J
josie_L
Guest
Whose authority do you appeal to then?
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
Ok, I’ll bite, how does nothing come out of nothing?
You didn’t get my point. You may have wrongly convicted Jesus Christ on something as subjective and inconclusive as circumstantial evidence (which is not proof).
So then you are not a suppressed minority but one that enjoys the privilege of shaping culture (naturally, of course)? I guess then militant atheists do not exist?And of course religion never struggles for cultural control. The truth is atheists aren’t sitting around conspiring how to gain the upper hand in cultural influence; we naturally dominate culture because religion is boring
State your case, please?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I never said something can come from nothing. I don’t claim to know how the universe was created – while religion relies on the ancient mythology of primitive men to answer questions that are solely within the purview of physics and astronomy.
my point is simply that all evidence is circumstantial. Two women walk in on a guy holding a knife over a dead body. Does that prove he killed the dead person? No, but it’s one piece of circumstantial evidence. His fingerprints alone are on the murder weapon. Is that decisive evidence by itself? No, but it’s another piece. It was his wife who he had a large insurance policy on & he was having an affair with another woman. Is that conclusive evidence in itself? No, but it’s yet another piece.
Even though it looks so bad for this guy, it’s perfectly possible someone else killed his wife, wore gloves, and he walked in while she was dying and pulled the knife from her chest in an attempt to save her. However, it’s not only unlikely that someone else killed her, it’s unreasonable to think someone else killed the woman (since there were no signs of forced entry, and no one else had a motive). So the guy is rightly convicted, and the prosecutor meets the reasonable doubt standard (pretty much a slam dunk right).
This is the sort of logical circumstantial case that does debunk religion. Sure you’re not going to find a video tape of Paul conspiring to create a false religion … but that’s an impossible bar to meet (just as no video tape existed of the guy killing his wife).
Atheists are obviously a minority in this country, and some atheists do put themselves out there and try to push for social change. However, no atheist I know proposes barring people from believing whatever it is they want to believe. They simply view their actions as self-defense against religious theocrats (and I agree with them whole heartedly).
I already did. Egyptian mythology was around for longer than Christianity has been, but it died out. Greco-Roman paganism was around for thousands of years, it died out. Christianity is waning in Europe & I suspect the US won’t be too far behind.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
that’s exactly what he was trying to say …
J
josie_L
Guest
I am stating simply that the truth despite some misinformation on the Internet can still be found regarding such artifacts and miracles (with just some determination to finagle or separate fact from fiction, you know the critical thinking one would expect when searching for truth). And furthermore, are you and neblo telling me that of the thousands of hits you get for the tilma not one grain of truth can be found regarding the studies administered by various scientists (studies even used by skeptics to state their case). Is this some grand conspiracy to sucker in atheists? And moreover, why hasn’t the scientific community studied the tilma under the circumstances delineated by Neblo to put an end to such supposed “nonsense”? If it is as you say legend then put the legend to rest. That’s how you would go about destroying “mythology”, right?
P.S. I don’t understand, how difficult could it be to use infrared red light to decipher the materials used on the tilma?
J
josie_L
Guest
That ancient mythology believes in evolution (and science) so how primitive can it be?
Logic is not for you to define. God either does or doesn’t exist as such our logic will depend upon this viewpoint, who then has the correct logic? One way to find out is by gathering all the evidence necessary to make a case (scientific, anthropological, historical, biological, . . . .etc.)
Translation: Good guys -atheists. bad guys -believers.
Francis, there is no purpose for you to be here with the attitude that you have.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
logic is for me to define – at least for myself. However, yes there is objective logic & it’s been promulgated by humans.
not the way I would frame it … but anyways
I’m beginning to think you’re right on this point!
