5 ms·
It's widely forgotten that burning heretics was widely accepted in Christian theology, especially at the time. The rationale is quite simple: They believed in
by gjsman-1000 2y ago
It's widely forgotten that burning heretics was widely accepted in Christian theology, especially at the time.
The rationale is quite simple: They believed in an eternal Hell. Unrepentant heresy places you in eternal Hell. Hell also has levels and is not the same for everyone; not necessarily Dante's circles, but not far off. This is easily proven, just look at Saint Thomas Aquinas, who warned that sins against the deliberate intellect (heresy, blasphemy, schism) are much more inexcusable than sins of the passions and nature (lust, sloth); even if both are damnable. Vice versa, Heaven also has levels, and it was (and is) a pious opinion that no two people are ever at exactly the same level.
If Hell is eternal, and it is possible for you to make your own Hell worse, killing you if you refuse to repent directly prevents you from making your eternal punishment worse. It also prevents bringing other people with you, and the guilt you would bear for influencing other people. In a way, it is an act of charity to other people and yourself; causing some Saints and scholars to comment at the time to do otherwise would actually be hateful. There's also the issue of, if someone was going to repent, the logical assumption that going to the noose or stake is a much stronger motivator than dying in your sleep at 73.
In line with the above, the very act of burning itself was seen as somewhat of a charity. A public spectacle to warn against following them (charity to the viewers); but also a constant suggestion, even to the end, to the burned of what is waiting for them eternally, giving them one last chance to repent. For what it's worth though, Historians tell us that most of the burned died by suffocation and not by the actual burning, which would have been probably also been known at the time.
(Worth remembering, both the Reformers and the original Catholics burned at the stake for similar rationales.)
- flerchin 2y agoThey burned people, alive, for literally nothing. Your 4 paragraphs of apologia are simply that.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoI have no doubt, nor question, that some people were burned alive, for no actual crime; just as I have no doubt, nor question, that some people are imprisoned for stupid reasons today. The principles matter; and explaining the cold logic behind it, should not be interpreted as an apologia. On that note, "for nothing" implies an automatic bias towards lack of belief; not shared by the majority of people on earth. While Christians no longer burn at the stake, Islamic countries still stone for adultery.
- fifticon 2y agoif it matches what happened in my country during the witch hunt era, people were often burned so other people could take their loot. That is, there was a strong alignment between who drove the accusations, and who stood to gain from the victim's untimely death.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoQuite possibly; however, it's very difficult to say due to lack of data and no way to prove it one way or the other. I do know that within Christian theological circles, this would have been considered an abhorrent crime of bearing false witness, just as it has always been. The other reason it's difficult is the sheer prevalence, even in our modern culture, of the Black Legend which injected all sorts of myths regarding the Inquisition and Medieval culture. For example, the Inquisition rarely used torture, Torquemada only had 1% of his heretics executed, and there is only one documented instance of a woman ever being racked (and it wasn't even part of the Inquisition). The effects of the Black Legend were so extreme, that to quote the modern European historian Elvira Roca Barea: "If we deprive Europe of its hispanophobia and anti-Catholicism, its modern history becomes incomprehensible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend Or, if that sounds too boring, broad, or controversial, here's History for Atheists admitting the Inquisition and witch hunts is one of the dumbest arguments for atheism, due to heavy involvement of commonly accepted myths: https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-the-inquisition-myths-and-history/ https://historyforatheists.com/2024/02/the-great-myths-14-th...
- jandrese 2y agoPeople like to paint the witch burners as ignorant, but they knew exactly what they were doing. Evil people using religion to give cover for their actions goes back forever.
- toasterlovin 2y agoHaving just lived through a period where witch hunts were popular, my impression is very much that most people involved in them were misguided and perhaps only a select few were truly opportunistically evil.
- MisterTea 2y agoRight. And understanding the why requires one to put aside their feelings and analyze the unsavory. Reducing everything to knee-jerk call outs does nothing for anyone.
- bregma 2y agoIt seems to me "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear and unambiguous. All I can say is history is inevitably determined by the sick fucks that rise to the top.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoEven an amateur Christian theologian can tell you that this only refers to unjust death / murder; as the original Hebrew text also espouses more clearly than the English translation (לא תרצח - lo tirtsah, form of ratzach, murder). The Ten Commandments also come from the book of Leviticus Chapter 19 and not just Exodus, and Leviticus 20 onward is well known for the death penalty for several offenses described in the broader Mosaic Law; forming the religious objection that otherwise, God's chosen leader (Moses) himself ordered violations of the 10 Commandments in the very same book.
- mr_toad 2y ago> Even an amateur Christian theologian can tell you that this only refers to unjust death / murder It’s only an assumption that the mis-translation was unintentional. It could have been quite deliberate. Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoIf it was deliberate, how do you know it was innocent? Also, while I know the quote, that’s not the same as never dealing death and judgement. Tolkien was not a pacifist, but a soldier.
- havblue 2y agoFunny story. On YouTube someone posted the following verse in response to current events. "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them." Leviticus 19:33... So I of course responded that there are a lot of verses that they don't agree with in chapters 18-20 related to the death penalty. YouTube subsequently shadow banned me.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- analog31 2y agoIn addition, the words of a heretic were believed to be a mortal threat to the eternal lives of those who might hear them. So heresy was the spiritual equivalent of randomly spraying bullets into a crowded place with a machine gun. The beliefs have not changed, but democratic society has moderated their effects.
- nathan_compton 2y agoThere were atheists in every age. I think its pointless to blame dead people for dead people stuff but I don't think the prevailing belief system exonerates them either.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoWell, I frankly think that it’s pretty minor compared to what happened when atheists got the 20th century. Communism was their moment to shine, was the de facto system advocated by atheists during that time period, and to put it mildly, they blew it and any moral credibility to criticize religion with it. I’ll gladly take 32,000 for the entire Inquisition over another Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, or Vietnamese revolution. Atheists need to own their history too.
- stickfigure 2y agoTell me, what particular tenet of atheism produced communism and its murderous history? It's pretty clear where the inspiration for the Inquisition came from.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago“Religion is the opium of the masses.” - Karl Marx “Religion is the soul of soulless conditions.” - Karl Marx “Communism begins where atheism begins.” - Karl Marx But seriously, there’s a whole Wikipedia article on the origins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_ath... The early communists did not hide this connection. Guess what one of the first agencies in the new USSR was called? The League of Militant Atheists. Ironically, the league was responsible for more deaths by itself than the Inquisition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists As for why atheism often leads to communism, the reason is fairly simple. Atheists like to pretend that they are only responsible for one tenant of belief: “I don’t believe in a God.” This is not actually true. Imagine if a country puts in a law banning adultery, with heavy fines for doing so. The atheist would likely be angry, even if everyone else in the country agreed with the law. Why should they? There’s no God saying that’s wrong; it’s just a personal opinion like preferring a red car over a blue car. It turns out there’s actually a second tenant: “Any law or penalty or qualm of conscience, imposed solely by religion, without a justifiable ground outside of religion, shall be considered an unjust oppression, which must be destroyed.” An oppression, not live and let live, not merely an inconvenience, even if the majority is fine with it. That’s where violence begins, and the preference for an inherently Godless (and inherently anti-religious) society originates. The two then are as impossible to reconcile as oil and water; one must be comfortably under the thumb of the other if any tolerance is to be had. If one ever loses the upper hand, or the two become an equilibrium, violence will immediately start - an Inquisition on one hand, a League of Militant Atheists on the other.