Should Heretics Be Burned?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1896443' date='Jun 20 2009, 04:01 AM']Thank you for joining this thread, by the way. Your arguments have had a higher quality than those that have been previously posted. I'm still working on some of it -- don't take my silence on a particular topic as avoidance.

I appreciate the historic perspective. It has motivated me to fill in a gap in my History lessons.



Forgive me, I'm still having a hard time swallowing this. Perhaps it's the previous Protestant in me. I will, however, try to stay more cool-headed, fair, and open-minded than I was when I was Protestant (that's more a commentary on my own personal growth than on Protestants -- you didn't know me then).

What of, for example, Jan Hus? I can see how you might argue that he stirred up dissension and riot and it led to the spread of heresy and deaths of many. But what was he convicted of in his defense before his burning? Wasn't he required to recant heresy, and [i]if he were to recant, then he would be released[/i]? Doesn't that imply that his sentence to burning was indeed heresy [i]per se[/i]?[/quote]
Sorry, I did not mean to skip it.


I don't really understand how this is out of line with what I had told you in the thread above. John Hus' private belief was not private by the time he was called to Constance. Huss had started to intentionally split the Church, he taught his heretical doctrines, he did not keep them to himself. He caused serious political unrest in Bohemia ( wonder why the secular authorites would execute heretics, this is the reason), and he was interfering with the healing of the Western Schism.

He was asked to recant, which, as the leader of the heretical movement, would have had a great impact on his following, and helped heal the rift he had created. He refused.

I don't see anything inconsistant with what I said before. If Huss had sat in his church and believed all that he did no one would have cared. It was only after he began to spread these beliefs and divid the Church and the State in Bohemia that he was charged with anything.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1901647' date='Jun 25 2009, 09:59 PM']correct.



No idea. We would want to do percentages of populations rather than raw numbers, if we were going to do the test. Either way it has little to do with my point. It is not religion in itself I consider dangerous. I also don't consider communism, in itself dangerous. However just as communism becomes dangerous when a man with a mindset like Stalin comes too power, so religion becomes dangerous when individuals like you come to power.



Could be. We'd need to look at the data though. I'm not sure how we'd piratically go about doing that.[/quote]


My mind set is the norm through out history. If that makes it dangerous. So be it.

I will no longer discuss the matter on this thread, it distracts from this threads topic.

[strgzr99]

When any dominant religion comes to secular power it runs the chance of becoming very dangerous. Roman Catholicism was very dangerous to civil rights in the Middle Ages. It was arm-in-arm with the secular power and tolerated no dissent. Once dissent appeared and wasn't immediately squelched, and once certain inventions appeared, like the printing press, The church's resort to the usual vicious means to suppress dissent, as the Romans did with the Christians, failed, as it always will. Iran is doing that now. It never works.

An additional problem is that the church will never live it down. The history of the burnings of the Inquisition and Mary I in England, as well as throughout Europe during the witch-hunt craze, will endure in the history of the west and forever besmirch the face of the Catholic church. The pedophile crisis will also. Once your reputation is stained this way, it is impossible to remove it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='strgzr99' post='1902149' date='Jun 26 2009, 12:19 PM']When any dominant religion comes to secular power it runs the chance of becoming very dangerous. Roman Catholicism was very dangerous to civil rights in the Middle Ages. It was arm-in-arm with the secular power and tolerated no dissent. Once dissent appeared and wasn't immediately squelched, and once certain inventions appeared, like the printing press, The church's resort to the usual vicious means to suppress dissent, as the Romans did with the Christians, failed, as it always will. Iran is doing that now. It never works.

An additional problem is that the church will never live it down. The history of the burnings of the Inquisition and Mary I in England, as well as throughout Europe during the witch-hunt craze, will endure in the history of the west and forever besmirch the face of the Catholic church. The pedophile crisis will also. Once your reputation is stained this way, it is impossible to remove it.[/quote]


Mary executed a very small number of People, nothing on the order of her sister Elizabeth, yet everyomne remebers her as "bloody Mary" and Elizabeth as the "Virgin Queen" it is a testemony to the power of Propaganda not to the testemony of history.

And for the Record, the Witch-hunts were much much more voracious in Protestant Europe.