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
honestly I wasn’t around for this discussion … so I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about? As far as grand conspiracies to sucker in atheist; wouldn’t be the first time. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans all used trickery in their religious temples (ranging from talking pagan idols where they would simply hide someone in the temple to talk to people – making it seem like the idol was talking, to rudimentary optical devices that would shine shadows of figures on the wall).I am stating simply that the truth despite some misinformation on the Internet can still be found regarding such artifacts and miracles (with just some determination to finagle or separate fact from fiction, you know the critical thinking one would expect when searching for truth). And furthermore, are you and neblo telling me that of the thousands of hits you get for the tilma not one grain of truth can be found regarding the studies administered by various scientists (studies even used by skeptics to state their case). Is this some grand conspiracy to sucker in atheists? And moreover, why hasn’t the scientific community studied the tilma under the circumstances delineated by Neblo to put an end to such supposed “nonsense”? If it is as you say legend then put the legend to rest. That’s how you would go about destroying “mythology”, right?
P.S. I don’t understand, how difficult could it be to use infrared red light to decipher the materials used on the tilma?
J
josie_L
Guest
The Promise of IPS CellsThe most effective means of research is traditional ESCR (using already fertilized embryos stored in a frozen state in fertilization clinics, which would otherwise be discarded since the donor females have already accomplished their goal of becoming pregnant).
The idea that ESCR (and therapeutic cloning) will not be effective is nothing more than conjecture (without any sound scientific basis). Indeed the fact that adult stem cells are showing potential only serves to validate further ESCR since embryonic stem cells are thought to be of higher quality than ASC’s.
IMO the CC is creating a false victim. These are blobs of cells that will never otherwise become life. They don’t think, they can’t speak, and frankly they have no more essence than a banana for goodness sake. However, this is what the church does isn’t it? It’s always hated science & it continues down the same path of obstructing human progress that its been going down for centuries. In the past it was any theory that sought to debunk geocentrism, now it’s ESCR. The church has always maintained a small cadre of scientists (only a small handful of which ever produced anything of even nominal value) so it can turn around and say – see we do support science. Yet what it really wants to do is control science (which really equates to obstructing science of real value); while of course the idea that theologians should be allowed any influence over science whatsoever is logically absurd.
Oh well … thankfully it doesn’t wield any real power these days.
Though IPS cells are a recent discovery by James Thomson and Junying Yu of UW-Madison in the stem cell research field, many scientists are enthusiastic about their potential. IPS cells are regular skin cells that have been reprogrammed to have the same pluripotent abilities as ESCs, meaning they can be stimulated to develop into many different kinds of tissue.
Research with IPS cells initially used viruses to transform the skin cells to pluripotent cells, raising some concern over health risks to possible recipients of the cells, but the issue has since been resolved, and harmless proteins are now used to convert the cells. Although the extent of their similarity has not been fully assessed, research to date indicates that IPS cells are biologically equivalent to ESCs in virtually every way.
IPS cells can turn into any type of cell in the body, and have been successfully developed with both mouse and human cells. Because the process for inducing cells to pluripotency is not as ethically or technically complicated as working with ESCs, many researchers believe IPS cells hold more practical promise for routine research and future medical use.
IPS Cell Ethics
IPS cells do not involve the use or destruction of human embryos or eggs, do not involve risk to women donors, and do not have oncogenic (cancer-related) growth problems like ESCs, but there are still some concerns that creating these cells does not solve the entire ethical roadblock, according to Francoise Baylis, an expert ethicist on ESC research and IPS cells.
In an online article entitled “ES Cells and iPS Cells: A Distinction with a Difference” for the Hastings Center in March of 2008, Baylis noted that if IPS cells eventually demonstrate totipotency, which is required for the generation of a new human life, they would essentially be human embryos, negating any advantage IPS cells may have over ESCs in terms of the destruction of early human life.
Although this is not currently a problem, philosophical debates over this possibility currently occupy many discussions of IPS cell ethics. For the time being, IPS cells have not been able to be manipulated to grow the outer layer of an embryonic cell required for the development of the cell into a human being.
Future developments in the field of IPS cell research should clarify its true ethical standing in comparison to ESC research.
biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/ethics_of_induced_pluripotent_stem_cells#ixzz0J0bYGdMf&D
Also, please check out this youtube video: youtube.com/watch?v=lDFJOzu9SyM
Why do we need ESCR or SCNT when we have IPS?
J
josie_L
Guest
Logic is defined by God who created us in his image (and gave us reason). You see what I’m getting at.
