The atrocities of Christianity

Magical Realist said:
Actually you had more to fear from being tortured if you were a heretic. That was the peculiar value of being tortured--confessions could be forced out of victims thus saving their souls from perdition. That's not an economic benefit to anyone, unless you count the church's acquisition of the heretic's goods as the sole motivation.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there were not enough protestants in spain at the time to lend any credibility to your suggestion that this was the #1 (or even #21) activity of the inquisition ...

As for the KKK? No..Lynching black men in no way benefit klansmen in an economic way. Pure racial hatred. Study history sometime. It'll make you skin crawl. Oh, and what about the witches?
Click to expand...
then I guess you have to explain why the said lynchers had no qualms with black people working (in a manner they wanted) on their farms ... what to speak of venturing into the economic of nth vs sth of the civil war (of which slave driven economy was a major issue)
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
Unfortunately there were not enough protestants in spain at the time to lend any credibility to your suggestion that this was the #1 (or even #21) activity of the inquisition ...


then I guess you have to explain why the said lynchers had no qualms with black people working (in a manner they wanted) on their farms ... what to speak of venturing into the economic of nth vs sth of the civil war (of which slave driven economy was a major issue)
:shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm getting a definite troll vibe from you. What you say makes no sense. Moving on..
 
Magical Realist said:
I'm getting a definite troll vibe from you. What you say makes no sense. Moving on..
Click to expand...
when in doubt, consult wiki

One of the first books to challenge the classical view was The Spanish Inquisition (1965) by Henry Kamen. Kamen established that the Inquisition was not nearly as cruel or as powerful as commonly believed. The book was very influential and largely responsible for subsequent studies in the 1970s to try to quantify (from archival records) the Inquisition's activities from 1480 to 1834.[109] Those studies showed there was an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism, and a mid-16th century pursuit of Protestants, but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers.[106] There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible.[citation needed] Kamen went on to publish two more books in 1985 and 2006 that incorporated new findings, further supporting the view that the Inquisition was not as bad as once described by Lea and others. Along similar lines is Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988).
One of the most important works in challenging traditional views of the Inquisition as it related to the Jewish conversos or New Christians, was The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain by Benzion Netanyahu. It challenged the view that most conversos were actually practicing Judaism in secret and were persecuted for their crypto-Judaism. Rather, according to Netanyahu, the persecution was fundamentally racial, and was a matter of envy of their success in Spanish society

You are simply talking about your stereotypical assumptions (probably derived from monty python) as apposed to anything credible from history ...

(magical realist, eh?)
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
when in doubt, consult wiki

One of the first books to challenge the classical view was The Spanish Inquisition (1965) by Henry Kamen. Kamen established that the Inquisition was not nearly as cruel or as powerful as commonly believed. The book was very influential and largely responsible for subsequent studies in the 1970s to try to quantify (from archival records) the Inquisition's activities from 1480 to 1834.[109] Those studies showed there was an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism, and a mid-16th century pursuit of Protestants, but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers.[106] There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible.[citation needed] Kamen went on to publish two more books in 1985 and 2006 that incorporated new findings, further supporting the view that the Inquisition was not as bad as once described by Lea and others. Along similar lines is Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988).
One of the most important works in challenging traditional views of the Inquisition as it related to the Jewish conversos or New Christians, was The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain by Benzion Netanyahu. It challenged the view that most conversos were actually practicing Judaism in secret and were persecuted for their crypto-Judaism. Rather, according to Netanyahu, the persecution was fundamentally racial, and was a matter of envy of their success in Spanish society

You are simply talking about your stereotypical assumptions (probably derived from monty python) as apposed to anything credible from history ...

(magical realist, eh?)
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Pro catholic revisionism from some obscure author? Yep..that settles it alright.. Have a good life troll...
 
Magical Realist said:
Just out of curiosity Arauca, how many gay peoople or black people do you personally know? You also seem to imply one has to be gay to not think ill of gay people. I can tell you in fact that is just not true.
Click to expand...



