The Burning of Heretics

[Tallguy88]

My comment was not about the death penalty. It was concerning the ludicrous statement made that "we know better today". We don't know better today. Our society today is by far more barbaric than it was in the middle ages. You speak of a few burned at the stake, while millions are killed each year for more selfish reasons than to prevent an open rebellion. In fact I would say that the Middle Ages should shame us modern folks, who should know better, but sadly don't.

I was referring to us knowing better about killing people for being heretics and knowing better about burning people to death. That in no way implies that we "know better" in all things.

 

[Tallguy88]

I bet God is happy to have you around to tell Him how to judge, no?

Was JPII wrong to apologies for the Church's role in the burning of heretics, the inquisition, colonialism, etc?

 

[Erose]

I was referring to us knowing better about killing people for being heretics and knowing better about burning people to death. That in no way implies that we "know better" in all things.

What I am saying is that we don't know better, even concerning these things. What is truly the difference between burning someone to death and strapping someone in an electric chair? Both are agonizing deaths. But then again, if you look at this all rationally, whether you burn someone at the stake or kill them by putting them to sleep, dead is dead.

 

[Erose]

Was JPII wrong to apologies for the Church's role in the burning of heretics, the inquisition, colonialism, etc?

Did JP2, make any form of statesman that judged the final destination of any soul from that period? I would say no. It is a very bad habit to judge whether or not someone should be in hell. That is not our place to do. Judge the right or wrong of actions we can do, but not final destinations.

 

[Tigg]

I bet God is happy to have you around to tell Him how to judge, no?

I did not tell God how to judge as He already has said those heretics are going to hell. I judge those people judging, to put people to death by burning to get them before God faster. A sick perverted idea, IMO.

God did not judge those people but we here did. People living. Taking the position of hertics are going to hell - that means when they stand before their Creator. Not some stupid state or church condemning them to the flames in hopes at the last minute they will repent. That is asinine. They should not have been given a death penalty for being a heretic. Rather live out their life in the hopes they would repent. God never told us to go around burning people to death, now did He.

And for what it is worth, I disagree with torture. I would confess to anything not to be tortured.

 

[Tallguy88]

What I am saying is that we don't know better, even concerning these things. What is truly the difference between burning someone to death and strapping someone in an electric chair? Both are agonizing deaths.

Last I heard, no state currently allows for the use of the electric chair.

But then again, if you look at this all rationally, whether you burn someone at the stake or kill them by putting them to sleep, dead is dead.

I'd rather be dead by lethal injection, guillotine, or bullet than by burning.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Tallguy88]

Did JP2, make any form of statesman that judged the final destination of any soul from that period? I would say no. It is a very bad habit to judge whether or not someone should be in hell. That is not our place to do. Judge the right or wrong of actions we can do, but not final destinations.

I'm not sure, but he did condemn the practices and apologized for the Church's role in committing them. I don't see what good it does to defend actions the Pope himself has denounced.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How sick. Small price indeed. Last moments of contrition. Out of compassion, my ass. Sick-o's. Prayers for all those burned at the stake.

PS: I am not criting you, just so ya know.

Yeah, I got that.

To me, this is what happens when men are given power over things they have/take no responsibility for -- like other people's lives. Men are given toys to hurt and kill other people, and they always want to try them out. And they will find ways to do it, and make themselves out to be Highly Noble for having done so.

Alan

 

[Erose]

Last I heard, no state currently allows for the use of the electric chair.

There are still a few that still allow the use of the electric chair.

I'd rather be dead by lethal injection, guillotine, or bullet than by burning.

Your mileage may vary.

Me? Whatever God wills. There are more people who burn to death today than in the Middle Ages, anyway. In other words, one has a better chance of dying from fire than in the Middle Ages.

 

[Erose]

I'm not sure, but he did condemn the practices and apologized for the Church's role in committing them. I don't see what good it does to defend actions the Pope himself has denounced.

I'm not defending any actions from that time nor condemning them, because I didn't live then. I didn't experience then. Let me answer my own question sense you don't want to. The Pope made no declarative statements about anyone's eternal status, except for those men and women, that he canonized as Saints. The church doesn't canonized the damn for a reason. Because the Church is not Judge. God is. And we as Christians need to stay away from making declarative statements about men and women's eternal condition, for we will be judged by our rule of Judgement.

What I get tired of is the fallacy of judging history, by our modern perception of things. You can't do it. Primarily it is hypocritical. For some odd reason, many want to think that our current society is so much more enlightened than any other period in history. And that is just deluding oneself in thinking so. There is a reason why historians are starting to refer to 21st century as the century of blood, and it sure has nothing to do with us being enlightened.

 

[Tallguy88]

I'm not defending any actions from that time nor condemning them, because I didn't live then. I didn't experience then. Let me answer my own question sense you don't want to. The Pope made no declarative statements about anyone's eternal status, except for those men and women, that he canonized as Saints. The church doesn't canonized the damn for a reason. Because the Church is not Judge. God is. And we as Christians need to stay away from making declarative statements about men and women's eternal condition, for we will be judged by our rule of Judgement.

I don't believe I've judged anyone to damnation. All I've said on the subject was to clarify that those who die without repentance will go to hell.

What I get tired of is the fallacy of judging history, by our modern perception of things. You can't do it. Primarily it is hypocritical. For some odd reason, many want to think that our current society is so much more enlightened than any other period in history. And that is just deluding oneself in thinking so. There is a reason why historians are starting to refer to 21st century as the century of blood, and it sure has nothing to do with us being enlightened.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of societal perception. The Aztecs thought it was perfectly acceptable, even necessary, to sacrifice people so that the sun would rise. Are we not to judge them? What of future societies? Should they not judge us for our modern sins? Lord knows we have plenty.