No Francis, we are bad. We stand in the way of human “progress”.
Well, for once you agree with me.
J
josie_L
Guest
I’ve just bought a book online called “Shattering the Christ Myth”, be prepared. Apparently the author J.P. Holding is extremely adept (I believe the word they used was “eviscerates”) at critiquing opposing arguments. Looking forward to reading it.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
oh great … bring on Holding (perhaps the biggest nit wit in the evangelical protestant community). I’m familiar with his work & to say the least I’m unimpressed (I’m also surprised to hear of a Catholic reading his work).
J
josie_L
Guest
Why should it bother me that he’s a Protestant, it’s not like he’s going to be discussing doctrines and dogmas? Anyways I’ve heard a lot of good things about this “nit wit” (nice of you to call him that by the way). I’m also reading (well just started to read) “A Refutation of Moral Relativism” by Peter Kreeft, is he a “nit wit” too? Eh, do you know who I think is a nit wit (his name starts with the letter “N” and ends with an “e” and as “ietzsch” in the middle)?
D
Dameedna
Guest
Hahah…I love it. Imagine an entire religion written by those, that knew the prophecies and wanted to convince people they came true. What WOULD they do?
Perhaps write the gospels in accordance with them? . This is exactly what a lot of theologians and historians have surmised.
J
josie_L
Guest
Who are these many theologians and historians?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m not familiar with Kreeft … but I’ve already aptly given my opinion on the concept of relativism. I think it’s a fallacious concept – and if you begin with a flawed premise from the outset; then everything that follows will probably be pretty useless.Why should it bother me that he’s a Protestant, it’s not like he’s going to be discussing doctrines and dogmas? Anyways I’ve heard a lot of good things about this “nit wit” (nice of you to call him that by the way). I’m also reading (well just started to read) “A Refutation of Moral Relativism” by Peter Kreeft, is he a “nit wit” too? Eh, do you know who I think is a nit wit (his name starts with the letter “N” and ends with an “e” and as “ietzsch” in the middle)?
As I’ve said – I believe religious values have been just as subjective (throughout history) as secular values. After all liberty as we understand it today, equal rights, justice, and so on are secular concepts – not theistic concepts. The march towards the liberty we value so highly today began through protest and revolution. First protest against theocracy, then revolt against a tyrannical monarchy, then our own struggles (in the United States anyway) for individual liberty.
Has religion played a role in formation of our contemporary values? Sure, but in many cases it was religious institutions who were responsible for the tyranny our predecessors had to struggle against. So this view of moral relativism touted by the religious establishment ignores large swaths of history & again it’s such a seriously flawed concept there’s no amount of tweaking that can repair it. It’s really a bogus argument the religious establishment uses to instill fear in its constituents. If, after all, you can convince people that our moral foundation rests on religiosity … then it becomes easy enough to say if we turn away from that religiosity we will put our very civilization at risk. Hence your able to depict dissenters as a threat to civility & everything else human beings value (like peace, prosperity, etc.). Unfortunately it plays on the ignorance of the average person – because most people simply don’t have a great grasp of history, philosophy, logic, etc. Therefore they’re venerable to this sort of manipulation.
J
josie_L
Guest
No, the Church has always held the same deposit of faith throughout history (however many of her doctrines developed over time due to unsavory circumstances that required a clearer understanding of the faith). There have been many occasions of which the Church was tested and tried and found wanting (but Jesus himself said that the weeds would be planted alongside the wheat).
“But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.” Matt. 13:25
The Church has failed numerous times to live up to her own standards (those set by Christ) because it did not reside in a vacuum (she like everyone else was part of a society that was continually in transition). So yes, she did make mistakes but not the kind of which you state, there was no tyranny (if by tyranny you mean the Church had no right to protect her faithful from heretical views), there was not theocracy. A theocracy would entail a total authority of which the Church never had for it recognized the monarchies as rightful rulers. If you knew more than just the caricature of history promulgated by public school systems you would know this. You would also know, for example, that it was the Church who came up with the concept of equality under natural law for all men:
An excerpt taken from: “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph. D
“At this point, the king, faced with dramatic testimony regarding Spanish behaviour in the New World, called together a group of theologians and jurists to develop laws that would govern Spanish officials in their interaction with the natives. In this way were born the Laws of Burgos (1512) and the Valladolid (1513), and similar arguments influenced the so-called New Laws of 1542. Much of this legislation on behalf of the natives proved disappointing in its application and enforcement, particularly since so much distance separated the Spanish Crown from the scene of activity in the New World. But this early criticism helped to set the stage for the more systematic and lasting work of some of the great sixteenth century theological jurists.”
“Among the most illustrious of these thinkers was Father Francisco Vitoria. In the course of his own critique of Spanish policy, Vitoria laid the groundwork for modern international law theory, and for that reason is sometimes called “the father of international law,” a man who propose[d] for the first time international law in modern terms.” With his fellow theological jurists, Vitoria “defended the doctrine that all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture, and to property.” In support of his assertions Vitoria drew from both Scripture and reason. In so doing he “furnished the world of his day with its first masterpiece on the law of nations in peace as well as in war.” It was a Catholic priest, therefore, who brought forth the first grand treatise on the law of nations- no small accomplishment."
“In sum, Spanish theologians of the sixteenth century held the behavior of their own civilization up to critical scrutiny and found it wanting. They proposed that in matters of natural the other peoples of the world were their equals, and that the commonwealths of pagan peoples were entitled to the same treatment that the nations of Christian Europe accorded to one another. That Catholic priests gave Western civilization the philosophical tools with which to approach non-Western peoples in a spirit of equality is quite an extraordinary thing.”
It was not atheism or any other “ism” that gave equality before the law, but the equality under natural law as was put forth by Spanish theologians of 16th century:
Now compare this to Nicolo Machiavelli (an atheist) who presaged the arrival of the modern state with his short book “The Prince”.
“For Machiavelli, the state was indeed a morally autonomous institution, whose behavior on behalf of its own preservation could be judged against no external standard, whether the decrees of a pope or any code of moral principle. No wonder the Church condemned Machiavelli’s political philosophy so severely: it was precisely this view that the great Catholic theologians of Spain so emphatically denied. The state, according to them, could indeed be judged according to principles external to itself, and could not act on the basis of mere expedience or narrow advantage if moral principles were trampled in the process.”
to be continued. . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
I want you to read this:
The Persecution of Witches
But didn’t the medieval church burn witches? What about the inquisition? As we have seen, it was not until the year 1400 that the image of the witch as a devil worshipper and heretic was complete. Until then the Church had no cause to try them. In addition, there was a general scepticism in both ecclesiastical and educated circles.
As you may know, the Inquisition began in the 13th Century. So, although the witches as devil worshippers would fall into the category of heretics, the Inquisition did not generally prosecute them. There are only a handful of cases before the year 1450, and these are mixed up with the other cases of heresy they are investigating. It was not believed. In 1258 Pope Alexander IV explicitly refused to allow the Inquisition to investigate charges of witchcraft. It was not yet considered heresy. 200 years later, this changes.
In 1484 Innocent VIII issued a papal bull (summis desiderantes) authorizing two Dominican inquisitors to prosecute witchcraft in Germany. They had met opposition from bishops. The two inquisitors (Kramer and Sprenger) drafted a handbook for those prosecuting witches (Malleus Maleficarum). The papal bull is very short. In summary it says: It has come to our ears that many persons are giving themselves over to the devil and through incantations, charms, conjuring and crimes are harming the person and property of many innocent people and are abjuring the Faith. We therefore mandate these two Dominicans to exercise the office of Inquisitors to investigate and suppress these practices.
The pope had clearly been fooled into believing all this and so he granted powers to these two Dominicans to investigate and suppress witchcraft in Germany. There is no doctrinal statement in the bull. It has come to our ears. This is an example of papal policy. Papal policy can be more or less prudent. It is not infallible. Distinguish from documents which reflect papal teaching. The handbook (which was not endorsed by the papal bull) was notorious. It did not say anything new. It collected the conventional wisdom on witches. It was marked by a strong misogynist overemphasis. Insisted on the point of ritual copulation with the devil. An altogether unfortunate work. It was repudiated by the Inquisition and not used in its proceedings. One of the two authors was censored by the Inquisition shortly after this.
It became the handbook for prosecutors in secular courts. It is sometimes thought that because the most famous handbook was written by Dominicans, the Church must have been in the forefront of the persecution of witches. But this has been shown not to have been the case. The witch hunts took place mainly in the late 16th and early 17th century and the trials were usually conducted before secular courts.
Why secular tribunals?
By 1450 in Germany and France the Inquisition had lost most of its authority. Rise of the Nation State. The prosecution of witches fell under the jurisdiction of the secular courts. The vast majority of the trials were held by secular courts. Precisely in border regions where the central government was weakest and the ecclesiastical courts had lost power. Local courts went at it with intensity. Why? The heretical side was of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the harming was of secular. The national states passed witchcraft statutes making it a criminal offense punishable by the secular arm. Only in Spain and Italy did the inquisition continue to hold authority. In Spain independent from the pope. But in both countries there were very few prosecutions of witches. And they almost always ended in non capital punishment. Almost never used torture and stuck to the rules. When someone confessed to witchcraft there was no capital punishment in Spain and Italy. Spain did experience a witch hunt in 1610-1614. However, when the Inquisitor Salazar reviewed the cases he judged that it was all nonsense. He said that there had been no charges of witchcraft until a new preacher had begun to preach against witches.
It was all in peoples’ minds. Of course, in Protestant countries it was the secular tribunals. Unlike the Inquisition, the secular tribunals did not respect the rules regarding the torture of victims. Repeated, leading questions, illegal tortures, asking for accomplices. The witch hunts ended in the 18th Century. Scientific revolution led to an image of an orderly universe which could be explained by physical laws. Scepticism about magic. Decline in religious fervour and passion and a better theological understanding of the activity of the devil. But as we have seen, it was not religious superstition that had provoked the witch hunts. It is not as though the age of reason overcame religious prejudice. The witch hunts coincided with the Renaissance after the supposedly superstitious middle ages were over.
To date, the only satisfactory explanation is that the period of upheaval (Reformation and religious wars) coincided with a power vacuum in certain areas and this led to the witch hunts. The local authorities inherited all the prejudices and superstition without the benefit of the restraint exercised by the Church and by a strong central authority. If the Church had maintained control of the issue there were have been no massive witch hunt. In 1981 a Mexican mob stoned a woman to death after her husband had accused her of witchcraft. In 1976 in a small village in Germany Elizabeth Hahn was suspected of witchcraft. Her house was burnt down and all her animals killed. There are still witch hunts.
to be continued . . .
The Persecution of Witches
But didn’t the medieval church burn witches? What about the inquisition? As we have seen, it was not until the year 1400 that the image of the witch as a devil worshipper and heretic was complete. Until then the Church had no cause to try them. In addition, there was a general scepticism in both ecclesiastical and educated circles.
As you may know, the Inquisition began in the 13th Century. So, although the witches as devil worshippers would fall into the category of heretics, the Inquisition did not generally prosecute them. There are only a handful of cases before the year 1450, and these are mixed up with the other cases of heresy they are investigating. It was not believed. In 1258 Pope Alexander IV explicitly refused to allow the Inquisition to investigate charges of witchcraft. It was not yet considered heresy. 200 years later, this changes.
In 1484 Innocent VIII issued a papal bull (summis desiderantes) authorizing two Dominican inquisitors to prosecute witchcraft in Germany. They had met opposition from bishops. The two inquisitors (Kramer and Sprenger) drafted a handbook for those prosecuting witches (Malleus Maleficarum). The papal bull is very short. In summary it says: It has come to our ears that many persons are giving themselves over to the devil and through incantations, charms, conjuring and crimes are harming the person and property of many innocent people and are abjuring the Faith. We therefore mandate these two Dominicans to exercise the office of Inquisitors to investigate and suppress these practices.
The pope had clearly been fooled into believing all this and so he granted powers to these two Dominicans to investigate and suppress witchcraft in Germany. There is no doctrinal statement in the bull. It has come to our ears. This is an example of papal policy. Papal policy can be more or less prudent. It is not infallible. Distinguish from documents which reflect papal teaching. The handbook (which was not endorsed by the papal bull) was notorious. It did not say anything new. It collected the conventional wisdom on witches. It was marked by a strong misogynist overemphasis. Insisted on the point of ritual copulation with the devil. An altogether unfortunate work. It was repudiated by the Inquisition and not used in its proceedings. One of the two authors was censored by the Inquisition shortly after this.
It became the handbook for prosecutors in secular courts. It is sometimes thought that because the most famous handbook was written by Dominicans, the Church must have been in the forefront of the persecution of witches. But this has been shown not to have been the case. The witch hunts took place mainly in the late 16th and early 17th century and the trials were usually conducted before secular courts.
Why secular tribunals?
By 1450 in Germany and France the Inquisition had lost most of its authority. Rise of the Nation State. The prosecution of witches fell under the jurisdiction of the secular courts. The vast majority of the trials were held by secular courts. Precisely in border regions where the central government was weakest and the ecclesiastical courts had lost power. Local courts went at it with intensity. Why? The heretical side was of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the harming was of secular. The national states passed witchcraft statutes making it a criminal offense punishable by the secular arm. Only in Spain and Italy did the inquisition continue to hold authority. In Spain independent from the pope. But in both countries there were very few prosecutions of witches. And they almost always ended in non capital punishment. Almost never used torture and stuck to the rules. When someone confessed to witchcraft there was no capital punishment in Spain and Italy. Spain did experience a witch hunt in 1610-1614. However, when the Inquisitor Salazar reviewed the cases he judged that it was all nonsense. He said that there had been no charges of witchcraft until a new preacher had begun to preach against witches.
It was all in peoples’ minds. Of course, in Protestant countries it was the secular tribunals. Unlike the Inquisition, the secular tribunals did not respect the rules regarding the torture of victims. Repeated, leading questions, illegal tortures, asking for accomplices. The witch hunts ended in the 18th Century. Scientific revolution led to an image of an orderly universe which could be explained by physical laws. Scepticism about magic. Decline in religious fervour and passion and a better theological understanding of the activity of the devil. But as we have seen, it was not religious superstition that had provoked the witch hunts. It is not as though the age of reason overcame religious prejudice. The witch hunts coincided with the Renaissance after the supposedly superstitious middle ages were over.
To date, the only satisfactory explanation is that the period of upheaval (Reformation and religious wars) coincided with a power vacuum in certain areas and this led to the witch hunts. The local authorities inherited all the prejudices and superstition without the benefit of the restraint exercised by the Church and by a strong central authority. If the Church had maintained control of the issue there were have been no massive witch hunt. In 1981 a Mexican mob stoned a woman to death after her husband had accused her of witchcraft. In 1976 in a small village in Germany Elizabeth Hahn was suspected of witchcraft. Her house was burnt down and all her animals killed. There are still witch hunts.
to be continued . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
Conclusion
The witch hunts have to be placed in their context. An unfortunate combination of the human need to find a scapegoat and a time of great political, social and economic upheaval. The Jews in the Middle Ages; other minorities. What was the role of the Church? As we have seen, it was not something that was either initiated or propelled by the Church. The secular authorities used Christian theological notions about the devil to justify the hunt. The Inquisition also prosecuted witches, though very few and much more leniently that the secular tribunals. As always when there are humans involved, mistakes are made. Some of the Inquisitors allowed themselves to go to excess. Also, preachers would have exhorted the faithful against witchcraft and this would have led to some accusations. The Church is in the world, at one and the same time immersed in the culture of her times while also transcending it. So, like everyone else, Churchmen believed in witches and were concerned about witchcraft, preached against it, etc. But in practice the more educated Churchmen showed a scepticism about the reality of witchcraft and so were less ready to prosecute it with severity. One cannot expect ecclesiastics to be entirely free from the influence and prejudices of their cultural and social milieu. They sincerely believed that witches were engaged in devil worship; that this was heresy and that in a Christian state such activity should be suppressed by the secular arm. This was not questioned by almost anyone at the time.
catholic-legate.com/articles/witchcraft.html
“When the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe’s indisputable moral authority. Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely killed. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented.”
