Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: Correcting Misconceptions About The Inquisitions

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Disagree with me on what? I'm sorry but you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one had you say "The church have never killed anyone based solely on his religious beliefs." Then you come back and say I'm wrong for saying that it's wrong, post the cross, for a follower of God to kill someone based solely on his religious beliefs. I don't care if a lot of Protestants in history "disagree" with my position on that. They were wrong. And YOU should agree with me on that! Oliver Cromwell was in many ways a great leader, but he was wrong to persecute Catholics. And he wasn't simply wrong to persecute Catholics because they are Christians. He was wrong to persecute Catholics because Jesus has no interest in advancing His church or "protecting" His church based on killing people who don't agree or no longer agree with its teachings. If you don't understand that, then I just feel sorry for you.
    I think the moment has caught up a bit to you. Lets relax and come back to this on my next thread. There are multiple things you have misunderstood about me and historical subjects that tells me now is not a great time for discussion. I think the next article will provide us a better jumping off point to have a fruitful discussion anyways.

    By the way, it is perfectly normal and it happens to us all. We are human! When we are emotionally attached to a political, religious etc issue we tend to react in a certain manner, not always ideal.

    https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Il...7&gad_source=1

    https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/democr...ition=13642422

    https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational.../dp/0691138737

    https://www.amazon.com/Against-Democ.../dp/0691162603
    Jeb Smith is the author of four books to date, the most recent being Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty. Before that, he authored Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, written under the name Isaac C. Bishop. Smith has authored multiple articles on various blogs and websites, including History is Now Magazine and Medieval History.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Treebeard View Post
    I think the moment has caught up a bit to you. Lets relax and come back to this on my next thread. There are multiple things you have misunderstood about me and historical subjects that tells me now is not a great time for discussion. I think the next article will provide us a better jumping off point to have a fruitful discussion anyways.

    By the way, it is perfectly normal and it happens to us all. We are human! When we are emotionally attached to a political, religious etc issue we tend to react in a certain manner, not always ideal.

    https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Il...7&gad_source=1

    https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/democr...ition=13642422

    https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational.../dp/0691138737

    https://www.amazon.com/Against-Democ.../dp/0691162603
    Okay. Well this is an easy misunderstanding to clear up. Your response where you said you disagreed with me and Protestants disagreed with me was you responding to a post where I gave scripture to support the position that post the Cross the Church isn't supposed to killing people over their beliefs. Do you agree or disagree with me on that? And if you disagree, what New Testament scripture can you use to point out my error? A list of books on the perils of democracy (which I probably agree with you on) doesn't help me understand your disagreement.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Treebeard View Post
    Great post.


    All I was saying was that I was focusing on history, not the claim that Rome was the head of the Church. I am on your side regarding that issue.


    But focusing on history, I would argue (and quote secular historians and give first-hand examples in my book Missing Monarchy) that many Popes and bishops resisted the kings and died for it. Over and again, they told them what they did not want to hear, limiting their power, influence, and ability to become tyrants. The Medieval Catholic Church (I also argue that it was not its modern form, nor was it the one Luther protested against) kept Liberty alive and prevented kings from becoming monarchs. It was only after its influence began to decay during the schism and 14th century that kings became true sovereigns and Monarchs, thus leading to tyranny.
    Good points. I know there were good bishops even in the church of Rome. I haven't done a study of the history to find specific examples. Sadly, the bad apples are quite numerous, so it will require some digging to find the good ones. But yes, the secularist smears of the church of Rome have to be resisted, even by Protestants who need to avoid the temptation to blindly agree to just any criticism of the church of Rome on partisan grounds. Rome has many problems but, when it comes to the faithful versus the Beast System, all believers are going to have to lock arms, regardless of which branch of the church they are from. I just hope and pray that this is not the only thing that would be able to unite us. I hope we can see reason and find unity without global persecution...
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Good points. I know there were good bishops even in the church of Rome. I haven't done a study of the history to find specific examples. Sadly, the bad apples are quite numerous, so it will require some digging to find the good ones. But yes, the secularist smears of the church of Rome have to be resisted, even by Protestants who need to avoid the temptation to blindly agree to just any criticism of the church of Rome on partisan grounds. Rome has many problems but, when it comes to the faithful versus the Beast System, all believers are going to have to lock arms, regardless of which branch of the church they are from. I just hope and pray that this is not the only thing that would be able to unite us. I hope we can see reason and find unity without global persecution...
    Amen
    Jeb Smith is the author of four books to date, the most recent being Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty. Before that, he authored Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, written under the name Isaac C. Bishop. Smith has authored multiple articles on various blogs and websites, including History is Now Magazine and Medieval History.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Straw man argument. I never said there was a papal bull. And if your argument is "It's not the true church when it does something wrong" Umm.....okay. Again, I only brought this up because, years ago, when I saw Eduardo (Catholic on this forum who was banned for using sock puppets) and T.E.R. (orthodox Christian who seems to have dropped off this form) arguing back and forth about what happened in Constantinople, Eduardo would bring up the Massacre Of The Latins as some sort of "Whataboutism" so I just mentioned if first. Regardless, anybody who puts someone to death for heresy, whether that person is Jew, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, is not following Christ at that moment. And people being put to death for heresy happened in the inquisition. I don't think the OP cleared up anything.
    I remember the conversation well.
    What I'm trying and failing to do is explain (again, if memory serves, as I was in that conversation) that the Massacre of the Latins is not "Whataboutism". It's an entirely different thing.
    I brought up the concept of the dictates of the Pope, in relation to the crusades, as an example of what the Roman Church did. They say the Pope is Christ's vicar and they teach that he calls the shots. In that organization, there is no room for argument: that church did the thing the pope did.

    Your words you wrote were 'And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." '
    You attributed the massacre to the Orthodox Church, and that is factually incorrect. You can't point to support for this action within the Church anywhere outside of a very nebulous claim by a university professor.

    I agree with you entirely that it doesn't matter what organizational support you have for something that is clearly wrong. "
    Regardless, anybody who puts someone to death for heresy, whether that person is Jew, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, is not following Christ at that moment. " Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But by attributing an individual's wrong action or even thousands of individual wrong actions to the Church is completely out of bounds for Orthodoxy. That is what differentiates us from Rome - we actually can say that and make sense. We didn't just reject 1500 years of how we understood the Church as talked about throughout the New Testament when it became inconvenient - we followed a predetermined, clearly defined theology on it.

    This is a large part of what the Great Schism of 1054 was about. Before that (remember this was less than 200 years prior to the massacre) all of Christendom was in communion and there were times (particularly during iconoclasm) that Rome was actually more correct than the rest of the Church, and we recognize that. But this is very similar to arguments about the American war of 1861-65: there was a proximate reason that everyone has been told was the reason it happened, and then there was the ultimate reason.

    In the case of Orthodoxy, the proximate reason for the Schism was the Filioque - Rome altered the Nicene Creed after the creed had been finalized, cemented, etched in stone for hundreds of years, by a Church-wide council. Yes, that was bad - but the ultimate reason for the Schism was that Rome was doing the exact thing we're talking about - taking preeminence over the entire Church, despite being clearly in the wrong. This is a millennium-old argument you've stepped into and all I'm trying to do is make sure you know you did, even if your wholesale rejection of the idea of the Church makes it difficult for you to understand what you did.

    Our understanding of the Church has always excluded the Church doing evil. We both see individual actors within the Church doing evil under the color of officiality. There is another option for how to deal with that intellectually besides complete rejection.

    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I remember the conversation well.
    What I'm trying and failing to do is explain (again, if memory serves, as I was in that conversation) that the Massacre of the Latins is not "Whataboutism". It's an entirely different thing.
    I brought up the concept of the dictates of the Pope, in relation to the crusades, as an example of what the Roman Church did. They say the Pope is Christ's vicar and they teach that he calls the shots. In that organization, there is no room for argument: that church did the thing the pope did.

    Your words you wrote were 'And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." '
    You attributed the massacre to the Orthodox Church, and that is factually incorrect. You can't point to support for this action within the Church anywhere outside of a very nebulous claim by a university professor.

    I agree with you entirely that it doesn't matter what organizational support you have for something that is clearly wrong. "
    Regardless, anybody who puts someone to death for heresy, whether that person is Jew, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, is not following Christ at that moment. " Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But by attributing an individual's wrong action or even thousands of individual wrong actions to the Church is completely out of bounds for Orthodoxy. That is what differentiates us from Rome - we actually can say that and make sense. We didn't just reject 1500 years of how we understood the Church as talked about throughout the New Testament when it became inconvenient - we followed a predetermined, clearly defined theology on it.

    This is a large part of what the Great Schism of 1054 was about. Before that (remember this was less than 200 years prior to the massacre) all of Christendom was in communion and there were times (particularly during iconoclasm) that Rome was actually more correct than the rest of the Church, and we recognize that. But this is very similar to arguments about the American war of 1861-65: there was a proximate reason that everyone has been told was the reason it happened, and then there was the ultimate reason.

    In the case of Orthodoxy, the proximate reason for the Schism was the Filioque - Rome altered the Nicene Creed after the creed had been finalized, cemented, etched in stone for hundreds of years, by a Church-wide council. Yes, that was bad - but the ultimate reason for the Schism was that Rome was doing the exact thing we're talking about - taking preeminence over the entire Church, despite being clearly in the wrong. This is a millennium-old argument you've stepped into and all I'm trying to do is make sure you know you did, even if your wholesale rejection of the idea of the Church makes it difficult for you to understand what you did.

    Our understanding of the Church has always excluded the Church doing evil. We both see individual actors within the Church doing evil under the color of officiality. There is another option for how to deal with that intellectually besides complete rejection.

    Just to be clear, and I think you keep missing this point, I didn't bring this up to attack the Orthodox church but rather to preempt an attack that I saw coming back from supporters of the Roman church since, as you recall, that's the way they've argued that point in the past. Since you agree with me that killing someone because of his religious beliefs is no more justified than clergy sexually molesting children, then I really don't have anything else to argue with you about this. From what I understand you saying, whatever Orthodox clergy might have been involved in the massacre of the Latins, that's no more official of Orthoxy than Olver Cromwell's persecution of Catholics is official of Protestantism. Fine. No argument then.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Good points. I know there were good bishops even in the church of Rome. I haven't done a study of the history to find specific examples. Sadly, the bad apples are quite numerous, so it will require some digging to find the good ones. But yes, the secularist smears of the church of Rome have to be resisted, even by Protestants who need to avoid the temptation to blindly agree to just any criticism of the church of Rome on partisan grounds. Rome has many problems but, when it comes to the faithful versus the Beast System, all believers are going to have to lock arms, regardless of which branch of the church they are from. I just hope and pray that this is not the only thing that would be able to unite us. I hope we can see reason and find unity without global persecution...
    Is there no clearer indication of the beast system than the current Bishop of Rome? Someone who offers a "blessing" to same sex couples, then says "But it's not for them as a couple but as individuals" then privately says "There's too much f*ggotry in the Jesuit order" then publicly apologizes for his own statement? At one point are people to heed the call "Come out of her my people lest ye partake of her plagues?"
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Is there no clearer indication of the beast system than the current Bishop of Rome? Someone who offers a "blessing" to same sex couples, then says "But it's not for them as a couple but as individuals" then privately says "There's too much f*ggotry in the Jesuit order" then publicly apologizes for his own statement? At one point are people to heed the call "Come out of her my people lest ye partake of her plagues?"
    Sure. But none of this is a surprise to us. Scripture prophesied from the very beginning that the church would be apostate, 2 Thess. 2:3. When I read this passage, it "seems" to indicate the church would have solidarity and unity until the very end, and then an apostasy would occur all at once. It appears from history that Paul actually meant that the church would be continually apostasizing, and there is also coming a Great Apostasy at the very end. This actually makes sense when you look at the history of Israel, which was continually idolatrous, right from day one, and was finally led off to the Babylonian captivity.

    Absolutely, the mere existence of the papacy is antichrist on its face. This can be seen from Matt. 23:9, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Protestants avoid calling anyone father, based on this verse, but I think that is a matter of conscience. The contrast being drawn here is not between a priest and the heavenly Father, rather, it is between a one-and-only "father" on earth, aka "The Father", aka "The Pope". So, it is the college of cardinals (and the rest of the Roman clergy) who are in error in giving the appellation to one, unique man, THE Father, on earth. Jesus told us we already have a Father, and he is in heaven. He is a spirit, John 4:24, not a human. I'm not going to fight you (generic) if you refer to your priest as father (spiritually), but to call one man, globally, THE Father, is blatant disobedience to the Lord's own command in Matthew 23:9. And no, the college of cardinals is not merely referring to the Pope as "father" (spiritually) in the way that a layman refers to their priest as father; rather, they are explicitly designating this one man as THE Father of the whole worldwide church, and they are emphatic that, from this title, he derives his imagined "authority" over the church. The entire construct is manifestly repugnant to the text of Scripture which is why Rome fought so hard to keep the Bible in Latin where only a very small minority of the population could read it, and that very small minority could be controlled from Rome by threats, bribes and, if necessary, murder. After the Bible became widely published in the vulgar tongues of Europe, the Reformation ensued immediately because any villager with the ability to sound out words off the page could directly see from the text that the papacy is apostate and antichrist.

    As for the "f*ggotry" quote, this is just a lame attempt to divert attention away from the blessing of gay-marriages. The Vatican is trying to spin around the Catholic conservatives with propaganda... "Well, I guess if the Pope talks like that behind closed doors, then he must not really be in favor of blessing gay marriages" even though that's exactly what he's in favor of, as proved by the letter permitting the blessing of gay marriages! It's really juvenile stuff, and quite transparent.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Okay. Well this is an easy misunderstanding to clear up. Your response where you said you disagreed with me and Protestants disagreed with me was you responding to a post where I gave scripture to support the position that post the Cross the Church isn't supposed to killing people over their beliefs. Do you agree or disagree with me on that? And if you disagree, what New Testament scripture can you use to point out my error? A list of books on the perils of democracy (which I probably agree with you on) doesn't help me understand your disagreement.

    You misunderstanding is in the assumption of the question you ask! We can talk next article. I think you are busy now anyways with others, no need to extra burden you my friend and brother in Christ! Thank you for your Ernest opinions and that you stick by them.
    Jeb Smith is the author of four books to date, the most recent being Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty. Before that, he authored Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, written under the name Isaac C. Bishop. Smith has authored multiple articles on various blogs and websites, including History is Now Magazine and Medieval History.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. What is the Truth About the Inquisitions?
    By 1stvermont in forum History
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-26-2017, 08:54 PM
  2. Correcting bad advice about marriage
    By jmdrake in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-30-2015, 11:32 AM
  3. Correcting Misconceptions
    By zjaws88 in forum Marketing Strategy, Influence & Persuasion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-18-2011, 02:36 PM
  4. Correcting common libertarian misconceptions
    By Conza88 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 11:12 AM
  5. Correcting a BBC Blog entry
    By abdulmismail in forum Bad Media Reporting on Ron Paul
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2008, 09:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •