Torture in the Inquisition
(06-25-2012, 12:19 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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?

Again, it is a "better than" situation. Any temporal harm is worth it if it removes obstacles to eternal life. Anything which is bad should be cut off. In practice, a "hand" is only under the control of the person's will for it to be a scandal (agent of evil).

Cutting off anything which is scandalous, no matter how useful it is otherwise, is what we are told to do to the extreme. That one's hand would be a scandal (or any other body part) is impossible in itself.
[Image: stock-photo-9197225-hippy-girl-with-tie-...e-sign.jpg]

This might make a good avatar.  :LOL:
I don't understand what people find so offensive -- I'm not condoning torture, I'm explaining people had a peculiar idea that the only way to know if a person was telling the truth without any doubt was under torture (just as they thought lobotomies help head aches and mental illness) -- it was the flawed understanding of the day.

We today know is complete nonsense -- but they didn't. It is unfair to judge them by our more informed positions.

FYI only 2% of people ever arrested by the Inquisition were ever tortured -- only like 2000 were executed over 50-60 years.

Now, that's sounds bad...but the conventional courts sentenced way more people to death and conditions in their prisons were so bad that people actually blasphemed so as to be moved to the Inquisitorial cells (that and they actually had a legal counsel in the Inquisitorial courts, which they didn't have in the civil courts)

By the standards of the day it really wasn't that bad.
I found the following video to be an informative talk on the Inquisition.

(06-25-2012, 12:21 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(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.

You'll have to pardon me.. I'm an old lady and my eyesight isn't that good. And as a reader I do tend to skim..

But I can see them now.. loud and clear. :eyeroll:.
(06-25-2012, 12:17 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: . It seems you are the one looking to a medeival church and saying, if THEY did it, then it must be okay   

Never said that all. There are some round here,who with hindsight and arrogance ,look back on these times as unenlightened. This is a form of historical condescension that has no bearing on the reality of social development as written in biblical and civil historical documents. We will never have social utopia on earth until after the final Judgement. That is the reality of life on earth and lets not forget that death and suffering are but temporary and an unfortunate result of the Fall. Essentially the world we inhabit is unnatural vs Gods plan for us. Live with it I say.Don't condemn or judge from one's ivory tower.
Sure,we have a duty to improve but sometimes you have to kill and fight and die (and justly so). That will never change in the current format of world affairs
(06-25-2012, 12:19 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: THAT is a perfect example of hyperbole! Do you really think Our Lord is advocating self abuse?

Where you see abuse others see self-mastery. Do orders of men and women not flagellate and wear hair-shirts and other instruments of physical suffering? Did not St Pio refuse to heal the sight of certain men because they would sin with their eyes?  What is fasting then if not self abuse by this measure?
(06-25-2012, 12:20 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: 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.

Living by the sword and using a sword in righteous self defense for oneself or soceity are two entirely different propositions.
(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. "

Yes, because accepting that the Church erred in the past makes you a hippie.

The spiritual pride and tunnel vision that some of you here have is nauseating.
(06-25-2012, 12:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Yes, because accepting that the Church erred in the past makes you a hippie.

JP2 much?


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)