Spanish Inquisiton

[BNR32FAN]

Simon Whistler is not exactly known as a stalwart defender of reputable journalism. Indeed he relies on his writing staff and routinely produces videos on various subjects like history, engineering, true crime and other topics, and its unlikely he has training in more than one of them. His brand is essentially his British accent.

Everyone knows that if you have a British accent that means you’re really smart and you know what you’re talking about. Plus his videos are on the internet so that means they must be accurate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I once determined that at most, the Spanish Inquisition killed 3,000 people, which is 3,000 too many, but the Aztec “Flower Wars”, a ceremonial ritual warfare for purposes of population control of rival cities, truly the stuff of nightmares, likely killed millions. The high end figure I saw was 40 million which if true would make it the worst genocide in recorded history.

I had heard a number of around 50,000 for all of the inquisitions which they said that it couldn’t actually be determined that all of those executions were solely based on the individual refusing to convert. Many people were convicted of other crimes under the inquisitions other than refusal to convert but 50,000 over a period of 686 years comes to 72 people per year which in my opinion isn’t inconceivable. Supposedly that number was according to some Roman Catholic archives but honestly there’s no way I could possibly confirm the validity of it.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Globally yes, but not in one individual genocide, and furthermore Islam has probably killed more, when we consider the genocides of the North African Christians in the first millennium, followed by the genocide against most members of the Church of the East, which was, prior to the genocide started by Tamerlane and continued by his sons. The scale of the genocide can be reflected in the fact that afterwards the Church of the East survived only in the Fertile Crescend and in India, whereas before, it stretched from the island of Socotra in Yemen in the Southwest, to Nisibis and Edessa in the Northwest, to Mongolia in the Northeast, across central Asia, then down through China to Tibet in the Southeastern corner, and from there back to India.

Communism should be viewed as being as bad as Nazism, but somehow it gets a free pass.

Do you know who the Janissaries (sp) were?
From what I read they were children from Christian lands taken by Muslim invaders and then trained as warriors. As adults they would then be used to fight the Christians from whom they were kidnapped. To me that seems worse than genocide, rather a kind of geno-genicide.

People became Janissaries through a system of forced recruitment called devşirme, which took Christian boys from the Balkans and converted them to Islam. The Janissaries were an elite infantry corps in the Ottoman army.

How did devşirme work?

• Christian boys were selected by Ottoman officials based on their strength, intelligence, and age.
  
  
• The boys were assembled by local Christian priests, who were required to verify their Christian identity.
  
  
• The boys were forcibly circumcised and converted to Islam.
  
  
• They were drafted into Ottoman service.
  

Other recruitment methods

• The Janissaries were initially made up of people captured during military raids.
  
  
• Civilians bought their way into the corps to improve their social status.
  

Janissary characteristics

• The Janissaries were disciplined, efficient, and well-trained to use firearms.
  
  
• They were expected to be completely loyal to the Ottoman sultan.
  
  
• They were forbidden to marry before the age of 40 or engage in trade.
  

Yes but the OP is actually about a discussion Boughtwithaprice and I had in another thread when I brought up the inquisitions in response to his claim that the Roman church cannot err and has apostolic succession ensuring that it cannot err. My purpose is not to drag up dirt to discredit the Roman church, only to point out the fact that history has proven that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility. I also pointed out that the inquisitions were sanctioned by 99 popes over a period of 686 years which began in France in 1184 and continued in numerous Roman Catholic provinces all over the globe finally ending in 1870, that is according to Britannica and Wikipedia.

thank you for your post. I believe you may misunderstand infallibility and impeccability.
Infallibility is teaching free from error
Impeccability is freedom from sin in practice


We all strive for holiness, but we are not in heaven yet. Circumstances sometimes cause us to fall short here on Earth.

I appreciate your kindness of this post and your previous which stated that we cannot judge the Church today based solely on the actions of the past, but they are worthy to be discussed

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The inquisitions actually began in France in 1184 brother.

