Burning heretics

[zippy2006]

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.

The Great Myths: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science

Giordano Bruno's Condemnation

 

[JackRT]

There is not a Christian alive today who is not a heretic to some other Christian alive today. So to paraphrase a bishop from long ago "burn them all and let God sort them out".

 

[durangodawood]

The Great Myths: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science

Giordano Bruno's Condemnation

When you present the option
It is never acceptable to execute heretics

Do you mean like in any situation right now? Or that it has never been acceptable at any time in history?

The present tense of the option makes it sounds like its only about right now.

 

[zippy2006]

There is not a Christian alive today who is not a heretic to some other Christian alive today.

That's not true and it is one of the many confusions in this thread. They idea of heresy is analogous to treason (ergo, my post here). Therefore to say what you've said is very similar to saying, "There is no one alive today who is not a traitor to some other nation." Both of these statements make no sense, and for the same reason.

"Heretic" has come to mean, "Someone who holds to a false religious proposition," in the common parlance, but the stricter and more accurate meaning is, "Someone who formally and obstinately holds to a religious proposition that their own religious body has condemned." This is why, for example, it is historically impossible for the unbaptized to be heretics.

 

[zippy2006]

When you present the option
It is never acceptable to execute heretics

Do you mean like in any situation right now? Or that it has never been acceptable at any time in history?

The present tense of the option makes it sounds like its only about right now.

The OP presumably means it in the sense, "It is unconditionally unacceptable to execute heretics" (at any time in the past, present, or future).

 

[durangodawood]

The OP presumably means it in the sense, "It is unconditionally unacceptable to execute heretics" (at any time in the past, present, or future).

(poll option) It is never acceptable to execute heretics

Whoops. I quote the wrong person previously. That was dumb.

So regarding the past. Isnt that a matter of history rather than about personal moral opinion?

I mean, I'm presuming that burning was acceptable to many, based on state/church sanction. And no ones present day personal morality can change that.

 

[timothyu]

And that belief in accepted church doctrine was the was the ticket

For the church at least.

 

[timothyu]

I mean, I'm presuming that burning was acceptable to many, based on state/church sanction.

Which was self serving.

 

[durangodawood]

Which was self serving.

Really? I thought the motive was to protect people from false doctrines, as their very souls are at stake?

Or was dogmatic certainty just a ruse to keep the church flush with power and money?

 

[public hermit]

So regarding the past. Isnt that a matter of history rather than about personal moral opinion?

I mean, I'm presuming that burning was acceptable to many, based on state/church sanction. And no ones present day personal morality can change that.

Your question pertains to an arguable point. I tried to frame the options in such a way as to allow for both an absolute moral imperative as well as a relative moral claim that would be contingent on context.

You seem to be arguing that the acceptability is dependent on historical context. In that case you might have chosen "It use to be acceptable, but it is no longer acceptable to execute heretics." Or you might have chosen, "It is sometimes acceptable to execute heretics" and then argued the "sometimes" is dependent on the historical context.

I stated in the OP my position which is: If it is wrong today, then it was wrong then. I put it that way in order to convey that it is always wrong to execute heretics. That is an absolute. Therefore, I chose "It is never acceptable to execute heretics." I see why you might be reading that in the present tense. The "is never" is intended to convey an absolute. Does that help?

If you take the position that the moral imperative is an absolute, as I do, then even though they found it acceptable in the past doesn't somehow make it right. On the contrary, if it is never acceptable, then they were wrong. An absolute moral imperative doesn't change with context, presumably.

Again, all of this arguable. So, I look forward to your argument that, in this instance, the acceptability of executing heretics depends on the context.

 

[timothyu]

Or was dogmatic certainty just a ruse to keep the church flush with power and money?

A convenient tool, yes. In the world of man the majority, be it secular or Christianity will seek to defend it's institutions while the minority will seek to defend the Kingdom of Go9d.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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?

Governments, militaries, etc, may or might and do execute people for anything from a whim to destroying a city or anything else they 'choose' to do so for - including for their beliefs/ faith/ life.

As far as I know though, Ekklesia never take part in any execution, nor in helping one to happen.

 

[keith99]

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.

Foxxe disagrees. Answers in Genesis disagrees.

