/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>688559

Unchristian for one

>>688559

Of course yes

>>688562

>Having an independent court that justly deals with heresy ONLY within Church, that invented institution of attorney, is unchristian

<Inb4 "But muh they kill people'

Inquisition had no power to act outside of canon law and canon law does not deal with corporal punishment. State does. Blame France, Spain, Italian and German states or whoever really that heresy was captial offence in thier law system and blame thm for kill those more or less 4000 heretic for 400 years of inquistion's runnign time.

>stop the process by which people are declared heretics

>heresies run rampant

What a surprise

Justified, though some of the methods of punishment carried out by each secular state were indeed horrid. In an ideal world, torture would have been minimal and the death penalty quick and inexcessive.

>>688577

There are countless other ways to combat heresy that doesn't involve courts, torture and death sentences.

>Inquisition had no power to act outside of canon law and canon law does not deal with corporal punishment. State does. Blame France, Spain, Italian and German states

Lmao did they also wash their hands after they send those people to the "state" to be burned alive?

Inquisition was stupid. It had the noble cause of removing heresy but did it in a violent, non-traditional manner - basically "we've sucked at winning debates against them so let's torture them instead".

>>688559

>Justified or unjustified?

Considering what kind of morons you can see nowadays in the world, it was justified.

But really though, attempt to materialize church, give him corporeal powers didnt end well usually. Decline of Orthodoxy in Russia basically began when Peter usurped the church and politicized it. Some part of historical revolutionaries were opposed to Christianity, because they supported decadent dynasties. I'm not trying to justify them, I'm just saying that active involvement of religious institutions in political activities usually result in people starting to revile the religion itself.

Though me personally, I prefer that over what we have now.

Also, Inquisition was actually quite just and seriously influenced the development of Jurisprudence. And this is coming from an Ortho

>>688608

>There are countless other ways to combat heresy

Crusade is available option yes

>that doesn't involve courts

<There is something wrong with just trails

Are you well anon?

>torture

Meme for the most part. Tortures were rarely used and when they were there were rules set in place. Like "cannot sentence someone for confession made during them"

>and death sentences.

Blame states that heresy is capital offence. Don't see reason why would anyone though. Death sentence is merciful especially for heretics.

>Lmao did they also wash their hands after they send those people to the "state" to be burned alive?

You are childish in your understanding. Let me give you brief history lesson.

>Someone go to Inquisition because someone acts strange/say strange thing

>Inquisitor investigate matter

>If they found nothing wrong they go after guy who started this matter

>If they find something suspicious they start proper investigation

>Guy have a trail that is just basically interview "Do you believe x" "Did by y you meant z" etc.

>If they found nothing heretical they let him free

>If they found him heretical they ask: Do you repent?

>If he repents he is free to go after some penence.

>If he do not then then inqustion bring him to secual court since practiclly all states had anti-heresy law.

>Secular court give sentence for crime of heresy.

You were more safer in inquisition court than in any state-run one.

Read a book tigga. Or at least any work that is not stained by scent of antichrist enlightenment memes of voltaire http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/holinquisit.htm

>>688609

You too. Inquisition only dealt with those who were part of profess to be part of Catholic Church. Early Cathars, crypto-jews and other heretics did.

Also, there is no debate after dogmatic pronanciation. If there was inquistion before nicea they would debate with arians. But after it they would just stated "This is what Church says. You are eathier agree or are heretic"

>>688559

There's always the Church of England solution of sending the weirdos to the colonies

>>688609

Anon, "winning debates" isn't enough to convince people of religious error, /christian/ should be proof enough for you. Additionally, many heretics were insurrectionists, you should actually study who was "persecuted".

Completely justified

It was a way of getting rid of remaining Muslims after the reconquest of Spain from the Moorish armies. Not only was it justified, it was necessary for the survival of Spain.

Also by the standards of it's time the Inquisition courts and methods were extremely progressive and lenient so much so that most people would choose to be tried by the inquisition rather than the state for their crimes

>>688562

Pls leave. Faggotry like this is banned in Christianity… BY… DEATH…

>>688559

justified

>>688806

>>688806

You sound like Justin Trudeau with that whole if you fight ISIS ISIS wins crap. When you have possible insugents in your country that may rise up and attack you anytime or help a foreign invader take your country -which was Spains situation at the time you need a method to fond and incapacitate them.

