Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 29
Send Topic Print
Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam (Read 39469 times)
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #270 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 6:08pm
 
§. "Vatican Churchmen “Helped Nazis Escape” ", The Independent, 6 th January 1988 citing Cardinal Franz König in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronath.

§. C. Y. Glock and R. Stark, Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism, Harper & Row (New York, 1966).

[Source]
     
And no Christians ever committed any atrocities, right, Moses?

And no Christians raised their voices to protest against these heinous crimes?   Tsk, tsk, you're all complicit.   Absolutely disgusting.    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #271 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 6:09pm
 
the board liar: Reply #260 - Today at 5:53pm
Quote:
Still waiting on your evidence of my excusing anything, Moses.

Here, this is another spot you can write in:


Page after page of excuses depicting the deeds of men who deliberately disobeyed their saviour.

Page after page of you trying to prove these men were true Christians when they were in direct contravention of the teachings of Christ.

Why do you do this?

Oh that's right.

Because one truth has you on the run: muslims who commit atrocities are obeying the qur'an.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #272 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 6:35pm
 
moses wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 6:09pm:
the board liar: Reply #260 - Today at 5:53pm
Quote:
Still waiting on your evidence of my excusing anything, Moses.

Here, this is another spot you can write in:


Page after page of excuses depicting the deeds of men who deliberately disobeyed their saviour.

Page after page of you trying to prove these men were true Christians when they were in direct contravention of the teachings of Christ.

Why do you do this?


Because I don't like real liars and you are a real, bone fide, liar, Moses.

You bear false witness against innocent Muslims.  You break your own Ninth Commandment.

Until you produce proof I have excused anything any Muslim has done,  you stand as a liar.

I have provided you with plenty of chances to prove your claim and you have FAILED.   Failed miserably.

Just as you have failed miserably to prove that all these persecuting Christians weren't Christians - as recognised by the Church(es) and their fellow Christians.   As recognised by you because your silence is complicity in their acts, Moses.   Their heinous acts of persecution, all committed in your God's name.   Tsk, tsk.  Tsk, tsk.   Naughty, naughty.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #273 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 7:11pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:15pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:10pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:04pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:01pm:
Yes, Brian, but there are some nice Christians, you have to admit.


Fewer and farther between them, Karnal.  Moses is one of the worse examples.  He disgusts me.   Angry


He means well though. Deep down, I mean.


He chooses to persecute innocent people simply because they worship a different religion to him.   Why am I reminded of Pastor Niemöller's words about the Jews?

    Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


I refuse not to speak out for all my friends who are Muslim.   People I have served in the army with, studied with, taught and work with.   They are harmless people.   Just as the Jews were in Nazi Germany.

Moses chooses to persecute people because he hates their religion.   Tsk, tsk.   Roll Eyes


Yes, but that's Moses' religion, he just got it a bit mixed up.

When the Bible said if ye hath not love ye art nothing, Moses thought it said it said hate.

An easy mistake to make. Still, we must respect Moses' spiritual views, no?

We have neither the right or ability to criticise.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #274 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 7:16pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 6:35pm:
moses wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 6:09pm:
the board liar: Reply #260 - Today at 5:53pm
Quote:
Still waiting on your evidence of my excusing anything, Moses.

Here, this is another spot you can write in:


Page after page of excuses depicting the deeds of men who deliberately disobeyed their saviour.

Page after page of you trying to prove these men were true Christians when they were in direct contravention of the teachings of Christ.

Why do you do this?


Because I don't like real liars and you are a real, bone fide, liar, Moses.

You bear false witness against innocent Muslims.  You break your own Ninth Commandment.

Until you produce proof I have excused anything any Muslim has done,  you stand as a liar.

I have provided you with plenty of chances to prove your claim and you have FAILED.   Failed miserably.