Inquisition | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Inquisition, a judicial procedure and later an institution that was established by the papacy and, sometimes, by secular governments to combat heresy. The name was applied to commissions in the 13th century and subsequently to similar structures in early modern Europe.

www.britannica.com

I understand that, but for the sake of focus I limited this thread to the Spanish Inquisition
If the thread discussion develops we can expand it to the inquisition in France and the Roman inquisition

Thank you for pointing it out

 

[The Liturgist]

Let How did devşirme work?

If I recall the Ottomans simply stole the firstborn sons of Christians on an arbitrary basis. In either case the system of janissary recruitment was cruel and evil. I recently discussed it in another thread about Turkocratia.

Nothing the RCC ever did, even allowing Venice to engage in the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, approaches the pure evil of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you know who the Janissaries (sp) were?
From what I read they were children from Christian lands taken by Muslim invaders and then trained as warriors. As adults they would then be used to fight the Christians from whom they were kidnapped. To me that seems worse than genocide, rather a kind of geno-genicide.

People became Janissaries through a system of forced recruitment called devşirme, which took Christian boys from the Balkans and converted them to Islam. The Janissaries were an elite infantry corps in the Ottoman army.

How did devşirme work?

• Christian boys were selected by Ottoman officials based on their strength, intelligence, and age.
  
  
• The boys were assembled by local Christian priests, who were required to verify their Christian identity.
  
  
• The boys were forcibly circumcised and converted to Islam.
  
  
• They were drafted into Ottoman service.

Other recruitment methods

• The Janissaries were initially made up of people captured during military raids.
  
  
• Civilians bought their way into the corps to improve their social status.

Janissary characteristics

• The Janissaries were disciplined, efficient, and well-trained to use firearms.
  
  
• They were expected to be completely loyal to the Ottoman sultan.
  
  
• They were forbidden to marry before the age of 40 or engage in trade.

thank you for your post. I believe you may misunderstand infallibility and impeccability.
Infallibility is teaching free from error
Impeccability is freedom from sin in practice


We all strive for holiness, but we are not in heaven yet. Circumstances sometimes cause us to fall short here on Earth.

I appreciate your kindness of this post and your previous which stated that we cannot judge the Church today based solely on the actions of the past, but they are worthy to be discussed

I honestly don’t like mentioning the inquisitions, I do hold the Roman church in high regard, I would say that much of their theology is more biblical than most Protestant theology but I don’t agree completely with RCC theology.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I honestly don’t like mentioning the inquisitions, I do hold the Roman church in high regard, I would say that much of their theology is more biblical than most Protestant theology but I don’t agree completely with RCC theology.

I understand that. I was once Calvinist. I do agree that there is an elect, but we don’t know who they are. Also, if grace were irresistible then double predestination would be true and God would be a tyrant

God is love and for love to be love, it must be freely given, else what is it? A display of the power of the Almighty? God does not need to display His power. He knows it unto Himself and does not require His creation

Double predestination delays his power. Love with free will displays His Glory, of which we will sing for eternity
I have a heart for my Calvinists friends, but I could no longer join them in their theology

I would be interested which points of Catholic theolgy with which you disagree

 

[BeyondET]

The video shows some drawings, but offers no evidence they are old. Anyone can make a drawing. And he offers no statement as to where these supposedly "old images" are from.

I noted before how there is a distinct lack of evidence the iron maiden was actually used as a torture device, and it seems rather to have been a creation of the 19th or 18th century. One can find "old drawings" of it--but they're not actual drawings from a period where it was actually used, because it was, well, not used. They're just stuff people made later.



What actual relics? He shows some pictures, but offers no evidence whatsoever it is in fact a "relic" rather than something someone made later, nor evidence that these were actually used for torture. Indeed, he doesn't even say where the images are from. "Torture museums" make replicas of stuff all the time, sometimes of things that actually existed, sometimes of things that didn't. Iron maidens are another example of such things where you can find physical ones, but they don't date back to the time they were supposedly used.


As noted, the video doesn't offer actual evidence. He just shows a few images, probably just grabbed from random places online, with no statement of where he got them nor evidence any of them actually date back to the time of supposed use. And the maker of that video seems to have no actual medievalist credentials whatsoever, so one can't appeal to him as an authority.

The video offers no evidence that can't be applied for iron maidens. Are there drawings of them? Yes, but they aren't contemporary with their supposed use. Are there physical ones? Yes, but they were made after their supposed use. But as noted by actual medievalists (note that the people who run that website have literal PhD's in the subject, making them a trustworthy source), there is a distinct lack of evidence they were ever actually used and appear by all accounts to have been a 19th century creation, much like how plenty of supposed medieval torture devices have a lack of evidence of actual use, and this appears to be the case for the Spanish tickler.

Aww I get it now, you don't want to believe catholics tortured people during executions.

 

[BeyondET]

Simon Whistler is not exactly known as a stalwart defender of reputable journalism. Indeed he relies on his writing staff and routinely produces videos on various subjects like history, engineering, true crime and other topics, and its unlikely he has training in more than one of them. His brand is essentially his British accent.

You don't have to have training to report on something.

 

[The Liturgist]

Aww I get it now, you don't want to believe catholics tortured people during executions.

No, its a question of reliable reporting. The RCC and its agents such as the Inquisition and the Crusaders engaged in deplorable conduct, for example, the murder of St. Peter the Aleut, a 15 year old fisher from the Aleutian Islands who was Orthodox, having been converted to Christianity by the Orthodox mission of St. Herman the Alaska. But to the Catholic missions in California, where he had travelled while fishing, as they had historically been safe waters, the idea of a rival Orthodox mission on the Pacific coast of North America was an intolerable thread and when he refused to convert he received the crown of martyrdom.

But accusing the RCC of using instruments of torture that they did not actually use, would be calumny.

It is also gratuitous and unnecessary, considering that it is true and undisputed that the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions burned people alive who did not repent of heresy (while killing those who did before the burning at the stake) during the auto da fe.

Also promoting these violent falsehoods about torture instruments increases the risk of someone actually torturing someone in that manner.

I don’t believe Christians other than those who have a specific academic or professional need to study torture, for example, historians or criminologists investigating crimes against humanity committed by a dictatorship, should even view such material.

By the way, it is also the case that Protestants tortured people during executions, for example, the English engaged in breaking at the wheel and hanging, drawing and quartering. And unfortunately some people have engaged in religious violence in the name of some Orthodox churches, although there are others, such as the Albanian Orthodox, Czech and Slovak Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox, which have only ever been the victims of violence (this is also true of some sui juris Eastern Catholic churches, like the Coptic Catholics). And it is true of some Protestant churches as well, and not just the “peace churches” but also some mainstream Protestant churches.

 

[Valletta]

The inquisitions actually began in France in 1184 brother.

Inquisition | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Inquisition, a judicial procedure and later an institution that was established by the papacy and, sometimes, by secular governments to combat heresy. The name was applied to commissions in the 13th century and subsequently to similar structures in early modern Europe.

www.britannica.com

The topic here is the "Spanish Inquisition."

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Some more hard data. I would also like to point out that the inquisition was aimed at Catholics. Those that professed the Catholic faith but were lying
I know of no denomination that would welcome anyone to join that opposed their core beliefs or sought to subvert them

The inquisition did not seek out those that professed Judaism, Islam or Protestant faith
That was a matter for the state or secular courts

According to available records, the Spanish Inquisition conducted over 67,000 trials throughout its existence, with data from these trials still accessible today; this information comes from studies analyzing the Inquisition's court records.

Key points about the Spanish Inquisition trials:

• Large number of cases:
  Estimates suggest around 150,000 people were prosecuted during the Inquisition, with records documenting over 67,000 trials.
  
  
• Execution rate:
  While the number of trials was high, only a small percentage of those tried were actually executed, with estimates ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 executions.
  
  
• Focus on heresy:
  The Inquisition primarily targeted individuals suspected of heresy, particularly those who had converted from Judaism or Islam to Catholicism.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The topic here is the "Spanish Inquisition."

Yeah I’m the person he is referring to in the OP who brought up the conversation. That’s why he made this thread and in that conversation I pointed out that the inquisitions were sanctioned by 99 popes over a span of 686 years. So the original discussion was not only about the Spanish Inquisitions.

