal]

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

Moderator Warning
You can't say that here.

Oh,
so hypocrisy is allowed and accepted and even defended here.

Why is that ?

Jubal

[Jubal]

[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".

As if bringing about alternative or adapted systems through social justice movements doesn't mean SOCIAL CHANGE.

Rikuoamero is right -
this is rank hypocrisy.

Why can't it be pointed out ?

Jubal

[Realworldjack]

So then, here is a clear example of this sort of behavior, being "condemned" by the "Gospel tales." So where would there be an example of the "Gospel tales" promoting such a thing?

Matthew 13 includes a clear example of this sort of behavior being promoted:

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’�

Actually, what you are citing here would not be a command, but a parable, and it has to do with wheat. Moreover, this example would work against your point.

The parable, is about the, "Kingdom of heaven" and it is being compared the a field of wheat. In this wheat field, tares have been sowed, that look a lot like wheat, and the owner of the field comes to the conclusion, that an enemy had done this, and the workers asked the owner of the field, if he wanted them to, "uproot the tares?"

The owner of the field said, "no leave them alone." With this being the case, there is no command to harm the tares in any way, rather they should be allowed the tares to grow, along with the wheat.

It is not until the harvest, (coming of the kingdom) when the "reapers", not the workers, are commanded to "gather in the wheat, and burn the tares."

Again, with all this being the case, we cannot say this parable commands Christians in any way, to burn heretics, and in fact it would be clear that the command would be the exact opposite. The fact of the matter would be, if anything, this parable is saying that Christians, should leave the tares alone, to grow along with the wheat, and leave the harvest, to the reapers.

It would not be simply a stretch, but a complete twisting of a parable, (not a command by the way) to attempt to insist that this parable (not a command by the way) would have anything at all to do with, being at fault for Christians burning heretics, and it would be a desperate attempt, especially if this is the only passage one can refer to.

Moreover, what would you do with this command by Paul, which would go hand, in hand with the passage you cite,

1 Corn. 5:12-13
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges.

So then, we have a parable which you cite, which clearly is a parable about how we are to "live, and let live" on top of the fact we have another passage which is clearly claiming that we, "have no business judging those who would be outside the Church", and yet, we are going to blame what is contained in the Bible, as opposed to condemning those who used the Bible, clearly, and blatantly, out of context?

The whole point here is, you are going to have to come up with a clear, unmistaken command, that would demonstrate that Christians are commanded to burn heretics, in order to defend those who have clearly taken what the Bible has to say, out of it's intended context.

[otseng]

Moderator Clarification

A note about the usage of the term hypocrite. We want to have an open debate, but we also want to avoid personal attacks. To try to draw the line, saying a belief system is hypocritical because their actions are in conflict with what they say is acceptable. But, saying another poster is a hypocrite would be a personal attack.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Hello Jagella!

I am a little late to the party, and I have not read the other posts, so perhaps this is a repetition.

I think fear plays a huge role in what we do or don't do. If the Christians at the time of the inquisition spoke up against what they thought was right, then their very life would be compromised. I am sure they thought about exactly what we think about, our families, our loved ones, and the pain of leaving them behind. In that day in age, men were the providers of the family, and leaving their wives and children at the mercy of scraps from others, didn't seem worth the risk. We are not so different.

If someone comes at us at gunpoint demanding something that clearly isn't theirs, we relinquish because our lives are worth more than what others deem worthy to obtain by not so honest means. When the students who held guns at Columbine, asked the people in the Library who believed in God, only 1 girl stood up, and she was killed. Did others believe? Probably, but fear has a way of quieting the voice that otherwise would scream of injustice.