What would you consider a reliable source? I can hunt for my copy of Foxes Book of Martyrs and get a few names of men burnt at the stake for teh crime of translating Scripture into the vulgar tongue.

EDIT: So does the Christian Science Monitor.

The men who risked all to translate the Bible

 

[JackRT]

Foxxe disagrees. Answers in Genesis disagrees.

What would you consider a reliable source? I can hunt for my copy of Foxes Book of Martyrs and get a few names of men burnt at the stake for teh crime of translating Scripture into the vulgar tongue.

Ironic isn't it that at one time Latin was the vulgar tongue? Think "Latin Vulgate".

 

[klutedavid]

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?

When Jesus returns will He not return in blazing fire, and will He not destroy the heretics?

We are in a war.

Has the church burned heretics?

Does fire purify or not?

Christians don't burn heretics because that is forbidden. An inquisitor is endowed with the authority to burn heretics.

Now we enter the scramble world of church tradition.

 

[durangodawood]

Your question pertains to an arguable point. I tried to frame the options in such a way as to allow for both an absolute moral imperative as well as a relative moral claim that would be contingent on context.

You seem to be arguing that the acceptability is dependent on historical context. In that case you might have chosen "It use to be acceptable, but it is no longer acceptable to execute heretics." Or you might have chosen, "It is sometimes acceptable to execute heretics" and then argued the "sometimes" is dependent on the historical context.

I stated in the OP my position which is: If it is wrong today, then it was wrong then. I put it that way in order to convey that it is always wrong to execute heretics. That is an absolute. Therefore, I chose "It is never acceptable to execute heretics." I see why you might be reading that in the present tense. The "is never" is intended to convey an absolute. Does that help?

If you take the position that the moral imperative is an absolute, as I do, then even though they found it acceptable in the past doesn't somehow make it right. On the contrary, if it is never acceptable, then they were wrong. An absolute moral imperative doesn't change with context, presumably.

Again, all of this arguable. So, I look forward to your argument that, in this instance, the acceptability of executing heretics depends on the context.

Well, now I find it unacceptable to execute heretics.

But if I put myself back in the 13th century, what would I think, given I'd have 13th c education (likely none), went to a 13th c church with other 13th c parishioners, had 13th c friends and parents? I would likely think like a 13th c person. And if they typically thought burning OK, I probably would too. Wouldnt you?

 

[Robban]

When Jesus returns will He not return in blazing fire, and will He not destroy the heretics?

We are in a war.

Has the church burned heretics?

Does fire purify or not?

Christians don't burn heretics because that is forbidden. An inquisitor is endowed with the authority to burn heretics.

Now we enter the scramble world of church tradition.

Are ISIS members also endowed with
authority to saw off peoples heads?

 

[klutedavid]

Are ISIS members also endowed with
authority to saw off peoples heads?

Are ISIS members called inquisitors?

Severing a head is not biblical.

Burning with fire purifies.

 

[public hermit]

Well, now I find it unacceptable to execute heretics.

But if I put myself back in the 13th century, what would I think, given I'd have 13th c education (likely none), went to a 13th c church with other 13th c parishioners, had 13th c friends and parents? I would likely think like a 13th c person. And if they typically thought burning OK, I probably would too. Wouldnt you?

I agree. However, that doesn't mean my approval of it would somehow make it right. Humans, throughout history, have approved of many horrendous things. Their approval of those things didn't make those things morally good. John Calvin thought that Michael Servetus should be burned at the stake. We can consider his context in trying to understand why he thought that was a good thing. But, whether it was good or not has nothing to do with Calvin's approval of it.

I should probably be forthcoming here and say I am assuming there are some moral absolutes. For instance, I would argue that it is always wrong to torture the innocent. Someone might, by mistake, torture an innocent person because they thought that innocent person was guilty (maybe they thought that person was a terrorist who had information that would lead to the harm of others). Okay, we have a reason for why they tortured the innocent. That reason still doesn't make it good or right. Was it a mistake? Sure. Was it good and right? No.

 

[Robban]

Are ISIS members called inquisitors?

Severing a head is not biblical.

Burning with fire purifies.

It is thought by some that the victims of the inquisitors were the souls of Baals prophets
reincarnated.

Where does it say burning people alive is OK?

Even cremation should be avoided at all costs.

"Burning with fire" purifies?

Is this the 10 o clock news from the abyss?