Just as you have failed miserably to prove that all these persecuting Christians weren't Christians - as recognised by the Church(es) and their fellow Christians.   As recognised by you because your silence is complicity in their acts, Moses.   Their heinous acts of persecution, all committed in your God's name.   Tsk, tsk.  Tsk, tsk.   Naughty, naughty.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


That's true too, Brian. The only way Moses can redeem himself is to renounce his evil moon god Jehovah.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #275 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 9:17pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 7:11pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:15pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:10pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:04pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:01pm:
Yes, Brian, but there are some nice Christians, you have to admit.


Fewer and farther between them, Karnal.  Moses is one of the worse examples.  He disgusts me.   Angry


He means well though. Deep down, I mean.


He chooses to persecute innocent people simply because they worship a different religion to him.   Why am I reminded of Pastor Niemöller's words about the Jews?

    Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


I refuse not to speak out for all my friends who are Muslim.   People I have served in the army with, studied with, taught and work with.   They are harmless people.   Just as the Jews were in Nazi Germany.

Moses chooses to persecute people because he hates their religion.   Tsk, tsk.   Roll Eyes


Yes, but that's Moses' religion, he just got it a bit mixed up.

When the Bible said if ye hath not love ye art nothing, Moses thought it said it said hate.

An easy mistake to make. Still, we must respect Moses' spiritual views, no?

We have neither the right or ability to criticise.


Why not?  He has taught me to hate, Karnal and now I know how to hate, I hate well.   I hate lying, conniving, Ninth Commandment breaking Christians like Moses.  Am I not a good student?    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47066
At my desk.
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #276 - Feb 23rd, 2018 at 10:26pm
 
Brian can you help us make sense of this?

freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2018 at 10:07pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 8th, 2018 at 1:57pm:
In the New World Christianity is believed to have killed over tens of millions of Native Americans under the Spanish Conquistadori.   Judaism has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in their illegally occupied lands.   


Brian Ross wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 9:25pm:
Tsk, tsk, Christianity has killed millions upon millions of innocent people with it's "positivity".    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15th, 2018 at 9:35pm:
Quote:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15th, 2018 at 7:38pm:
Christianity resisted the anti-Slavery push for a long, long time, Augie.   In the US, Churches were still claiming Biblical inspiration for Slavery until the Civil War stopped them.   Roll Eyes


So, did every other culture and religion resist slavery? What's your point? That because Christianity resisted it also, means that we shouldn't recognise that it was the first to abolish it?


Christianity didn't abolish it.  Christians did.  There is a difference, Augie.   Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #277 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 1:23pm
 
Oh boy aren't the excusers of islamic atrocities just so touching with their heart wrenching self righteous hypocrisy.

One simple fact has got them in a real flap.

That truth is?

Men who commit depravity are in direct contravention of the teachings of Jesus

conversly.

muslims who perpetrate the foulest of human rights atrocities against their fellow man, are following the preachings of muhammad to the very letter.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #278 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:05pm
 
moses wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 1:23pm:
Oh boy aren't the excusers of islamic atrocities just so touching with their heart wrenching self righteous hypocrisy.

One simple fact has got them in a real flap.

That truth is?

Men who commit depravity are in direct contravention of the teachings of Jesus


Yet, they, like you, still called themselves "Christian", hey, Moses?  They, just like you, were hypocrites.  How bloody typical of the self-righteous, how bloody typical of the bastards, hey?  Tsk, tsk, Moses.  Here, lets read a little more how nice Christians were.  This will be a favourite of Bobby's, I think:


The Inquisition

Quote:
The principle of the Inquisition was murderous ... The popes were not only murderers in the great style, but they also made murder a legal basis of the Christian Church and a condition for salvation.

Lord Acton (1834-1902)

The term Inquisition is somewhat misleading in that over the centuries there have been a number of inquisitions. They have been directed against all of the groups we have looked at — Pagans and supposed Witches, dissenting sects, Cathars, Jews, Heretics, Philosophers, Freethinkers, Blasphemers, Apostates, Humanists, Pantheists, Unitarians, Deists and Atheists as well as Muslims, Hindus and members of other religions.

    The Medieval Inquisition and the Knights Templar
    The Spanish Inquisition
    The Portuguese and Goan Inquisitions
    The Roman Inquisition


In 1184 Pope Lucius III and the Emperor Frederick formulated a programme for the repression of heretics. This document, Ad abolendum, is sometimes known as the charter of the Inquisition, because it set the tone for future developments. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 ordered all bishops to hold an annual inquisition, if there was a suspicion of heresy in their See. But these Episcopal inquisitions were found to be inadequate for the task.

The Medieval Inquisition

A roving papal Inquisition was set up in 1231 by Pope Gregory IX. He extended existing legislation against heretics and introduced the death penalty for them — indeed for anyone who dissented from his views. Initially intended to be temporary, this Inquisition was used to extirpate surviving Cathars in the Languedoc. Anyone accused or "defamed" was treated as guilty, and no one once defamed got off without some punishment. After 1227 inquisitorial commissions were granted only to the friars, usually to the Dominicans. The Inquisition was now the "Dominican Inquisition". Dominic Guzmán's threats of slavery and death for the citizens of the Languedoc were fulfilled for a second time. First the massacres, now the Inquisition. The Bishop of Toulouse marked the canonisation of St Dominic on his first Saint's Day (4 th August 1234) by burning a woman for her Cathar beliefs. She had confessed to him as she lay sick in bed with a fever. She was carried to a field, still on her sickbed, and consigned to the flames, without any trial. The churchmen then repaired for their celebratory mbanquet, at which they thanked Saint Dominic for his miraculous assistance.1.

All of the legal apparatus of the Inquisition was developed during this period. Elsewhere, courts followed at least the basic rules of justice: the accused knew their accusers, they were allowed legal representation, in some places judgement was delivered by a jury composed of peers of the accused. The old bishops" inquisitions had been public hearings, but these papal inquisitions were different: now secret hearings took place before clerical judges and prosecutors. Guilt was assumed from the start. There were no juries, and no legal representation for the accused. There was no habeas corpus; no disclosure of any evidence against the accused, and no appeal. Inquisitors were allowed to excuse each other for breaches of the rules — which meant that in effect there were no rules*. There were secret depositions and anonymous accusations, torture and unlimited detention in appalling conditions for those who failed to confess. Dead people were tried along with the living. When found guilty their children were disinherited. At least half the estate generally went to the Church — so that the Church had a direct material interest in a guilty verdict. Children and grandchildren of those found guilty were all debarred from any secular office.

Gregory IX's immediate successor died before assuming the reins of office, but the next pope, Innocent IV, made the Inquisition into a permanent institution. In 1252 he issued a bull Ad extirpanda, which explicitly authorised the use of torture, seizure of goods and execution, all on minimal evidence. Torture was to be administered by the secular authority, but when this proved impractical the inquisitors were allowed to administer it themselves (and to absolve each other for doing so). Thereafter it was an exceptional man, woman or child who could not quickly be convinced of his or her heresy.               
[cont'd]
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #279 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:06pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 9:17pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 7:11pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:15pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:10pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:04pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 5:01pm:
Yes, Brian, but there are some nice Christians, you have to admit.


Fewer and farther between them, Karnal.  Moses is one of the worse examples.  He disgusts me.   Angry


He means well though. Deep down, I mean.


He chooses to persecute innocent people simply because they worship a different religion to him.   Why am I reminded of Pastor Niemöller's words about the Jews?

    Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


I refuse not to speak out for all my friends who are Muslim.   People I have served in the army with, studied with, taught and work with.   They are harmless people.   Just as the Jews were in Nazi Germany.

Moses chooses to persecute people because he hates their religion.   Tsk, tsk.   Roll Eyes


Yes, but that's Moses' religion, he just got it a bit mixed up.

When the Bible said if ye hath not love ye art nothing, Moses thought it said it said hate.

An easy mistake to make. Still, we must respect Moses' spiritual views, no?

We have neither the right or ability to criticise.


Why not?  He has taught me to hate, Karnal and now I know how to hate, I hate well.   I hate lying, conniving, Ninth Commandment breaking Christians like Moses.  Am I not a good student?    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not really, Brian. The student must first find a good teacher. Learning from a Christian who confuses love with hate is bound to get you all mixed up, as every schoolboy knows.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #280 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:07pm
 
In theory torture could be applied only once, and could not be such as to draw blood, to cause permanent mutilation or to kill. Boys under the age of 14 and girls under 12 were excused. In practice there was no one to enforce any of these safeguards, and they were all ignored. The accused were imprisoned, often for many months, before being examined. They were often kept in solitary confinement, in unsanitary conditions, in a dark dungeon, and without adequate heating, food or water. This was deliberate, and designed to ensure that most of the accused would already have broken by the time of the first examination. Only the strongest characters were able to face a tribunal of hooded figures who claimed to have heard witnesses and seen incriminating evidence. Most were prepared to admit anything, even though they did not know what the accusations were. Those who failed to admit their crimes were taken to the torture chamber and shown the instruments of torture. This too was designed to terrify and break them — the dark chamber, the horrifying instruments, the torturer-executioner dressed and hooded in black. If they still failed to admit their guilt they were then subjected to torture: men, women and children alike. Some people were tortured for years before confessing. Only the most exceptional could resist. Every day they risked being tortured to death*.

Tortures varied from time to time and place to place, but the following represent the more popular options. Victims were stripped and bound. The cords were tied around the body and limbs in such a way that they could be tightened, by a windlass if necessary, until they acted like multiple tourniquets. By attaching the cords to a pulley the victim could be hoisted off the ground for hours, then dropped. Whether the victim was pulled up short before the weight touched the floor, or allowed to fall to the floor, the pain was acute. This was the torture of the pulley, also known as squassation }. It was also called the strappado, (by which name we have already encountered it being used at Bamberg). John Howard, the prison reformer, found this still in use in Rome in the second half of the eighteenth century*.

The rack was a favourite for dislocating limbs. Again, the victim could be flogged, bathed in scalding water with lime, and have their eyes removed with purpose designed eye-gougers. Fingernails were pulled out. Grésillons (thumbscrews) were applied to thumbs and big toes until the bones were crushed. The victim was forced to sit on a spiked iron chair that could be heated by a fire underneath until it glowed red-hot. Branding irons and red-hot pincers were also used. The victim's feet could be placed in a wooden frame called a boot. Wedges were then hammered in until the bones shattered, and the "blood and marrow spouted forth in great abundance". Alternatively the feet could be held over an open fire, and literally roasted until the bones fell out; or they could be placed in huge leather boots into which boiling water was poured, or in metal boots into which molten lead was poured. Since the holy proceedings were conducted for the greater glory of God the instruments of torture were sprinkled with holy water.

Whole families were accused. Family members would often be induced to incriminate each other in order to minimise the suffering of their loved ones. Minor heretics who confessed might escape with light sentences, whereas denial invited trouble. The inquisitor Conrad of Marburg (or Konrad von Marburg) burned every victim who claimed to be innocent.

Hearings of the Inquisition denied every aspect of natural justice, and became ever more prejudiced as time went on. They were held in secret, generally conducted by men whose identities were concealed. In the Papal States and elsewhere, Dominicans acted as both judges and prosecutors. By papal command they were forbidden to show mercy. There was no appeal. The evidence of embittered husbands and wives, children, servants and persons heretical, excommunicated, perjured and criminal could be used, secretly and without their having to face the accused, their charges being communicated to the victim only in summary form.
[cont'd]
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #281 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:08pm
 
moses wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 1:23pm:
Oh boy aren't the excusers of islamic atrocities just so touching with their heart wrenching self righteous hypocrisy.

One simple fact has got them in a real flap.

That truth is?

Men who commit depravity are in direct contravention of the teachings of Jesus.


Good point, Moses.

When Yeheshua said "who amongst us is free of sin?". he meant:

Ban them.

Kill them.

Cesterete them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #282 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:08pm
 
No genuine defence could be sustained. For example, if a husband provided an alibi, saying that his wife had been asleep in his arms when she was alleged to have been attending a witches" sabbat, it would be explained to him that a demon had adopted the form of his wife while she was away. The husband had been duped. There was no way for him to prove otherwise. Spies were employed with the incentive of payment by results. Perjury was pardoned if it was the outcome of "zeal for the faith" — i.e. supporting the prosecution. Loyalties were over-ridden so that obedience to a superior was forbidden if it hindered the inquiry, and those who helped the inquisitors were granted the same indulgences as pilgrims to the Holy Land. Any advocates acting for and any witnesses giving evidence on behalf of a suspect laid themselves open to charges of abetting heresy. No one was ever acquitted, a released person always being liable to re-arrest and a condemned person liable to a revised sentence with no retrial, at the discretion of the inquisitor. In theory torture could be inflicted only once, but in practice it was repeated as often as necessary on the pretext that it was a single occurrence, with intervals between the sessions. Confessions were virtually guaranteed unless the victim died under torture. Then came the sentence, and execution of the sentence:

    ...The obdurate and relapsed were taken outside the church and handed to the magistrates with a recommendation to mercy and instruction that no blood be shed. The supreme hypocrisy of this was that if the magistrate did not burn the victims on the following day, he was himself liable to be charged with abetting heresy*.

Almost everyone fell within their jurisdiction. People were executed for failing to fast during Lent, for homosexuality, fornication, explaining scientific discoveries, and even for professional acting.

In order that no blood be shed, the favoured methods of execution did not involve the cutting of flesh. So it was that burning and roasting were popular, the stake having been inherited from Roman law. Estates of those found guilty were forfeit, after the deduction of expenses. Expenses included the costs of the investigation, torture, trial, imprisonment and execution. The accused bore it all, including wine for the guards, meals for the judges, and travel expenses for the torturer. Victims were even charged for the ropes to bind them and the tar and wood to burn them. Generally, after paying these expenses, half of the balance of the estate went to the inquisitors and half to the Pope, or a temporal lord. This proved such an efficient way of raising money that it became popular to try the dead as well as the living. Bones were dug up and burned, even after many years in the grave. As in trials of the living, there were no acquittals, and the heretic's property was forfeit. In practice this meant that the heirs of the deceased were dispossessed of their inheritances.

The Knights Templar

The trial of the Knights Templar demonstrates how unjust the Inquisition could be. The charges of heresy against them were almost certainly fabricated. No real evidence was ever produced to support the accusations. The best that could be managed was hearsay evidence such as that of a priest (William de la Forde) who had heard from another priest (Patrick de Ripon) that a Templar had once told him, under the inviolable seal of confession, about some rather improbable goings on*. Inquisitors obtained the most damning evidence through the use of torture. In countries where torture was not permitted, the Templars denied the charges, however badly they were otherwise treated and however long they were imprisoned. As soon as torture was applied the required confessions materialised*. Inquisitors refused to attach their seals to depositions unless they included confessions*, so that only one side of the case appeared in official records. In France, where torture was applied freely, there were many confessions, and also many deaths under torture. Accused templars who retracted their confessions faced death at the stake as relapsed heretics.

Wherever the charges were investigated without applying torture, no confessions were made and no other evidence found. When no English Templars could be induced to confess, the Pope insisted that torture be applied When the Archbishop of Mainz delivered a verdict favourable to the Templars at a provincial council, the Pope simply annulled it*. When it looked as though the Templars in Cyprus might be acquitted, the Pope ordered a new trial backed by torture*. When the fate of the Templars was considered at the Council of Vienne late in 1311 the cardinals had "a long dispute" as to whether a defence should be heard at all*. In the event no defence was heard and the Pope enforced the King of France's demand that the Order be suppressed.
[cont'd]
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #283 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:09pm
 
Under torture, the Templar Grand Master himself, Jacques de Molay, confessed — though it is likely that his confession was fabricated or at least added to, since he was dumbfounded when it was read out to him. When he tried to mount a defence on behalf of the Templar Order, he was told that "in cases of heresy and the faith it was necessary to proceed simply, summarily, and without the noise of advocates and the form of judges"*. Since all of the Order's assets had been seized there was in any case no way for him to mount an effective defence. By asking to do so he invited death at the stake, as a number of churchmen pointed out at the time.

After years in prison and unknown amounts of torture he confessed in exchange for the promise of a sentence of perpetual imprisonment. The sentence was to be delivered in public, but did not go as planned. As an expert on the Inquisition, put it:

Quote:
    "The cardinals dallied with their duty until 18 March 1314, when, on a scaffold in front of Notre Dame, Jacques de Molay, Templar Grand Master, Geoffroi de Charney, Master of Normandy, Hugues de Peraud, Visitor of France, and Godefroi de Gonneville, Master of Aquitaine, were brought forth from the jail in which for nearly seven years they had lain, to receive the sentence agreed upon by the cardinals, in conjunction with the Archbishop of Sens and some other prelates whom they had called in. Considering the offences which the culprits had confessed and confirmed, the penance imposed was in accordance with rule—that of perpetual imprisonment. The affair was supposed to be concluded when, to the dismay of the prelates and wonderment of the assembled crowd, de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney arose. They had been guilty, they said, not of the crimes imputed to them, but of basely betraying their Order to save their own lives. It was pure and holy; the charges were fictitious and the confessions false. Hastily the cardinals delivered them to the Prevot of Paris, and retired to deliberate on this unexpected contingency, but they were saved all trouble. When the news was carried to Philippe he was furious. A short consultation with his council only was required. The canons pronounced that a relapsed heretic was to be burned without a hearing; the facts were notorious and no formal judgment by the papal commission need be waited for. That same day, by sunset, a pile was erected on a small island in the Seine, the Isle des Juifs, near the palace garden. There de Molay and de Charney were slowly burned to death, refusing all offers of pardon for retraction, and bearing their torment with a composure which won for them the reputation of martyrs among the people, who reverently collected their ashes as relics."

    (Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages Vol. III, NY: Hamper & Bros, Franklin Sq. 1888, p. 325)

Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney were roasted alive, slowly, over a smokeless fire. (A document known as the Chinon Parchment, discovered in September 2001 by Barbara Frale in the Vatican Secret Archives, confirms that Pope Clement V knew Jacques de Molay and other leaders of the Order to be innocent as early as 1208).

Templar assets were divided up between Church and State, and interest in the fates of individual Templars immediately subsided.

The activities of the Medieval Inquisition were so terrible that the memory of them has survived throughout Europe to the present day. Some Christians acknowledge that the Inquisition was one of the most sinister that the world has ever known, and now attribute its work to satanic forces. On the other hand there are many others prepared to defend its record.

The Spanish Inquisition

The Medieval Inquisition was established in Barcelona in 1233. Five years later its authority was extended to Castile, Leon and Navarre. This was essentially an extension of the Inquisition established to extirpate the remnants of Catharism. Over 200 years later another inquisition was to appear : the Spanish Inquisition. Their Roman Catholic Majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella, established it in 1479, with the explicit sanction of Pope Sixtus IV, who in 1483 also confirmed the Dominican friar Thomas de Torquemada as Grand Inquisitor for Aragon and Castile. The Inquisition was initially directed against Jewish and Muslim converts who were suspected of returning to their own religion, and thus being guilty of apostasy. (Many had converted to Christianity only under threat of death.)

The first European who regularly smoked tobacco, Rodrigo de Jerez, a crewman on the Santa Maria was imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition for his "sinful and infernal" habits, because "only Devil could give a man the power to exhale smoke from his mouth." He was released seven years later, after smoking tobacco had become popular.

The process was much the same as that of the Medieval Inquisition, and indeed was deliberately modelled on it. It too was manned mainly by Dominicans. They copied the methods of arrest, trial, punishment, staffing, and procedure, even down to the blessing of the instruments of torture. Llorente, vicar-general to the bishop of Calahorra and historian of the Inquisition, computed that Torquemada and his collaborators, in the course of eighteen years, burnt at the stake 10,220 persons, 6,860 in effigy, and otherwise punished 97,321.
[Cont'd]
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam
Reply #284 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:11pm
 

There were a few differences from the Medieval Inquisition, for example there were cases where people were able to mount a defence and were acquitted. Better records were kept. Some inquisitors seem to have been relatively enlightened and were suspicious of accusations motivated by the self-interest of accusers. Prisons seem to have been better than most ecclesiastical prisons — there are cases of people committing minor heresies in order to get themselves transferred from ecclesiastical prisons to those of the Inquisition. On the other hand, this may say more about ecclesiastical prisons than Inquisition prisons, for even in the latter many died before their cases were heard. In the early days the accused were able to appoint their own defence counsel, but by the mid-sixteenth century this had changed. If advocates were permitted they had to be abogados de los presos, officials of the Inquisition, dependent upon the inquisitors for their jobs. It is fair to assume, as their clients did, that these court officials were aware of their employers" expectations and of the dangers of doing their jobs too well.

It was widely accepted that the Inquisition existed only to rob people, as people openly affirmed*. Both rich and poor knew that it was the rich who were most at risk. The fact that the Inquisition funded itself from the property it confiscated meant that in effect it burned people on commission. Individual inquisitors also funded themselves, acquiring great wealth during their careers. Some inquisitors were known to have fabricated evidence in order to extort money from their victims, but even when discovered they received no punishment*. Similarly their staff of helpers, called familiars, were free to commit crimes without fear of punishment by the secular courts*. After 1518 this was formalised. Familiars enjoyed immunity from prosecution similar to benefit of clergy or modern diplomatic immunity. This provided another cause of popular scandal, along with their exemption from taxation.

The activities of the inquisitors were resented by all sections of society, and the papacy was obliged to interfere from time to time, although the inquisitors were powerful enough to ignore it on many occasions. Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull on 18 th April 1482 protesting that

    in Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth, and that many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many*

When someone was arrested all of his or her property was seized. This was then sold off as required to pay for the upkeep of the person arrested. This might go on for years until the property was all sold off. The families of the accused were not supported, so they also suffered hardships. In some cases the children of rich parents starved in the streets*. Others survived by begging. The King, Ferdinand, intervened from time to time, and later, in 1561, provision was made to support dependents — although the effect was to use up the sequestered assets that much faster.

The accused were invited to confess their crimes but not told what these crimes were. Sometimes it was difficult to guess, as any of the following were considered serious crimes: changing bedding on a Friday, not eating pork, dressing in certain ways, wearing earrings, speaking in foreign languages, owning foreign books, casual swearing, criticising a priest, or failing to show due reverence to the Inquisition. Three methods of torture were popular, the garrucha, the toca and the potro. The garrucha was the strappado (see page 378) under another name. The toca was a water torture. A linen strip was forced down the throat of the accused and water poured down it until the stomach was distended. The potro was a form of rack combined with tourniquets.

Surviving records of these torture sessions make harrowing reading*. As the torture progressed the victims were soon ready to admit to anything. They would admit to having done whatever they were accused of. But since they did not know the specifics of the accusation they could not admit to them item by item. More torture was applied. They admitted to whatever their accusers had said, but again they could not be specific because they did not know what their accusers had said. More torture was applied. They begged for clues. They begged for mercy. They were told to confess. They confessed to crimes, real or invented, apparently whatever they could think of. They asked what it was the inquisitors wanted and offered to confess to it whatever it was — still not good enough. More torture was applied. And so it went on, sometimes until they went mad. Sometimes they died under tortured. Many died in prison. Others committed suicide. Of the survivors some were disabled for life.
[Cont'd]

Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 29
Send Topic Print