The hypocrisy of religions of peace

[Nicene]

Considering they were also running a state as well as the church I’m not sure I see your point. However it intrigues me that you seem to whitewash, brush under the rug and not acknowledge the Protestant guilt which was historically far far worse than anything a Pope did.

For example, torture under the inquisition was to be for 1 hour per day, if by the 3rd session they hadn’t confessed they were freed. If they confessed they were given penance.

In Protestant states no rules applied and they were tortured for days on end often ending in death. How one can set aside true history and swipe it under the rug boggles the mind. No acknowledgement no remorse, no repentance. Isn’t that a continuation of that far greater evil?

I understand your hatred of the church but shouldn’t you hate your own sect far more for doing far worse? Or just keep swiping it under the rug.

I notice of the post above you skip, don’t acknowledge nor offer repentance for the atrocities of your sect. Could you explain the omission? Because it certainly appears you are attempting to justify such. Possibly you could explain the extermination of my tribe where a lucky few escaped ( who were all Catholic) and the dismemberment of the 4 missionaries at your sects hands?

 

[Nicene]

I also recall you never seemed to apologize for the 15.9 million Catholics your sect murdered in Europe when I brought it up in another thread.

Repentance consists of acknowledging one own sin then rather than looking for the sins of others. Perhaps a good rereading of Jesus and St Paul might be in order on this count.

 

[AlNg]

I’m not sure I see your point.

The teaching of the Church on torture has changed. Today the Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil. Hundreds of years ago it was taught that, under certain conditions, torture was allowed.

 

[Nicene]

As did your sect, which is painfully obvious. When exactly did they change their teaching? I mean my tribe was exterminated 150 years years ago, so obviously it was as current as that that it was allowable and encouraged.

 

[Nicene]

By the way FWIW, I can’t help but notice you ignored the entire post except the one fraction from the first sentence. Whitewashing and sweeping under the rug again. Honestly i don’t expect less. It’s very telling.

 

[AlNg]

you ignored the entire post

Here is what I support:

Matthew 5: 38 – 40

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

Hebrews 12: 14

14 Make every effort to live in peace with everyone….

Matthew 4: 43

“You heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you;

I am opposed to torturing people and burning a person alive in boiling oil.

 

[Kaninchen]

15.9 million Catholics your sect murdered in Europe

Where? When?

 

[Nicene]

That goes contrary to Calvinist theology: "Jesus took my place on the cross: So Gold intended to torture and kill you. He killed an innocent person in place of a guilty person. Double predestination: God intended for my tribe to be tortured and exterminated at your sects hands, it was predestined by Gods will as a good thing.

This is still taught today, are you saying your theology is off its rocker? If it has changed as you say isn’t that admitting that its theology is absolutely wrong? And in fact has now changed in the 21st century?

However you haven’t shown any love towards Catholics even after JP 2 acknowledged the churches sins and asked for forgiveness. In fact you keep bringing up others (the churches) sins very very often. So i guess Mt 4:43 really doesn’t apply in this case. Neither does Hebrews 12:14. It would require a different response than that which has so far been displayed.

We also know that Matthew 5:38-40 was never employed by your sect as they historically did far far worse. Can you explain any of the above?

Personally I have never even heard it acknowledged what was done to my tribe (and apparently still isn’t going to be when brought up) nor repented of. Which makes sense given the theology. For example the torture in Guantanamo Bay was never apposed but defended by your sect. So obviously, given the theology of God as a torturer and crucifier, it is still taught that this is in fact still Gods will in your sect. None of that squares with the passages above.

 

[Nicene]

click my name and follow my post history, the list is in one of the posts i think about a year ago.

 

[Kaninchen]

click my name and follow my post history, the list is in one of the posts i think about a year ago.

Perhaps you might remember some instances - something to use for a search (rather than plodding through your post history )?

 

[Nicene]

Why? To be honest I don’t personally care what anyone’s forbears did, because they aren’t you. and you nor anyone else is responsible for another actions over the last 500 years. My catholic ancestors aren’t me anymore than a calvinists ancestors are them, nor a lutherans or now the followers of Zwingli etc.

I only brought it up because he has a bone he won’t let go of, to borrow a old phrase; “Berating a dead horse”

It honestly does no good to look at others sins of their ancestors, other than from a truly historical prospective devoid of personal intention. For example Calvin: his behavior was consistent with regard to capital punishment as the rest of Europe. i.e. heresy was treason. To judge them by todays (modern) standards is absurd.

 

[Kaninchen]

Why?

Because you quoted a figure which sparked my interest - the figure was precise (15.9) and, so, I thought you might be able to explain it without too much difficulty.

