Burning heretics

[Jonaitis]

On this day (October 27) in 1553, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva for spreading heretical beliefs concerning the Trinity.

Michael Servetus - Wikipedia

I cannot make sense of executing others for heretical beliefs. But, for better or worse, Christians have done just that. It seems to me, if it is wrong to execute heretics today, then it was wrong to do so in the past. But, some might disagree.

How did you vote and why?

I believe it is wrong to execute heretics today because I don't believe in the concept of theonomy, only the equity thereof, which I hold conflates the covenants. If I were a Jew, living under the Mosaic code, in the land of promise, I would be all for it to preserve the spiritual integrity of my people and in obedience to the Lord my God. There is no doubt that many righteous men, most of whom we praise, in the Old Testament supported/performed such things, because it was the right thing to do (and we should recognize that it was).

In Mark 7:9-13, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and uses the example of reviling one's parents, who deserved to die. He supported it, because it was right (and he gave the Mosaic code to Israel at Sinai) at the time.

Servetus should not have died for his heretical beliefs, even Calvin tried to help him (he had no political influence in Geneva as a foreigner/refugee). However, it was his fault for coming to Geneva, knowing that he would have been put to death if caught (he was aware of it from what I read).

 

[Occams Barber]

I believe it is wrong to execute heretics today because I don't believe in the concept of theonomy, only the equity thereof, which I hold conflates the covenants. If I were a Jew, living under the Mosaic code, in the land of promise, I would be all for it to preserve the spiritual integrity of my people and in obedience to the Lord my God. There is no doubt that many righteous men, most of whom we praise, in the Old Testament supported/performed such things, because it was the right thing to do (and we should recognize that it was).

This is known as moral relativity. An act which is OK in a given time/culture may not be OK in a different time/culture. I agree with you.

In Mark 7:9-13, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and uses the example of reviling one's parents, who deserves to die. He supported it, because it was right (and he gave the Mosaic code to Israel) at the time.

If you accept that under today's Christian morality it would be wrong to kill someone for "reviling one's parents" but it would be acceptable to Jesus in his time, then you are again advocating a case for moral relativity. In other words 'right' and 'wrong' are relative to the time and culture.

Servetus should not have died for his heretical beliefs, even Calvin tried to help him (he had no political influence in Geneva as a foreigner/refugee). However, it was his fault for coming to Geneva, knowing that he would have been put to death if caught (he was aware of it from what I read).

This is known as 'victim blaming'.

Basically @Jonaitis, you've made a good case for the argument that the morality defined by your God changes with time and circumstances. Given this admission:

Why should a moral system, developed 2000+ years ago, in a different culture, still apply today?
OB

 

[Jonaitis]

This is known as moral relativity. An act which is OK in a given time/culture may not be OK in a different time/culture. I agree with you.

I think you are mistaken, this is not moral relativity, but rather covenant theology. The reason these laws did not (and do not) apply to either today and/or other cultures is that God separated and singled out for himself a nation under a covenant relationship that regulated the way they governed, worshiped and lived. Their covenant had terms and stipulations that were connected to their relationship with God as a nation.

We distinguish moral laws from positive laws, the former being intrinsic and eternal, while the latter are given via special revelation (like Adam forbidden to eat the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). Positive laws are given to certain individuals that may not apply to all, while moral laws are transparent to all covenants and are required by all.

The Mosaic Covenant had many positive laws that did not apply to those outside of the covenant community.

 

[Robban]

I believe it is wrong to execute heretics today because I don't believe in the concept of theonomy, only the equity thereof, which I hold conflates the covenants. If I were a Jew, living under the Mosaic code, in the land of promise, I would be all for it to preserve the spiritual integrity of my people and in obedience to the Lord my God. There is no doubt that many righteous men, most of whom we praise, in the Old Testament supported/performed such things, because it was the right thing to do (and we should recognize that it was).

In Mark 7:9-13, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and uses the example of reviling one's parents, who deserved to die. He supported it, because it was right (and he gave the Mosaic code to Israel at Sinai) at the time.