Being Christian doesnt mean being a weaj leftie that sacrificesbyour childrens future so you can feel good about yourself now. There are times when a Christian nation must defend itself and the inquisition was one such time

>>688559

A house divided against itself cannot stand

>>688825

>accept heresy or you're not a good Christian

I would laugh if that wasn't such a dangerous idea.

>>688812

There are instances were violence is unovoidable, like when you have to protect your country and the people who are uncapable to protect themselves. Again then you take the sin upon you, ask God for forgiveness and let Him decide if your actions are justified or not, that's the Christian way. LARPing as God's chosen judge on earth torturing people and burning them alive in NOT Christianity and you are not a less heretic than the heretics you burn.

And stop trying to make this a Christian vs Muslim thing. The inquisition burned many Christians as well.

>>688843

>The inquisition burned many Christians as well.

like protomormon Giordano Bruno? Retarded gn*stics like Cathars, who advocated for homosex and abortions, because world is evil and life must be exterminated?

>>688864

Like the Templars, Jonh Huss and the list is endless really. Look, every time i'm making an argument you just bring a new case and try to argue about if the specific person or religion had it coming or not.

The question is this: who gives you the authority to kill anyone you see as a heretic or not? If that's the case the then all the christian denominations and all world's religion should separate in armies and fight each other to death, whoever survives is the true chosen by God. I know that many of you might think of this as a good idea, but the fact is that it is no Christianity at all.

>>688873

> Templars

French, unjust plot

>Jonh Huss

He was heretic and he should be burned years before he completely ruined Czechia.

Justified. On the one hand, it prevented violent heretic uprisings (not a fan of what they did to the protestants, but I said justified, not pure as the wind-driven snow), and on the other hand, it mandated that the church, not the state, had the power to prosecute heretics so that it couldn't be used as a tool to wipe out the king's political enemies.

Executions for heresy and witchcraft went down with the advent of the inquisition.

>>688894

>Look, every time i'm making an argument you just bring a new case and try to argue about if the specific person or religion had it coming or not.

>The question is this: who gives you the authority to kill anyone you see as a heretic or not? If that's the case the then all the christian denominations and all world's religion should separate in armies and fight each other to death, whoever survives is the true chosen by God. I know that many of you might think of this as a good idea, but the fact is that it is no Christianity at all.

Also

>It's unjust when they burn me instead

That's what Robespierre said

>>688900

>The question is this: who gives you the authority to kill anyone you see as a heretic or not?

God.

3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."

It is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

>>688905

/thread

>>688905

Nicely argued.

>>688905

Sounds like a recipe for life in prison.

>>688905

Maşallah, my kardeş

>>688905

Using the of context passages from the Bible to justify torturing and murdering people from other religions or denominations and sometimes even your own is death cult tier. So far i've only seen some occultist groups on facebook doing it.

We can argue all day if John Huss or the Templars or the monks in Mount Athos were "dump animals naturally directed to man's use" or not. But since i believe none of them would agree that they needed to be burned alive for "the greater good" we can only resort to the might is right philosophy, the last man alive is not the heretic. But of course that isn't Christianity whatsoever.

>>688935

>We should never punish the guilty because it's possible we could punish an innocent person by accident.

In what way can you not use this argument to abolish all justice? Also,

>i believe none of them would agree that they needed to be burned alive

Pretty sure very few convicted criminals would agree that they should be punished.

>>688935

>we can only resort to the might is right philosophy, the last man alive is not the heretic

only if we assume, as post modernists and cultural Marxists do, that Christianity is some vague amorphous thing that no one can adequately interpret or make sense of.

Christians believe that our doctrines and teachings are clear enough that heresy can be adequately determined and thus we can punish heretics in the name of and with the authority of God.

That said, the inquisition wasn't so much about heretics but about reclaiming a Spain that had been under Moorish rule for so long, and thus was more of a state, military endevour in which the church participated.

From Wikipedia

>The Moorish Kingdom of Granada continued for three more centuries in southern Iberia. On 2 January 1492, the leader of the last Muslim stronghold in Granada surrendered to the armies of a recently united Christian Spain (after the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragón and Isabella I of Castile, the "Catholic Monarchs"). The Moorish inhabitants received no military aid or rescue from other Muslim nations.[41] The remaining Jews were also forced to leave Spain, convert to Roman Catholic Christianity, or be killed for refusing to do so. In 1480, to exert social and religious control, Isabella and Ferdinand agreed to allow the Inquisition in Spain. The Muslim population of Granada rebelled in 1499. The revolt lasted until early 1501, giving the Castilian authorities an excuse to void the terms of the Treaty of Granada (1491). In 1501, Castilian authorities delivered an ultimatum to the Muslims of Granada: they could either convert to Christianity or be expelled.