“Consider the case in York, England, as described by Keith Thomas (Religion and the Decline of Magic). At the height of the Great Hunt (1567-1640) one half of all witchcraft cases brought before church courts were dismissed for lack of evidence. No torture was used, and the accused could clear himself by providing four to eight “compurgators”, people who were willing to swear that he wasn’t a witch. Only 21% of the cases ended with convictions, and the Church did not impose any kind of corporal or capital punishment.”
tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm
There is also: gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html which is informative.
P.S. I posted this because you kept refering to people who were burned at the stake (by the Church) in the twelfth century. So I just wanted to add a little perspective.
The witch hunts have to be placed in their context. An unfortunate combination of the human need to find a scapegoat and a time of great political, social and economic upheaval. The Jews in the Middle Ages; other minorities. What was the role of the Church? As we have seen, it was not something that was either initiated or propelled by the Church. The secular authorities used Christian theological notions about the devil to justify the hunt. The Inquisition also prosecuted witches, though very few and much more leniently that the secular tribunals. As always when there are humans involved, mistakes are made. Some of the Inquisitors allowed themselves to go to excess. Also, preachers would have exhorted the faithful against witchcraft and this would have led to some accusations. The Church is in the world, at one and the same time immersed in the culture of her times while also transcending it. So, like everyone else, Churchmen believed in witches and were concerned about witchcraft, preached against it, etc. But in practice the more educated Churchmen showed a scepticism about the reality of witchcraft and so were less ready to prosecute it with severity. One cannot expect ecclesiastics to be entirely free from the influence and prejudices of their cultural and social milieu. They sincerely believed that witches were engaged in devil worship; that this was heresy and that in a Christian state such activity should be suppressed by the secular arm. This was not questioned by almost anyone at the time.
catholic-legate.com/articles/witchcraft.html
“When the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe’s indisputable moral authority. Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely killed. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented.”
“Consider the case in York, England, as described by Keith Thomas (Religion and the Decline of Magic). At the height of the Great Hunt (1567-1640) one half of all witchcraft cases brought before church courts were dismissed for lack of evidence. No torture was used, and the accused could clear himself by providing four to eight “compurgators”, people who were willing to swear that he wasn’t a witch. Only 21% of the cases ended with convictions, and the Church did not impose any kind of corporal or capital punishment.”
tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm
There is also: gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html which is informative.
P.S. I posted this because you kept refering to people who were burned at the stake (by the Church) in the twelfth century. So I just wanted to add a little perspective.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
man … why do you guys have such a hard time simply owing up to the fact that your church did some bad things in the past? Why all the darn excuses (I mean it really does you guys no good).
I’m thinking about the Army & trying to conjure up excuses for poor behavior. That’s the worse darn thing you can do as a soldier. You’re way better off being a man, sucking it up, and saying yes First SGT I screwed up & I have no excuse; but I apologize and it won’t happen again. Sure, you might be in the dog house for a week or two (but maybe not) … but try coming up with an excuse and refusing to take ownership for your screw up (you’ll be wishing for that dog house let me assure you).
Owning up to wrongs is part of what integrity is all about, since no man or institution that I’ve ever heard of is perfect. Moreover, admitting imperfection is part of humility.
I’m thinking about the Army & trying to conjure up excuses for poor behavior. That’s the worse darn thing you can do as a soldier. You’re way better off being a man, sucking it up, and saying yes First SGT I screwed up & I have no excuse; but I apologize and it won’t happen again. Sure, you might be in the dog house for a week or two (but maybe not) … but try coming up with an excuse and refusing to take ownership for your screw up (you’ll be wishing for that dog house let me assure you).
Owning up to wrongs is part of what integrity is all about, since no man or institution that I’ve ever heard of is perfect. Moreover, admitting imperfection is part of humility.
- Status