I know several and some have garbed my balls which I don.t appreciate, the latest homosexual is my brother in law but he does not act effeminate in my presence. Blacks I know quite a large number and there are very fine people among them. blacks from Africa of South America are very good people. Does that answers your question ?
 
Magical Realist said:
Pro catholic revisionism from some obscure author? Yep..that settles it alright.. Have a good life troll...
Click to expand...
lol
Benzion Netanyahu?
Does that sound like a catholic name to you?

Henry Kamen?
Another miss I'm afraid ...

But if you do want to start talking of religious/political angles on history ...

Before the rise of professional historians in the 19th century, the Spanish Inquisition had largely been studied and portrayed by Protestant scholars who saw it as the archetypal symbol of Catholic intolerance and ecclesiastical power.[106] The Spanish Inquisition for them was largely associated with the persecution of Protestants


Its clear you simply throw the towel in when your arguments are evidenced to be inaccurate and poorly thought out ... (either that or you are a closet protestant)

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
arauca said:
I know several and some have garbed my balls which I don.t appreciate, the latest homosexual is my brother in law but he does not act effeminate in my presence. Blacks I know quite a large number and there are very fine people among them. blacks from Africa of South America are very good people. Does that answers your question ?
Click to expand...

Garbed your balls huh? Were they ungarbed at the time? ;-) Nevermind..I think my question has been answered.
 
lightgigantic said:
this entire thread is a red herring.
Click to expand...

It's an expression of MR's personal hatred for Christianity.

The real catalysts of atrocity (especially contemporary versions) are done purely under the banners of economics.
Click to expand...

I don't think that economics is the golden key to history. (That's basically a Marxist idea.) But yeah, I think that I do agree with your fundamental point. The human tendency to do atrocious things seems to have roots a lot deeper in the human psyche than the doctrines of any particular religion. Non-Christians are prone to the same kinds of faults, at what appear to be similar rates. In the twentieth century, the avowedly-atheist Marxists and the somewhat Nietzche-inspired Nazis seem to have been that century's biggest offenders.

In other words, even if we could somehow bring atheism's Christian-free paradise into being, that new world would likely be just as violent and hate-filled as the society it replaces.
 
Yazata said:
It's an expression of MR's personal hatred for Christianity.



I don't think that economics is the golden key to history. (That's basically a Marxist idea.) But yeah, I think that I do agree with your fundamental point. The human tendency to do atrocious things seems to have roots a lot deeper in the human psyche than the doctrines of any particular religion. Non-Christians are prone to the same kinds of faults, at what appear to be similar rates. In the twentieth century, the avowedly-atheist Marxists and the somewhat Nietzche-inspired Nazis seem to have been that century's biggest offenders.

In other words, even if we could somehow bring atheism's Christian-free paradise into being, that new world would likely be just as violent and hate-filled as the society it replaces.
Click to expand...

Standard apologist's strategy of trying to mitigate the atrocities their religion caused: "Well hey. The fascists down the street killed people too. So we aren't so bad are we?" LOL! Sure, if your moral ambitions rise no higher than being just like a fascist.
 
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch - the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency."==Mark Twain
 
Magical Realist said:
Standard apologist's strategy of trying to mitigate the atrocities their religion caused: "Well hey. The fascists down the street killed people too. So we aren't so bad are we?" LOL! Sure, if your moral ambitions rise no higher than being just like a fascist.
Click to expand...
Its more that if you have the same character qualities of a larger population you have a red herring when you start talking about the said qualities being exclusive to the minority.

For instance if the topic suddenly changed to how theists are pre-disposed to offer charity, I'm sure you would be the first to point out atheist/secular charity organizations, no?

:shrug:
 
Magical Realist said:
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch - the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency."==Mark Twain
Click to expand...
If you think there is a historical absence of religious criticism of with burning et al I suggest you search further abroad than atheist hate sites and venture into actual historical analysis of the practice.
 
Magical Realist said:
I'm agnostic, so I have no incentive to dehumanize, demonize, and damn others who happen to disagree with me.
Click to expand...

