Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 19:41
VIEWED: 25190
PAGE 7 of 11
OH and I should note:
The Protestant Churches never had an inquisition either, and yet they also had witch trials occur in Protestant nations. Sometime sin the Church but, as per usual, mainly held by Secular Courts.
Also, most of the Witch Crazes where in Protestant Nations after the 1500's, so its not really logical to think of the Inquisition as having a significant role in them, as it was an exclusively Catholic institution.
So, the Inquisition was not to blame for the Witch Trials, and didn't really play a vital role in them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One thing.
While making sure all facts where accurate, I learned I made a small error. The Inquisition did hear some witch trials, just not many.
However, in contrast to the myth (which, again, began in the Enlightenment), the Inquisitional courts where not the most ruthless and merciless courts about, which found you guilty before you proved your innocence, and who frequently put people to death.
Instead, the Inquisitional courts where far more lenient than Secular Courts, and much more likely to Acquit an accused witch. The Inquisitional courts also lacked the power of sentence, but requested, and often got, light sentences in areas cooperative to them.
The death total in Italy or Spain for convicted witches was 1%. In order to warrant the Death Penalty, you had to have proven to be harmful to society in a grave way.
Most where simply sentenced to fines, brief imprisonment, and penance.
The Inquisition also had a much higher standard of evidence for the accused and gave them much greater right sin court and ability to defend themselves than did the Civil Courts of the Secular Governments.
I know this goes against everything we hear about how absolutely dreadful the Inquisition is, and how we imagine it to be the most cruel and oppressive court ever created, but the truth is, it wasn’t. Even when they tried witches, the had the highest acquittal rating, and lowest execution rating. When compared to Civil Authorities, who nearly always convicted an accused witch, and who nearly always condemned said convicted to death, and who had a much lower standard of evidence, gave no benefit of a doubt against accusational testimony, and forbade the accused to defend themselves in most nations, the Inquisition was simply not that fearsome, and was seen as a light touch by the civil authorities of its time. Only in modern days do we find it to be oppressive and cruel.
Still, the Inquisition seldom heard Witch Trials, and the overwhelming majority where carried out by civil authorities, and happened in Protestant lands just as frequently as in Catholic lands.
So blaming the Inquisition is itself problematic, as it would not really fit into its mission, or the actual history of the Inquisition.
Though it does fit the myths we now have of it.
And of course the infamous Monty Python sketch.
I always did want to don a Cardinals robes, and exit a closet and explain, to the surprise of all there, “No one expects the Inquisition!”
But perhaps that’s just me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Also, where the Muslims killed because of their beliefs? No, they weren't.
Excuse me? You're claiming that during the Crusades, Muslims were NOT killed for their beliefs?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Correct. Read History, they where killed in the first Crusade because they attacked the Eastern Roman Empire, and int he later Crusades either so Christyain Pilgrims could feel saf ein the Holy Land, or else because they where again invading Europe. (And eventually did COnquer Spain, holdign it for centuries.)
This, along with the general sentiment that the Crusades where an evil attrocity commited by the Christyain Church (A sif the hole of Christendom wa sinvovled, when it wa sonly the Catholic Churhc int he west) and ha dno justification, and where simply evidenc of how evol and corrupt Christianity is, are manly myths created to Tarnish Christianity's reputation, and got their start mostly in the Enlightenment.
They are repeated today because they have become ingrained in the culture, much like the Dark Ages when the Church reigned supreme and Science was forbidden is a popular myth, but also incorrect, or the idea of the Inquisition being the most ruthless court around and a continual, and dark, force.
The real history is far more involved than this, and takes a lot of the negative edge off Christianity.
Unless you think that defending Europe from invasion makes them evil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zarove,
In the interest of brevity, I fear I may have been too concise in my comments.
I had meant to connect the KJB's revelations to the commoners as the catalyst for the pilgrimage to escape persecution, the exodus from Yurp to the Colonies, which had many coastal towns founded in the first decade of the 1600's and continuing on from there - not merely in the mid-1700's.