 

[JSRG]

Aww I get it now, you don't want to believe catholics tortured people during executions.

Rather than actually respond to any of the points I made, you simply make an insulting attack upon me. As if that wasn't bad enough, it's a false insulting attack. I never denied that there was some torture done by the Inquisition, although its usage of torture was far less common and generally less brutal than is found in popular depiction--and does not appear to have involved that torture device you were claiming they used.

 

[Valletta]

Some more hard data. I would also like to point out that the inquisition was aimed at Catholics. Those that professed the Catholic faith but were lying
I know of no denomination that would welcome anyone to join that opposed their core beliefs or sought to subvert them

The inquisition did not seek out those that professed Judaism, Islam or Protestant faith
That was a matter for the state or secular courts

According to available records, the Spanish Inquisition conducted over 67,000 trials throughout its existence, with data from these trials still accessible today; this information comes from studies analyzing the Inquisition's court records.

Key points about the Spanish Inquisition trials:

• Large number of cases:
  Estimates suggest around 150,000 people were prosecuted during the Inquisition, with records documenting over 67,000 trials.
  
  
• Execution rate:
  While the number of trials was high, only a small percentage of those tried were actually executed, with estimates ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 executions.
  
  
• Focus on heresy:
  The Inquisition primarily targeted individuals suspected of heresy, particularly those who had converted from Judaism or Islam to Catholicism.

The Spanish Inquisition was from 1478 to 1834. So not quite as many were executed during that time frame as the United States executed here last century. The Catholic Church never should have been involved in government trials although penalties were harsh and many sentences were reduced due to Church intervention. Back in those days heresy was punishable by death.

 

[BeyondET]

No, its a question of reliable reporting. The RCC and its agents such as the Inquisition and the Crusaders engaged in deplorable conduct, for example, the murder of St. Peter the Aleut, a 15 year old fisher from the Aleutian Islands who was Orthodox, having been converted to Christianity by the Orthodox mission of St. Herman the Alaska. But to the Catholic missions in California, where he had travelled while fishing, as they had historically been safe waters, the idea of a rival Orthodox mission on the Pacific coast of North America was an intolerable thread and when he refused to convert he received the crown of martyrdom.

But accusing the RCC of using instruments of torture that they did not actually use, would be calumny.

It is also gratuitous and unnecessary, considering that it is true and undisputed that the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions burned people alive who did not repent of heresy (while killing those who did before the burning at the stake) during the auto da fe.

Also promoting these violent falsehoods about torture instruments increases the risk of someone actually torturing someone in that manner.

I don’t believe Christians other than those who have a specific academic or professional need to study torture, for example, historians or criminologists investigating crimes against humanity committed by a dictatorship, should even view such material.

By the way, it is also the case that Protestants tortured people during executions, for example, the English engaged in breaking at the wheel and hanging, drawing and quartering. And unfortunately some people have engaged in religious violence in the name of some Orthodox churches, although there are others, such as the Albanian Orthodox, Czech and Slovak Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox, which have only ever been the victims of violence (this is also true of some sui juris Eastern Catholic churches, like the Coptic Catholics). And it is true of some Protestant churches as well, and not just the “peace churches” but also some mainstream Protestant churches.

Burning alive or killing people beforehand is true but using instruments to do so is falsehood. That doesn't sound logical at all.

 

[BeyondET]

Rather than actually respond to any of the points I made, you simply make an insulting attack upon me. As if that wasn't bad enough, it's a false insulting attack. I never denied that there was some torture done by the Inquisition, although its usage of torture was far less common and generally less brutal than is found in popular depiction--and does not appear to have involved that torture device you were claiming they used.

Saying I don't believe you isn't a insult. Seems you like to exaggerate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think we can speculate all day long about what methods were used and how many people were tortured and executed but the point of my original statement that the OP is referring to was simply that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility. The one thing that can’t be denied is that the Roman church was forcing people to convert to Catholicism which is contradictory to what Jesus and the apostles taught. I really don’t see any point in taking the discussion any further than that because we have no way of knowing what methods were used or how many were actually mistreated.

 

[Valletta]

I think we can speculate all day long about what methods were used and how many people were tortured and executed but the point of my original statement that the OP is referring to was simply that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee infallibility. The one thing that can’t be denied is that the Roman church was forcing people to convert to Catholicism which is contradictory to what Jesus and the apostles taught. I really don’t see any point in taking the discussion any further than that because we have no way of knowing what methods were used or how many were actually mistreated.

It is generally believed that about 2% of those brought to trial were executed. In Spain there was cultural prejudice, and Muslims and Jews were told they were either to convert or leave, if not the penalty could be death. This did result in pretend Christians and some preached against Christ and were subject to the inquisition. As to your comment about infallibility, popes are not infallible. On the extremely rare occasion when a pope speaks ex cathedra the Holy Spirit will be there to protect the truth.

 

[Johan2222]

Yes, I started this thread to talk about evidence regarding the Spanish Inquisition. If it were so evil, there should be many easily verifiable historical sources to examine

A “civilised discussion” is an interesting term to describe conjectures about a violent part of church history upon which historians have vigorously disagreed for centuries, not just disagreed, but done so in polar opposite opinions, vehemently defended by so-called facts, rendering any such discussion of the matter factually irrelevant and highly divisive.

Even a brief search on the Internet by the uninformed will reveal the vast extent of the discrepancy of the figures postulated by various “researchers/historians” on how many people were killed, with figures ranging between a few thousand and over a hundred million.

Many people even today deny the Holocaust, even though the Americans published quite extensive evidence, apparently obtained by sending in teams of photographers into the concentration camps to record evidence of the victims and forcing whole German towns to visit the camps and witness the facts for themselves.

How distorted do you think the holocaust evidence is going to be in 300 years time seeing there is so much division about the “facts of the matter” today?

Did that happen with the Spanish Inquisition? Were they overrun by a foreign power who documented and photographed the evidence and forced them to witness the atrocities?

Does a nation document and publish its own evil unless they are forced to do so by power that they are unable to resist?

Have you seen extensive evidence even of the church objectively documenting and publishing their own evil over the years?

Do you honestly think in 300 years time if the world continues as it is that the abuses of the church today will be extensively and accurately documented, seeing they are so covered up even at the present time?

You start off with conjectures that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and then have a conniption about people responding with what you condemn as folly.

If you honestly think that a period of evil would necessarily be extensively documented you have absolutely no clue about the nature of man or the stark reality right in front of your face today.

That being the case, how anyone can have a discussion with you about anything and expect any kind of logical response is hard to imagine.

What did we get? A completely erroneous satire that bore no resemblance to the actual inquisition

Bore no resemblance to whose version of the “actual inquisition”? Your whole premise for this thread has been that your version of events which you laid out upfront (which by the way was not substantiated by any evidence) is correct and anybody else who doesn’t fit into your theories is postulating nonsense in an uncivilised manner.

Seems like we have the false accusers of the first century, so eager for a conviction that they will say anything

Sounds like Psalm 2

The kings of the earth rise up and princes conspire together against the Lord and His anointed.

Why can’t we have a civilized discussion?

Seeing your reaction to some of the other posts here, I think Romans 2.1 would be a pretty good reason why not many rational people would be able to have a “civilised discussion with you about this, or perhaps anything.

Not only that, but is this kind of thing possible to discuss while keeping with the spirit of Philippines 4.8.

Does a discussion on this topic edify the church? Does it empower evangelism? Is it of benefit to mankind in any way whatsoever?

Have you never read;

Proverbs 10:12 NKJV
Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins.

Please don’t now try and justify all this and add error to error with the standard “if we learn history we avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future” nonsense that is preached by the blindly uninformed who are unaware that there is nothing new under the sun, because clearly that is drivel to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of history.

Anyone who sees what is going on in the “educated” world today and who thinks that is a valid argument obviously has a very tenuous connection to reality.

Knowing that bad company corrupts good manners (1 Corinthians 15.33) and that bad company loves to speak about evil, may I propose Philippians 4.8 might be worth you training yourself to dwell on a little more.

If you want to judge people for indulging in behaviour that you condemn as uncivilised folly, may I suggest you probably have a little introspection and log removal project of your own to do first.