Gee, then you can't take issue with Christians either.


Magical Realist said:
How can you deny religion's murderous legacy? The way I determine if it is a factor in behavior is by asking if the actions would have occurred had the people NOT believed the way they did. Hate does not come naturally to humans.
Click to expand...

Your points are questionable.

As long as natural resources are scarce and not so easy to get by, there will be some kind of struggle over them. And people will come up with various politically correct justifications to cover up this fact, because they find it so embarrassing.

IOW, if food, clothes and shelter, and everything else humans want and need would come freely with minimal or no effort, you would have a point. But since it takes so much effort and struggle just to get basic needs met, there is a lot more to consider.


Hate does not come naturally to humans.
Click to expand...

And where is your evidence for that?

The standard interpretation of the results of the Milgram Experiment goes that under the pressure of authority, most people will do awful things.
Yet the participants in that experiment knew it was just an experiment, the pressure of authority that they experienced was not real - and they knew it. So what if the case is that those participants simply manifested what is part of human nature anyway? And the standard interpretation of the results of the Milgram Experiment is actually based on wishful thinking about human nature?

If humans really would be good by nature, then how good is that goodness if the slightest pressure of presumed authority or hunger can defeat it?


Magical Realist said:
I have a hard time identifying the economic motivations for things like the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of women as witches, or the terrorizing of black folk by the fundamentalist organization known as the KKK. These evils were basically driven by ideology and not economics. I'm not saying that economics does NOT play a role in global violence. It's just that in the case of religious fanaticism the motivation of hatred is already there.
Click to expand...

We need to keep in mind that running a country is not an easy business.


spidergoat said:
Interesting hypothesis. What money would King James have made by burning women in retaliation for a storm his ship suffered? He had lost wealth and jewels in the wreck, was he hoping to recover his losses from the alleged witches?
Click to expand...

An argument could be made that monarchs and other political leaders of the time knew how bloodthirsty people are, and that this needs to be acknowledged and appeased somehow.
"Panem et circenses" mentality.


Magical Realist said:
Pro catholic revisionism from some obscure author? Yep..that settles it alright.. Have a good life troll...
Click to expand...

I think you ought to look into your own accusations, both of the Spanish Inquisition and of some people. For your own peace of mind.

While I certainly think that some theistic religious systems are incompatible with a peaceful way of life, we would need to clear up whether that incompatibility is exclusively due to that religion, or whether that religion just manifests tendencies that humans naturally have anyway and would have them with or without the religion.

Further, a point can be made that religions that are usually seen as intolerant, are actually trying to harness and streamline the natural human tendency for aggression.
 
lightgigantic said:
this entire thread is a red herring. The real catalysts of atrocity (especially contemporary versions) are done purely under the banners of economics.
Click to expand...

Again, until we can see how this is in fact the case, we have the right to be reserved about your rather politically correct explanation.


lightgigantic said:
You are simply talking about your stereotypical assumptions (probably derived from monty python) as apposed to anything credible from history ...
Click to expand...

There are, however, valid metaphysical concerns to be addressed when it comes to people who claim to be religious/theists and who perform acts that are generally considered morally reprehensible.


Your approach seems to imply that all people are equal before God and have an equal chance of getting to know the truth about God.
If that would be the case, then, yes, we could easily dismiss all kinds of aggression, whether done by theists or not, as materially motivated and be done with it.

But given that all people certainly do not seem to be equal before God, nor have an equal chance to get to know the truth about God, there is more to look into here.
 
Cheezle said:
The book does not get into killing animals for food or extinction of species. It is only about human on human violence, though senseless animal cruelty is touched on.
Click to expand...
I too am talking about senseless animal cruelty



"Legal/political speech/precepts" did not even exist a few hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
If that was the case we wouldn't be in the middle of a discussion about holding christianity accountable for an ideology of violence

And the recent water boarding incidents you are referring to numbered below 10.
Click to expand...
The united states also didn't hang that many japanese soldiers for waterboarding US POW's during ww2
:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top