You had said Henry VIII "joined the Reformers" but was it not Henry who effectively started the Reformers? Or perhaps he used the convenience of their work to lay claim as his excuse for denying the authority of the Papists (loyal to the Pope, whom are now known as Catholics), and thus giving them (Reformers) power and more by creating the Church of England? - the first of the "denominations" to branch away from the Christian Church of Rome?
Please correct the following if I am viewing chornology wrongly here:
Henry VIII needs a son, his wives do not produce. The Pope does not allow divorce, so any child from adultery is bastard and not lawful successor to the Throne. He creates the Church of England, wholly under his domain, answerable to nobody else.
Elizabeth (from subsequent wife, she is a bastard ruler, and therefore supporting the non-Papists/Catholics) and Mary (from the first wife, and thus by the rule of Papists/Catholics the true Royal Heir to the Throne) both attempt to gain the Throne, with Elizabeth kidnapping Mary and eventually executing her.
All of this rife caused by the Bible being unreadable by the masses, and therefore the followers believeing only what they are told by their local Priest (remember, only those selected for the Seminary become educated, and will be booted from the school if you disagree or question the Church).
Mary's son achieves the Scottish Throne as King James VI of Scotland and awaits the death of Elizabeth, for there are no more heirs in the bastard lines. As well, he has been trained in France not as a Papist/Catholic, so he is palatable to the followers of the Church of England.
Upon the death of Elizabeth, he achieves the British Throne as King James I of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
As retributuion for the horrors inflicted upon his mother, he exposes the deceits of the Church of England by having the KJB published, thus showing that the Papists who all along have proclaimed the bastard rulers as not of the Royal Line were in fact following the Bible, and the bastard supporters were all along lying about the contents of the Bible and the honest claims of the Papists.
This allows the common person to finally understand that they have been misled, lied to, persecuted, and worse in the name of religion for the benefit of the English Throne. Many different denominations begin to form and splinter off from their roots.
More than a century later, the Founders of the United States ensure that freedom from religion, the concept of separation of Church and State are included in the birth fo the new experiment in Representative government, the new Republic.
Many other countries follow the example of this experiment, including to some degree the British home from which it sprang.
American history refers to many early settlers as Pilgrims, as they were escaping religious persecution in the homelands they came from.
I hope I didn't drift too far off point there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mostlyt he Chronology is correct, but you overlook something.
Henry the 8th never liked the Reformation. That began on the OCntenent in 1517 under Martin Luther, and was mainly revolving aroudn loose ideas such as Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone. While these Doctriens wherento well defined yet, and disagreement existed between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and other Reformers began to develop theologies of their own, they had a surprising commonality to them as well.
Henry the 8th wrote agaisn tthe new Doctirnes of the Protestanta and Condemend them as HEretical, and for htis the Pope awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith", a title that was hereditary and applied to all Monarchs on the English (and LAter British) Throne.
It wans't until he sought divorce from his wife, Cathrine of Aragon, that he split fom the CHurch. There where mroe factor sinvovled, such as the extent of control over English Churhc proterty, and the ability of the Kign to help in selectign Bishops, but this was the Ctylist.
However, in the 1530's, when Henry broke form the Church of ROme, he was actually fearful of the Reformation and the new ideas gainign a foothold in the newly minted Church of England.
He won massive support for the seperaiton because many of his mInisters had wanted ot jojn the reformation that had started ont eh cotnenent ( And others had simply wanted to go alogn wihthte King, or gain power).
Men like Thomas Cranmer, who became the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry the 8th, had already long associated with Protestant doctirnes.(He'd even secretly married the Daughter of a Lutheran Minister he'd met while studyign in Germany.)
Given that many of hte new clergy who supported Henry, and thus where given positions of Prmenance in his new Church, had also been given to reform, and those not givento reform where also mainly of the opinion that a split from Rome was not a welcome CHange (SUch as Sir THimas Moore, who was beheaded for oposing htis) the Church began to drift toward Protestantism.
Henry was appauled by this, and enacted a list of rules fo the Church that said that the Doctriens of the CHurhc woudl remain the same as they had under Rome.
Henry wanted to remain Cahtolic, and wanted the Church of England ot remain a Cahtolic Church. He wanted all the same teachings preserved, and for everyhtignt o go on as usual, except he was not supreme Head of the eccleseastical affair sin his own Realm.