Servetus should not have died for his heretical beliefs, even Calvin tried to help him (he had no political influence in Geneva as a foreigner/refugee). However, it was his fault for coming to Geneva, knowing that he would have been put to death if caught (he was aware of it from what I read).

Why not just admit to Christianity,s bloody track record.

 

[NeverL0ved]

On this day (October 27) in 1553, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva for spreading heretical beliefs concerning the Trinity.

Michael Servetus - Wikipedia

I cannot make sense of executing others for heretical beliefs. But, for better or worse, Christians have done just that. It seems to me, if it is wrong to execute heretics today, then it was wrong to do so in the past. But, some might disagree.

How did you vote and why?

Only people who believe will disagree. For you see, it is what people believe that make them do stupid thing's.

 

[Jonaitis]

Why not just admit to Christianity,s bloody track record.

I didn't realize until now that this was posted in the Ethic & Morality forum, I thought this was somewhere in the General Theology folder. Now the responses makes sense.

Please explain, Robban?

 

[Occams Barber]

I think you are mistaken, this is not moral relativity, but rather covenant theology. The reason these laws did not (and do not) apply to either today and/or other cultures is that God separated and singled out for himself a nation under a covenant relationship that regulated the way they governed, worshiped and lived. Their covenant had terms and stipulations that were connected to their relationship with God as a nation.

We distinguish moral laws from positive laws, the former being intrinsic and eternal, while the latter are given via special revelation (like Adam forbidden to eat the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). Positive laws are given to certain individuals that may not apply to all, while moral laws are transparent to all covenants and are required by all.

The Mosaic Covenant had many positive laws that did not apply to those outside of the covenant community.

It's also known as "Special Pleading". No matter which way you cut it, different moralities have applied to different cultures. You now have the problem of defining (with justification) which rules still apply and which don't. You have complicated your argument by suggesting that Jesus would accept that those who revile their parent should be killed. Do you still accept this?

Everything you've said so far reinforces the idea that morality, instead of being fixed, varies across culture and time.
OB

 

[Jonaitis]

It's also known as "Special Pleading". No matter which way you cut it, different moralities have applied to different cultures. You now have the problem of defining (with justification) which rules still apply and which don't. You have complicated your argument by suggesting that Jesus would accept that those who revile their parent should be killed. Do you still accept this?

Everything you've said so far reinforces the idea that morality, instead of being fixed, varies across culture and time.
OB

It isn't that complicated. All the "rules" still apply where it is disonnected in the worship and civil duties of that ancient society. The Church isn't a theocratic state (such as Israel was), nor the covenant that we are founded upon. We believe that there still remains a sort of moral equity of all the laws found in the Mosaic Code and are still applicable to us today. For an example, "If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him" (Exodus 23:5). We can, and should, still learn moral equity from this commandment of compassion and love. This is the reason we still quote Leviticus regarding homosexuality, because the moral equity still applies. However, there are certain ceremonial and civil statutes that would be impossible to be applied outside the original context that it was in, not to mention that Scripture clearly singles out those regulations as covenant distinctions in the book of Hebrews and are not to be applied anymore.

 

[Robban]

I didn't realize until now that this was posted in the Ethic & Morality forum, I thought this was somewhere in the General Theology folder. Now the responses makes sense.

Please explain, Robban?

Is there need to explain?

I do not know where, when, how or why it got off the ground in the first place.

 

[Jonaitis]

Is there need to explain?

I do not know where, when, how or why it got off the ground in the first place.

If you can't explain, then I won't respond any further.