The Catholic Church was hardly a danger to civil rights in the Middle Ages, it was the bringer of and defender of such rights. Your historical understanding is seriously flawed.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1902177' date='Jun 26 2009, 11:47 AM']Mary executed a very small number of People, nothing on the order of her sister Elizabeth, yet everyone remembers her as "bloody Mary" and Elizabeth as the "Virgin Queen" it is a testimony to the power of Propaganda not to the testimony of history.

And for the Record, the Witch-hunts were much much more voracious in Protestant Eur

The Catholic Church was hardly a danger to civil rights in the Middle Ages, it was the bringer of and defender of such rights. Your historical understanding is seriously flawed.[/quote]


Mary burned alive at least 350 people, one by one, in public, in full view. Even her husband, Philip II, of Spain, a devout Catholic (of course) tried to restrain her. Mary was much hated during her lifetime and her death much welcomed.

Those that Elizabeth had killed qualified as[i] traitors[/i], as priests and others who were egged on by the pope,who called her a heretic and a bastard, with no right to the throne, despite Henry VIII's will; he encouraged Catholics to assassinate her and install Mary Stuart, a Catholic and Elizabeth's cousin, on the throne. I seriously doubt that it was 350 people, but those that died, which included many priests who later were sainted, were highly influential. One who spoke to the crowd, as was allowed, said that he was faithful to England, except for his faith. Someone from the crowd yelled, "In Rome all treason is contained!" That summed it up. Under Elizabeth traitors were hanged and quartered, gruesome to be sure, but not as bad as being burned alive.

The people of England loved Elizabeth as much as they had hated Mary. Elizabeth defeated the specter of Spanish domination once and for all, and led England into its greatest age.

The rise of Protestantism in Europe coincided with with the entry of Europe into the modern age, the rise of literacy, the mercantile classes, trade and prosperity, and the beginning of the end for the peasant classes. With it the poverty and illiteracy of the medieval age, kept down both by the state and the church, began to disappear.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1902304' date='Jun 26 2009, 04:36 PM']Mary burned alive at least 350 people, one by one, in public, in full view. Even her husband, Philip II, of Spain, a devout Catholic (of course) tried to restrain her. Mary was much hated during her lifetime and her death much welcomed.

Those that Elizabeth had killed qualified as[i] traitors[/i], as priests and others who were egged on by the pope,who called her a heretic and a bastard, with no right to the throne, despite Henry VIII's will; he encouraged Catholics to assassinate her and install Mary Stuart, a Catholic and Elizabeth's cousin, on the throne. I seriously doubt that it was 350 people, but those that died, which included many priests who later were sainted, were highly influential. One who spoke to the crowd, as was allowed, said that he was faithful to England, except for his faith. Someone from the crowd yelled, "In Rome all treason is contained!" That summed it up. Under Elizabeth traitors were hanged and quartered, gruesome to be sure, but not as bad as being burned alive.

The people of England loved Elizabeth as much as they had hated Mary. Elizabeth defeated the specter of Spanish domination once and for all, and led England into its greatest age.

The rise of Protestantism in Europe coincided with with the entry of Europe into the modern age, the rise of literacy, the mercantile classes, trade and prosperity, and the beginning of the end for the peasant classes. With it the poverty and illiteracy of the medieval age, kept down both by the state and the church, began to disappear.[/quote]


Wow. I am baffled by your ignorance.

Elizabeth killed hundreds of thousands of Catholics in Ireland, and tens of thousands in England. She learned from her Father who killed more than 5000 in a single town.

Elizebeth can only be discribed as the Hitler of the 16th century. Elezabeth was much loved by all of England, okay perhaps the part that she allowed to live.

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901460' date='Jun 25 2009, 05:09 PM']I am wondering something, PeteWaldo. Are you a neo-Waldensian?[/quote]
I'm a Christian

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901478' date='Jun 25 2009, 05:30 PM']Pete wrote: That is somewhat similar to the view that Islam takes. No non-Muslim is innocent.
Don wrote: I know Islam preety well , and I assure you I am no friend to it.[/quote]

As a forum member posted:

"3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom."

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94653&view=findpost&p=1882892"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1882892[/url]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901478' date='Jun 25 2009, 05:30 PM']But I think you misunderstand islam quite a bit. For starters, Islam is just Chirstian Heresy (Arianism with a twist)) that got out of hand.[/quote]

Sure. A perfect inversion is "just Christian Heresy".

Surah 4:157 That THEY SAID (in boast), "WE KILLED CHRIST JESUS the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR CRUCIFIED HIM, but so it was made to appear to them,... FOR OF A SURETY THEY KILLED HIM NOT:-

John 3:16 [color="#000080"]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/color]

Sura 19:88 They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious HAS BEGOTTEN A SON!" 89 INDEED YE HAVE PUT FORTH A THING MOST MONSTROUS!

1John 2:22 [color="#000080"]Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? HE IS ANTICHRIST, THAT DENIETH the Father and THE SON. 23 WHOSOEVER DENIETH THE SON, THE SAME HATH NOT THE FATHER:...[/color]

The perfect OPPOSITE manifest in the spirit of antichrist is "just Christian Heresy".
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94648"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94648[/url]

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1901517' date='Jun 25 2009, 06:04 PM']Well, for one thing, notice that he, as many other Protestants, list their religion as simply "Christian"[/quote]
Isn't it just awful that a person washed by the blood of Jesus Christ would refer to themselves as a Christian!
[quote name='Patrick' post='1901517' date='Jun 25 2009, 06:04 PM']instead of acknowledging their affiliation to a particular tradition.[/quote]Last attended a so-called non-denominational, denomination. Nothing wrong with tradition unless we fail to:

1Th 5:21 [color="#000080"][b]Prove all things[/b]; hold fast that which is good. [/color]

Otherwise the result is the same as Jesus' rebuked the Pharisees for.

Mar 7:13 [color="#000080"]Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. [/color]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1901517' date='Jun 25 2009, 06:04 PM']But for two, even what with assurances that the Catholic Church, for whatever reason, doesn't act in this way toward heretics these days,[/quote]
Since the doctrine remains unchanged, and in regard to the comments in this thread which I found most enlightening, perhaps the only reason that can really be suggested that the Roman Catholic Church is not burning heretics today is that lacks the political/military power to do so.
[quote name='Patrick' post='1901517' date='Jun 25 2009, 06:04 PM']in the context of having just talked about the burning of the founder of that line, your question could be seen or felt as calling him out, and as being somewhat aggressive.[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1902679' date='Jun 27 2009, 08:58 AM']I'm a Christian[/quote]

[BG45]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1902685' date='Jun 27 2009, 10:30 AM']Isn't it just awful that a person washed by the blood of Jesus Christ would refer to themselves as a Christian![/quote]

Only when they don't reflect the love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ. But that's a human failing we all have sadly, nothing can be done about the fact that He alone is the Son of God, and that He alone is perfect. That it was His blood that was shed for us all upon the Cross, that He would give up his life for us...we may all use the term Christian, for we are all followers of Christ, no matter how flawed.

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='BG45' post='1903141' date='Jun 27 2009, 10:04 PM']Only when they don't reflect the love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.[/quote]
Indeed there has been no shortage of Christian posers. [quote name='BG45' post='1903141' date='Jun 27 2009, 10:04 PM']But that's a human failing we all have sadly, nothing can be done about the fact that He alone is the Son of God, and that He alone is perfect.[/quote]
He alone is the mediator:

1Ti 2:5 [color="#000080"]For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;[/color]
[quote name='BG45' post='1903141' date='Jun 27 2009, 10:04 PM']That it was His blood that was shed for us all upon the Cross, that He would give up his life for us...we may all use the term Christian, for we are all followers of Christ, no matter how flawed. [/quote]
Amen bro.

[Guest MaryMASHKlingFAn]

I can't believe the five people that are in favor of murdering in the name of religion. Burning people at the stake is absolutely barbaric and just plain wrong.

MaryMASHKlingFan

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MaryMASHKlingFAn' post='1903501' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:00 AM']I can't believe the five people that are in favor of murdering in the name of religion. Burning people at the stake is absolutely barbaric and just plain wrong.

MaryMASHKlingFan[/quote]

Since when has capital punishment always been murder?

Do you think it was wrong for notorious murderers to be executed in the Middle Ages?

[PeteWaldo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903517' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:47 AM']Since when has capital punishment always been murder?

Do you think it was wrong for notorious murderers to be executed in the Middle Ages?[/quote]
Don't be silly. The Roman Catholic Church burned people at the stake for rejecting transubstantiation.