>Court of the lions in the Alhambra, a Moorish palace built in the 14th century in Granada, Spain

>The Inquisition was aimed mostly at Jews and Muslims who had overtly converted to Christianity but were thought to be practicing their faiths secretly

You can't have a nation where significant portions of the population are allied with Moorish forces that are ready, willing and able to conquer you and force you to convert to Islam

>>688943

The criminal have DONE something wrong. The heretic BELIEVES in something wrong and there's a huge difference. If someone thinks that the best way to fight against heretic teachings is murder then most likely he's probably insecure about his own beliefs as well. Crusifixion of Christ by the jews rings a bell here

>>688946

>only if we assume, as post modernists and cultural Marxists do, that Christianity is some vague amorphous thing that no one can adequately interpret or make sense of.

>Christians believe that our doctrines and teachings are clear enough that heresy can be adequately determined and thus we can punish heretics in the name of and with the authority of God.

Except there are already 3 major Christian denominations with huge dogmatic differences and a bunch of lesser ones. I guess the only way to solve this mess is a fight to the death, since we are not some kind of cultural marxists or anything and since definitelly that was what Christ would wanted.

And again this is not just a Christian vs Muslim thing. The inquisition and all related religious courts have burned many Christians as well. And actually many anons here believe that it was ok because "God made them do it".

>>688977

>Except there are already 3 major Christian denominations

I'm tired of hearing this weak argument

no matter how Christians are different we still believe in the Nicene creed and have the same fundamental beliefs

heretics are not like this

ad there are a bunch of lesser denominations, you are mistaking church hirearchy organizations for denominations - there are only a few denominations with only minor differences between them

>>689001

Well some anons in this thread believe that it is competely ok to kill even other Christians if they are "heretics". Some courts of the inquisition also believed the same thing and so many Christians were killed. In the end, who can decide which man would be most fitting to do the job of the final judge if a modern inquisition were to be created?, it seems to me that the ones who advocate it the most are more blood thirsty rather than dogmatically concerned.

>>689001

Tbh, John Huss seemed to be Nicaean. As well as Fraticelli and people like that.

>>689028

well they were a part of a catholic state at the time Fraticelli said the pope was wrong and denied that priests could perform sacriments

Jan Hus and his followers also denied the validity of the church

Certainly the inquisition was a part of the church state mechanism of the time

>>689026

>Well some anons in this thread believe that it is competely ok to kill even other Christians if they are "heretics".

no you are misrepresenting what the anons in the thread were saying, they were saying that the inquisition was justified

>n the end, who can decide which man would be most fitting to do the job of the final judge if a modern inquisition were to be created?,

we could still have one, the catholics and Lutherans have agreed on a joint declaration of faith and the other denominations implicitly agree to it so we would have no problem identifying and getting rid of heretics if it came down to it. Even today we know that Mormons are heretics we know that Unitarian universalitists are heretics and we know that the Episcopalian church of the USA are heretics, and we know that redditors are heretics this kind of thing is not controversial to genuine Christians

>>689034

>>689001

>>688946

>>688812

>>688698

>That spacing

>>688559

Justified, even the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews all agree that it is ethical to remove kebab, it starts to look less like a sectarianism kind of thing, and more like a survival kind of thing. Now just merely looking to what is expedient is unchristian, but Islam has told us that it will not be content until we're all dead, or converted or subjugated, so I'm not complaining about the Spanish desire to rid themselves of this problem.

>>689051

The Bible has many verses about putting survival above being righteous.

"Do not be too righteous, and do not act too wise; why should you destroy yourself?"

Ecclesiastes 7:16

"And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places."

1Maccabees 2:41

>>689068

>Ecclesiastes 7:16

Considering how many times verse of Ecclesiastes is ripped off from context, I press [x] for doubt

>>689077

>just criticism with no context provided himself

You people are so predictable.

“These things also I saw in the days of my vanity: A just man perisheth in his justice, and a wicked man liveth a long time in his wickedness. Be not over just: and be not more wise than is necessary, lest thou become stupid. Be not overmuch wicked: and be not foolish, lest thou die before thy time.”

‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭7:16-18‬ ‭