 

[Occams Barber]

It isn't that complicated. All the "rules" still apply where it is disonnected in the worship and civil duties of that ancient society. The Church isn't a theocratic state (such as Israel was), nor the covenant that we are founded upon. We believe that there still remains a sort of moral equity of all the laws found in the Mosaic Code and are still applicable to us today. For an example, "If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him" (Exodus 23:5). We can, and should, still learn moral equity from this commandment of compassion and love. This is the reason we still quote Leviticus regarding homosexuality, because the moral equity still applies. However, there are certain ceremonial and civil statutes that would be impossible to be applied outside the original context that it was in, not to mention that Scripture clearly singles out those regulations as covenant distinctions in the book of Hebrews and are not to be applied anymore.

The argument remains the same - it's a convoluted way of trying to justify different rules for different times. Genocide, slavery, rape, burning heretics etc. etc. were OK then but not OK now?

But we've digressed from the OP.

At one time burning/torturing heretics was OK within the Christian moral system. This has nothing to do with the covenant issue. Today it's definitely not OK.

Why the change?​

OB

 

[Robban]

If you can't explain, then I won't respond any further.

OK,

 

[timothyu]

To the extent that God reflects the values of His followers

While He said we were to do the opposite.

 

[Jonaitis]

At one time burning/torturing heretics was OK within the Christian moral system. This has nothing to do with the covenant issue. Today it's definitely not OK.

Why the change?​

You forget that Christians were burned/tortured by those who claimed to be Christians. I will not defend the Roman Catholic Church on this one.

 

[Occams Barber]

You forget that Christians were burned/tortured by those who claimed to be Christians. I will not defend the Roman Catholic Church on this one.

So... finally we get to the One True Scotsman argument. It took a while. In this case it's "Catholics aren't really Christians".

Have Protestant denominations never indulged in a little torture and heretic burning?
OB

 

[Jonaitis]

So... finally we get to the One True Scotsman argument. It took a while. In this case it's "Catholics aren't really Christians".

I seriously don't know what else you expected, for me to confess that the atrocities done by a group of people, who did such things to us, is our fault? The Roman Catholic Church considered us as heretics, not as fellow Christians. It isn't a Protestant thing.

Have Protestant denominations never indulged in a little torture and heretic burning?

You tell me.

Besides, Protestant denominations are autonomous from each other, unlike the RCC. If they committed a crime, every church associated with the RCC shares the blame. Protestant denominations, even if a crime was committed by one group or congregation, cannot be used to generalize the other denominations who are not or were not in agreement/participants. It goes the same with Islam. I respect that Islam is not properly represented by the atrocities done by extremist groups, and I would want that same respect in return.

 

[durangodawood]

For anyone who votes: "never acceptable", Thats just factually wrong.

It was once quite acceptable to both church and state, and probably by many ordinary people, though I'm less sure of that.

It was literally "acceptable", and thats no trick of language.

 

[Redac]

Including the horrible crime of translating Scripture into the Vulgar tongue! It would seem a few hundred years ago God did not want the common man to read the Bible!

The idea that the Church didn't want the Bible translated into local languages in order to keep people from reading it is a myth you'd do well not to continue spreading.

 

[timothyu]

even if a crime was committed by one group or congregation, cannot be used to generalize the other denominations who are not or were not in agreement/participants.

Like lumping Latin in with Greek churches?

 

[jayem]

Not to go off-topic, but let's not forget Giordano Bruno. Who was condemned by the Catholic church as a heretic and burned at the stake about 50 years after Servetus. At least part of Bruno's heresy was his teaching that the universe contained many worlds which might contain intelligent life.

Edited to add:A torturous execution for heterodox belief is totally inexcusable. It's a crime against humanity that can't be defended. But it is worthwhile to at least consider the context of the late Middle Ages. For the common man back then, life was difficult, if not pretty rotten. Famine and disease where ever present. Average life span was about 35-40. (Child mortality especially was high. So if you made it to 50, you were doing well.) The church was the only social safety net. And the church believed that the prospect of a blissful afterlife was the only relief many people could obtain. And that belief in accepted church doctrine was the was the ticket. So anyone who taught an unorthodox doctrine, which might endanger a person's salvation if it was believed, was committing a truly heinous crime. Threatening someone's eternal reward was an unforgivable atrocity.