FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Torture in the Inquisition
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(06-25-2012, 12:05 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Jesus said "it would be better if....." a millstone were hung about the neck.. and "it would be better if" a man like Judas had never been born. That doesn''t mean he was advocating abortion, or capital punishment. He was using hyperbole.

Abortion!? WTF

Interesting that you quote Mark there. Look at what else Jesus sanctions apart from the execution of kiddy fiddlers:

"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. [42] And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: [43] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. [44] And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire:"

It seems our Lord has no problem with maiming and physical damage as a tool for conquering sin and iniquity.
Thanks for the reminder.
(06-25-2012, 12:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:00 PM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 04:47 AM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]Torture if I remember correctly was used by everyone, it was just a device of the day and age (like questioning or interrogation is today) -- one cannot judge something in the past against the moral values of today...

Wait, I thought moral values were timeless.

If torture is wrong today, it was also wrong yesterday.
Ai Vetus, you know what I meant ...What i mean is societal morals --- Women were not always treated like they are today, nor was slavery always considered wrong...it was common practice of the time.

Torture was something people saw back then as part of the legal process -- in fact, If I recall that BBC documentary correctly, a confession was invalid is it wasn't made under torture ...that just they way people saw things.

Kings back then saw heresy and apostasy as the same as treason, I mean if you don't respect and obey God you'll definitely not obey and respect them.

And guess who is responsible to be a light unto the world, to change wrong social mores instead of accepting them, etc.? Yes, the Church.
Agreed.

I don't quite understand what your getting at -- Are you judging the past values through the eye glass of ours today?
(06-25-2012, 12:06 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]And guess who is responsible to be a light unto the world, to change wrong social mores instead of accepting them, etc.? Yes, the Church.

Right on, Vetus.

[Image: stock-photo-9197225-hippy-girl-with-tie-...e-sign.jpg]

Mattew 10:34

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "
(06-25-2012, 12:05 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Jesus said "it would be better if....." a millstone were hung about the neck.. and "it would be better if" a man like Judas had never been born. That doesn''t mean he was advocating abortion, or capital punishment. He was using hyperbole.

I do not think that is hyperbole. I think it is the truth. The relative evil was given. That does not mean one is good, but that one is worse.

It is better to get sick for a week than to have a lifelong illness, but that does not mean getting sick for a week is desirable or good.
(06-25-2012, 12:13 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:06 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]And guess who is responsible to be a light unto the world, to change wrong social mores instead of accepting them, etc.? Yes, the Church.

Right on, Vetus.

[Image: stock-photo-9197225-hippy-girl-with-tie-...e-sign.jpg]

Mattew 10:34

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "

Yeah but in context Christ is talking about how many would reject His teaching, and there would be great strife among families and countries.  He isn't saying "I've come in order to and with the intention of dividing you, but that as a result of my teachings and those who reject them, such divisions will happen.
(06-25-2012, 12:08 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:55 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:33 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you can explain it a little more, but if it was right back then, then it must be right today, as the very nature of it being right excludes the possibility of it being wrong, and vice a versa.

Why do you say must? As has been stated on this forum before, the method of dealing with heretics for the Apostles and early Church Fathers was to excommunicate, to let them be anathema.. and to shake the dust from their sandals. I understand that the medieval church wanted to keep Europe Catholic and that heresy was regarded by the State as a kind of treason.  But the principles of the Gospel haven't changed, that I'm aware of.

Because that's the nature of something that is right.  That's what moral objectivism is.  IF something is right, then it is right regardless of the time or culture it is subjected to.  

Something that's right can't be also wrong anymore than you can simultaneously turn left and right.  One cancels the other out.

I don't see torturing as a moral green light at all.. As I said, the early Christians did not torture, not because they were too busy being tortured themselves by a pagan government, but because the Lord Jesus Christ didn't sanction it. It seems you are the one looking to a medeival church and saying, if THEY did it, then it must be okay. But that was not always the stance of churchmen. 
(06-25-2012, 12:16 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah but in context Christ is talking about how many would reject His teaching, and there would be great strife among families and countries.  He isn't saying "I've come in order to and with the intention of dividing you, but that as a result of my teachings and those who reject them, such divisions will happen.

I'm making the point that this hippy version of the Church is at variance with reality. It's also no surprise that the Post V2 church has "revised" it's stance on Capital punishment.
(06-25-2012, 12:11 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:05 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Jesus said "it would be better if....." a millstone were hung about the neck.. and "it would be better if" a man like Judas had never been born. That doesn''t mean he was advocating abortion, or capital punishment. He was using hyperbole.

Abortion!? WTF

Interesting that you quote Mark there. Look at what else Jesus sanctions apart from the execution of kiddy fiddlers:

"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. [42] And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: [43] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. [44] And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire:"

It seems our Lord has no problem with maiming and physical damage as a tool for conquering sin and iniquity.
Thanks for the reminder.

THAT is a perfect example of hyperbole! Do you really think Our Lord is advocating self abuse?
(06-25-2012, 12:18 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:16 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah but in context Christ is talking about how many would reject His teaching, and there would be great strife among families and countries.  He isn't saying "I've come in order to and with the intention of dividing you, but that as a result of my teachings and those who reject them, such divisions will happen.

I'm making the point that this hippy version of the Church is at variance with reality. It's also no surprise that the Post V2 church has "revised" it's stance on Capital punishment.

Yes, and there's another scripture verse in which Jesus says he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Here we go again.
(06-25-2012, 12:17 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:08 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:55 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:33 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you can explain it a little more, but if it was right back then, then it must be right today, as the very nature of it being right excludes the possibility of it being wrong, and vice a versa.

Why do you say must? As has been stated on this forum before, the method of dealing with heretics for the Apostles and early Church Fathers was to excommunicate, to let them be anathema.. and to shake the dust from their sandals. I understand that the medieval church wanted to keep Europe Catholic and that heresy was regarded by the State as a kind of treason.  But the principles of the Gospel haven't changed, that I'm aware of.

Because that's the nature of something that is right.  That's what moral objectivism is.  IF something is right, then it is right regardless of the time or culture it is subjected to.  

Something that's right can't be also wrong anymore than you can simultaneously turn left and right.  One cancels the other out.

I don't see torturing as a moral green light at all.. As I said, the early Christians did not torture, not because they were too busy being tortured themselves by a pagan government, but because the Lord Jesus Christ didn't sanction it. It seems you are the one looking to a medeival church and saying, if THEY did it, then it must be okay. But that was not always the stance of churchmen.   

I don't think you're reading what I've said.  Because I haven't said that it was right or wrong.  I said, in response to HR's claim that you have to judge it according to the time it happened (or at least take that into account).

And I said IF something is right, then it is right regardless of when it happened.  IF something is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of when it happened.  I'm making that word "if" really big because somehow you haven't seen it so far.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14