I'm not saying the Church holds particular blame for the bloodiness of the Middle Ages. Indeed, I recognize she did her best to stop some of it with the Peace of God and other initiatives. But that does not mean that we cannot judge Medieval society as behaving barbarically in war and in how (and why) it executed people.

 

[Erose]

I don't believe I've judged anyone to damnation. All I've said on the subject was to clarify that those who die without repentance will go to hell.

Actually you were defending Tigg's declarative statement about the final destination of others.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of societal perception. The Aztecs thought it was perfectly acceptable, even necessary, to sacrifice people so that the sun would rise. Are we not to judge them? What of future societies? Should they not judge us for our modern sins? Lord knows we have plenty.

So a society never has a right to punish traitors and rebels?

I'm not saying the Church holds particular blame for the bloodiness of the Middle Ages. Indeed, I recognize she did her best to stop some of it with the Peace of God and other initiatives. But that does not mean that we cannot judge Medieval society as behaving barbarically in war and in how (and why) it executed people.

The sad thing is that they can't defend themselves nor do they have the capacity to judge our society, which is by far more barbaric in war and the sheer number of people who executed. What is more disturbing about our society is the incredible number of innocent people killed for other's selfishness alone.

I will say that our age is the more barbaric than the Middle Ages.

 

[Aces High]

Some of you guys talk about mass murder as casually as talking about the weather.

These were real people, with real lives, real emotions and they endured a lot of pain!

 

[Tallguy88]

Actually you were defending Tigg's declarative statement about the final destination of others.

I was agreeing with her point about killing people for their religion was unjust then and now and that no one, church or state, has that right.

So a society never has a right to punish traitors and rebels?

A society never has a right to kill someone for merely believing in a particular faith. Nor does a society have a right to torture someone to death, for any reason.

The sad thing is that they can't defend themselves nor do they have the capacity to judge our society, which is by far more barbaric in war and the sheer number of people who executed. What is more disturbing about our society is the incredible number of innocent people killed for other's selfishness alone.

We have problems, they had problems. Us having problems does not negate their problems.

I will say that our age is the more barbaric than the Middle Ages.

In some ways. Not in others.

 

[Erose]

I was agreeing with her point about killing people for their religion was unjust then and now and that no one, church or state, has that right.

You need to look back at the line of debate. I commented on her judging the final destination of men and women at that time. You defended her doing so. So by that point you were agreeing with her. If you were not agreeing with her, then you shouldn't have defended her. It is that easy.

A society never has a right to kill someone for merely believing in a particular faith. Nor does a society have a right to torture someone to death, for any reason.

Again you looking at the situation from a 21st century point of view. This is your fallacy. The Church teaches that a government has the right to exercise capital punishment if it is needed to protect the citizens of that society. Since during that time heretic and traitor were synonymous, they were morally speaking had the right to exercise capital punishment in these cases.

In modern society, you would be correct in your assertion, as due to the improved prison system, capital punishment is no longer necessary. Also since the separation of Church and state, heresy is no longer considered a criminal offense either.

We have problems, they had problems. Us having problems does not negate their problems.

We have more problems in my opinion. 20th and 21st century man has master human extermination techniques.

In some ways. Not in others.

Overall comparison, there is no comparison. The 20th century was the bloodiest century on record. Mankind killed more members of their species than ever before. Modern man make societies like the Romans look like angels.

 

[Erose]

Some of you guys talk about mass murder as casually as talking about the weather.

These were real people, with real lives, real emotions and they endured a lot of pain!

What mass murder are you referring to?

 

[Tallguy88]

You need to look back at the line of debate. I commented on her judging the final destination of men and women at that time. You defended her doing so. So by that point you were agreeing with her. If you were not agreeing with her, then you shouldn't have defended her. It is that easy.

I have clarified my position. You should take me at my word that I was not agreeing with that specific part of her post.

Again you looking at the situation from a 21st century point of view. This is your fallacy. The Church teaches that a government has the right to exercise capital punishment if it is needed to protect the citizens of that society. Since during that time heretic and traitor were synonymous, they were morally speaking had the right to exercise capital punishment in these cases.

In modern society, you would be correct in your assertion, as due to the improved prison system, capital punishment is no longer necessary. Also since the separation of Church and state, heresy is no longer considered a criminal offense either.

Sorry. It was wrong then, it's still wrong now.

If it wasn't wrong back then, why would the Pope have apologized?

We have more problems in my opinion. 20th and 21st century man has master human extermination techniques.

Overall comparison, there is no comparison. The 20th century was the bloodiest century on record. Mankind killed more members of their species than ever before. Modern man make societies like the Romans look like angels.

We have an extremely higher population. Can you say that we kill more people, as a percentage of total population, than the medievals did? If so, can you offer any evidence to back up your claim?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Was JPII wrong to apologies for the Church's role in the burning of heretics, the inquisition, colonialism, etc?

No - and not because the Church was the monster - but because the wonderful revised job of the secular world - its better to humbly apologize than explain.
Ppl dont care about facts [most dont anyway] - but an apology is humbling and can melt hearts.

 

[WarriorAngel]

i just saw your sig - that should tell you why JPll apologized.

Arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

 

[Tallguy88]

No - and not because the Church was the monster - but because the wonderful revised job of the secular world - its better to humbly apologize than explain.
Ppl dont care about facts [most dont anyway] - but an apology is humbling and can melt hearts.

Are you suggesting that JPII wasn't sincere when he apologized? That he just did it for show?