He dint join the reformers except in hsi revolt agaisnt Rome, and later in his publisign of the Coverdale Bible. (WHich was mainly a big "Screw you" to the Pope.)
Only in later lfe, drained and apathetic, did he allow the Church to drift mor eopenly toward Protestantism, and only under his son Edward did it fully embrace Protestant teahcings.
This was ended when Mary took over, and restored the Churhc to Catholisism.
When Elizabeht took over, she comprimised between the three groups. Those who wanted ot rwmain Cahtolic, those who where Calvinist Protestants, and those hwow antes soemthign in between.
The gave them all soemhtign in between and thus gave us the modern CofE.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
don't wave away the similaritys between Jesus and Horus, christianity is mostly made up of various scraps of old pagan tradition cobbled together around a gifted Doctor/Philosopher.
add years of hype, misinturpretation and the "chinese whispers" effect of tales told from person to person and you've got Christianity there buddy! 
Plus lets not forget the various Upper-class and aristocracy who altered storys and built structured religion around someone who was simply a very intelligent man in order to cntrol the peasant masses.
-------------------------------------------------
"of course i've gone mad with power, ya ever tried going mad without power? its no fun, nobody listens to you!" The Simpsons Movie
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Zarove,
I had thought James Stewart was Half Scot by his King and half pure English Royalty by Mary, and raised and educated in France to protect his life from Elizabeth, ruling Scotland in absentia - am I incorrect?
I did not mean that nowhere in the world is freedom currently cherished as in the U. S., but the Colonial revolt and Independence was the biggest blow to the Empire and started the fad. This resulted directly from the widespread publishing of the KJB, which resulted from Liz eliminating Mary - of course the result from Henry VIII's shenanigans.
Yeah, bloody colonials.
-------------------------------------------------
"of course i've gone mad with power, ya ever tried going mad without power? its no fun, nobody listens to you!" The Simpsons Movie
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
don't wave away the similaritys between Jesus and Horus, christianity is mostly made up of various scraps of old pagan tradition cobbled together around a gifted Doctor/Philosopher.
add years of hype, misinturpretation and the "chinese whispers" effect of tales told from person to person and you've got Christianity there buddy! Plus lets not forget the various Upper-class and aristocracy who altered storys and built structured religion around someone who was simply a very intelligent man in order to cntrol the peasant masses.
Actually, noen of this is true. Christianity idnt develop form Paganism, nor did it incorporate Pagan stories and infuse them with Jesus. Christianity emerged form a Jewish Background, and everyhtign in Christianity can be traced back to either the Socio-political times or Jewish relgiiosu faith, if not to Jesus himself.
There ar eno similarities between Jesus and Horus. This theory, which abounds on the Internet, has been roudnly debuked for years now. Its part of the History of Religions school of thoguth that develope dint he 19th century, but which has been compleltey discarded these days.
If you don't beelive me, just look around. Try to find nay credible soruce for the similarities between jeus and Horus. Or for that matter, Jesus and Mithras. Or Jeuss and anybody pagan.
Try to actually shpw those pagan roots, and present them with credible evidence form real scholars.
Nothign in Christianity developed out of Pagan thinking.
That said, the idea that rich and pwoerful aristocrats moulded the sotry to cptrol peasants is a nice myth for Anti-Religiosu Athiests (WHo Ironiclaly peddle a religion themselves) as it demonises themuch hated Christianity, but considerign that all Christian major doctrines and the enture life of Jesus was codified by the end of the Firts Century, and expounded by the Apostolic Fathers of the Church and alL CHurhc fathers sinc elong before Christianity had any power or infleunce in the ROman EWmopire, and when it was subject to active persecution from Roman Government officials, don't yu think this claim is a little hard to beleive?
I mean, it was a slave religion for cryign out loud!
Christiantiy didnt develop to control the masses, and has no Pagan roots. Only soemone who is ignorant of the history and is manipulated by a cultural animosity towards Christianity woudl buy into that sort of rot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, I don't have all day, are we suffering witches or not? 
By the way, I was raised in a non-traditional religion and I can tell you ALL that persecution from so-called Christians -in this country, at least, is very much alive and well, so do what thy will with that...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME