Inquisition myths

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That he does (did). I have a couple.

I would suggest something more contemporary, as openers. As I’ve done, above. But Lea represents a ground-breaking historical viewpoint, and current scholars recognize that.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Does truth or whether something is good or bad change with the times?
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of truth.

What is good or bad, right or wrong is, in part, socially constructed. At some points in history, it was considered right and just to extract confessions by force or to convert people by force. In those times, the objective good of confession, of stopping heresy, and of conversion to Christianity outweighed any subjective wrong of personal suffering. Of course, such things are unthinkable in the 21st century, but we cannot judge past actions by present-day standards.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean that it was good to convert people by force and torture in the past, but it is not good today? Or was it always bad to use force and torture to convert people?
 
AlNg said:
Does that mean that it was good to convert people by force and torture in the past, but it is not good today? Or was it always bad to use force and torture to convert people?
Click to expand...
As I said before, they believed that the objective good of the conversion outweighted the subjective suffering of individuals.

It is unfair to judge past actions based on our 21st century norms.
 
Last edited:
Quite intetesting that the once persecuted church, by civil powers, used the same civil authority to enforce orthodoxy, once the opportunity (and “freedom”) presented itself at Nicene Council…the rest is history, partly until reformation, and more fully with our constitution.
 
“mrsdizzyd84 said:
AlNg said:
Does that mean that it was good to convert people by force and torture in the past, but it is not good today? Or was it always bad to use force and torture to convert people?
Click to expand...
As I said before, they believed that the objective good of the conversion outweighted the subjective suffering of individuals.
Unless I am totally not understanding your statement, it makes me shiver to realize people would think like that and still claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A lot of the tales of the Spanish Inquisition were pretty much exaggerated. Spain was the principal rival to England during that time frame, the nations were warring as they both worked to expand their worldwide influence. Events like the Spanish Armada as well as Henry VIII divorce of Spain’s Catherine of Aragon helped to fuel the rivalry.

Information about the inquisition was published for English readers to get the people excited about fighting Spaniards. Demonizing the enemy is part of war, the motive to exaggerate the inquisition was there.

Further, the 2nd biggest source of immigrants to English America during colonial days was from Holland’s religious dissidents. At that point in time, Holland was under Spanish rule too, and did have the Inquisition. These were dissidents, with no love to the Spanish either.
 
Well, they did. They thought it was better that the “heathens” were brought to Christ even if it required force.

Of course, NOW we think this is abominable and not at all in keeping with the teachings of Christ.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
As I said before, they believed that the objective good of the conversion outweighted the subjective suffering of individuals.
Click to expand...
By they do you mean Pope Innocent IV ?

If so, was Pope Innocent IV wrong to believe that and was he wrong to authorize the use of torture by the Inquisition?
 
As a person of the 21st century, of course I think it is wrong.

That condemnation does not change the fact that until fairly recently people OF ALL STRIPES believed that forced conversion was preferable to the alternative. People OF ALL STRIPES believed torture was an acceptable means to extract information.

Human beings over the course of history have done any number of things that are abhorrent to us now. As time marches on, we grow, learn, change our positions, adjust our moral compasses, etc.

What point are you trying to make?
 
Last edited:
That it is difficult to pin down moral absolutes, not conditioned by cultural or chronological factors?
 
Again I recommend books; again Peters INQUISITION. Chapter 5,“The Invention of The Inquisition” and Chapter 9, “From Myth To History”, in particular, on this point.
 
Well, that is obvious. I don’t think anyone ever claimed it was easy (in this thread at least). Maybe I missed it.
 
buffalo said:
Done by civil authorities.
Click to expand...
Very important to keep that straight.

[There was a war in Spain that lasted for nearly 800 YEARS following the Muslim invasion in AD 711.]

[AD711 to AD 1492]
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to know if these types of tortures were really used in the inquisition or not.
 
MonteRCMS said:
[There was a war in Spain that lasted for nearly 800 YEARS following the Muslim invasion in AD 711.]
Click to expand...
Good point. Ferdinand and Isabella were very concerned about the Moors returning to power after they achieved peace.

Their concern was that some Muslims might just pretend to convert while retaining their beliefs, infiltrate Spain and reassert themselves, reestablishing an Islamic state.

Inquiring into whether their conversions were legit was the strategy they chose.
 
And the answer is yes they did occur.

The question (being debated in this thread) is by whom, under what authority, and during which of the several Inquisitions that occurred.
 
Last edited:
Most RCs will likely tell you that the agency which defines moral absolutes, at varying degrees of theological certainty, is the RCC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top