 

[Nicene]

Actually my response wasn’t to you it was to Mr. Silly. However to answer your question, either I dig through my old posts or I let you do it.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Your failed to record that those being burned alive for refusing to recant their faith prayed to Jesus as they were dying.

Sadistic people will always justify what they want to do. Jesus said that you should love and pray for your enemies.

 

[Nicene]

Actually I don’t disagree. Not every person did engage in execution and torture. However all states did and most of those states were run by the reformers. Don’t confuse that with todays society where we have a separation of church and state. They enjoyed no such luxury.Why heresy was treason wasn’t really about theology, it was about economics. Destabilization of a society through heresy had an enormous negative impact on that society’s economic life and health. Which ultimately affected Joe Blow on the street.

So as much as people like to dig at a lot of the people back then, those reformers, after the protestant wars (huge destabilization) had a responsibility civilly to those people in their society as well. Too often that is discounted in favor of winning some argument or other. Rebuilding a society isn’t easy. Look at the American revolution, we didn’t become a recognized world government after the war. We actually became a legitimate world government after the war of 1812.

 

[Gorgias]

Your failed to record that those being burned alive for refusing to recant their faith prayed to Jesus as they were dying.

That wasn’t mentioned in the book. Do you have a citation that we can reference?

(Incidentally, the ‘good thief’ on the cross did the same thing… and he’s in heaven! So, although they didn’t recant to Borromeo, or ask for mercy from the secular court, then – if your anecdote is true – perhaps they received mercy from Him who is the author of mercy!)

Burning a person alive at the stake and boiling a person alive in hot oil were carried out in the papal states which were under the direct governance of the Pope, No?

So, here’s where it’s necessary to be precise, no? It’s not that the Church codified these methods of execution doctrinally, right? It’s not as if she claimed divine inspiration, correct? Therefore, it was a prudential judgment. And, the prudential judgment of the day was to engage in these activities. Again, ya’ll are judging anachronistically.

Today the Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil.

I haven’t seen that language used. The catechism states that torture is “contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity”.

 

[AlNg]

I haven’t seen that language used.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/torture/upload/torture-is-an-intrinsic-evil-study-guide1.pdf

Today it is taught that torture is an intrinsic evil
In the past it was taught that torture was acceptable under certain conditions.
The teaching has changed.
Boiling someone alive in hot oil until death is a form of torture, No?

 

[Gorgias]

Today it is taught that torture is an intrinsic evil
In the past it was taught that torture was acceptable under certain conditions.
The teaching has changed.

Ahh… thank you! I think that your comment here is insightful: the teaching has changed. Why, then, are we judging people from centuries gone by, with a standard that was not present in their day?

Boiling someone alive in hot oil until death is a form of torture, No?

Actually, by the definition in the very document you cited to me… no, it’s not :

The United Nations Convention against Torture defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” to obtain information or a confession, and where such an act is allowed by a public official.

So, “boiling someone in hot oil until death” is a horrific form of capital punishment… but it is not torture, as such.

Thanks for helping us reach a level of clarity on the questions of anachronistic judgment and the difference between “capital punishment” and “torture”!

 

[AlNg]

So, “boiling someone in hot oil until death” is a horrific form of capital punishment… but it is not torture, as such.

I suppose you could argue such. But there are other definitions of torture not including the phrase “to obtain information or a confession, and where such an act is allowed by a public official.” Suppose the public official does not allow torture, I don’t think that is going to mean that it is not torture. In any case, torture was allowed by the Church hundreds of years ago, No? But today it is taught to be intrinsically evil?
We often hear the argument presented on CAF that since artificial birth control is intrinsically evil, it can never be allowed. But the change in teaching on torture appears to blow a hole in this line of reasoning?

 

[Gorgias]

But there are other definitions of torture not including the phrase “to obtain information or a confession, and where such an act is allowed by a public official.”

Well… if you’re gonna cite a document, aren’t we to hold you to what your document states?

In any case, torture was allowed by the Church hundreds of years ago, No? But today it is taught to be intrinsically evil?

That’s kinda the definition of “the teaching has changed”, which is your thesis, right?

We often hear the argument presented on CAF that since artificial birth control is intrinsically evil, it can never be allowed. But the change in teaching on torture appears to blow a hole in this line of reasoning?

No.

“It can never be allowed” is not the same as “it has never been allowed.” I think you’re conflating “doctrine” with “discipline”, and attempting to claim that the Church is beholden to keep to a single standard of disciplinary teachings (/ prudential judgments) across all times and places. (It isn’t.)

So… unless you can explain why you think that there’s been “a hole blown in this line of reasoning”, I think you’re misunderstanding something.