Yes, by the Spanish government, not by the Church. See above. Torture methods used by the Inquisition were generally mild. The most common torture was withholding food for up to 24 hours. It was common for people accused of crimes in the secular courts to commit heresy so they could be tried by the much more lenient Church tribunals. Admittedly some inquisitors were violent and cruel. But they were punished for excesses. Most of what people know about the Inquisition is based on the "Black Legend" and not actual examination of the political climate of the time and actions of the Inquisition. Again by the state government. The ecclesiastical courts only judged if someone had committed heresy or not. All sentences were levied by state courts. This may be an inflated statistic. From wikipedia. All that being said, how does that diminish the teaching authority of the Church? I have a strong feeling you are being heavily influenced by the Black Legend. In actuality very few women and children were tortured. The torture methods used were very mild compared to those used by state courts in Europe at the time. You should also realize that all these trials took place over 300 years, and got gradually milder over time. By the time of the protestant revolution the worst of the inquisition had ended.
Ohhh ok it's ok for the "infallible" church to torture women and children, as long as it's just many hundreds and not thousands... As long as we are talking about the infallible Catholic Church, how about we mention some of the despicably evil Popes that history has blessed us with? http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/borgias/2.html http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/0670886939 How about recent the high level cover-ups of child molesting priests by Cardinal and Bishop level priests? Is that also part of this infallible Church?
no church is infallible because it is made up of people. no organization, association, group, etc can be infallible because individual motives win out over a church covenant. doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that He slumbers or sleeps, it means that people are.
Could you share this evidence with us? I think that there is strong faith at work, a belief system that allows broad interpretations, and certainly there is a real possibility of God's existence. But that is not rational evidence. In light of this lack of evidence, martin's contention that God is imaginary is also a real possibility. I believe in a Creator. I do not know if the creator is a being or a diety or a phenomenon. This belief is not rational and is not supported by evidence. It's just a notion that I have that if there is a creation, there must be a creator. But I recognize it as a personal belief and I do not claim that there is rational evidence to support it. Frisbetarians believe that when you die, your soul sails up on the roof and you can't get it down. It is an interesting notion, but there is also no rational evidence to support it. Beliefs do not require any supporting evidence--matters of faith cannot be supported logically. But logic does require supporting evidence--matters of logic cannot be supported by faith. Since both faith and logic are at play here, perhaps it is only neccessary to recognize the two and be more careful how we speak. If martin proclaims that he believes the Flying Spaghetti Monster is God, then I can accept that. He is entitled to his beliefs, however unusual. But if he were to proclaim that it is a fact that there isrational evidence proving the existence of the Flying Spahetti Monster, I must ask to see that evidence and determine if it can stand up to logical and scientific scrutiny.
OK, see Wikipedia: "The term Inquisition (Latin: Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis Sanctum Officium) refers broadly to a number of historical movements orchestrated by the Roman Catholic Church aimed at securing religious and doctrinal unity through the conversion, and sometimes persecution, of alleged heretics." The governments were not secular and were tools of the Church in this endeavor. Again from Wikipedia: "In order to interrogate the criminals, the Inquisition made use of torture, but not in a systematic way. It was applied mainly against those suspected of Judaism and Protestantism, beginning in the 16th century. For example, Lea estimates that between 1575 and 1610 the court of Toledo tortured approximately a third of those processed for heresy. In other periods, the proportions varied remarkably. Torture was always a means to obtain the confession of the accused, not a punishment itself. It was applied without distinction of sex or age, including children and the aged. The methods of torture most used by the Inquisition were garrucha, toca and the potro. The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the criminal from the ceiling by a pulley with weights tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated. The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had impression of drowning. The potro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently" As prescribed by the Church. Your quote, which we are objecting to, was, "Pray tell what was wrong about the Spanish inqusition?" Do you not see that torture, execution, and imprisonment for heresy was wrong?
right, and my contention becomes more and more likely the more made details are made up to describe this god. what red vaguely decribes as a creator seems a helluva lot more possible than the god that 157 ascribes a bunch of specific characteristics and wants and personality traits to. red is only making up one tiny premise on faith, but christians are going nuts with made up details. having no way to asses the likelihood of any of these claims, i like to apply occam's razor and decide to keep it simple. right, this is a faith-based claim, but one that doesnt seem all that outlandish. however, it is possible there is no creator, and "creation" has just always existed. most people are guessing, but they dont admit it. i dont even bother guessing, i dont see the point. to me, a statement of faith has no value. as my logical positivist friends have expressed, faith-based statements are without meaning. if you believe without reason, there is nothing to discuss.
Exactly. A statement of faith has no value to you. It will always have value to Deekster and the SupaFan. And to me it may or may not have value based on its context. Is this not obvious? Are you not personalizing your conclusions?
I'd say the Metropolitans need a prayer tonight. No, martin's not gonna be the one hittin' his knees... :hihi:
if the context is reality, and we are discussing what is real and what isnt, statements of faith are meaningless and necessarily unfounded. a statement of faith is not only of no value to me personally , it is of no value to anyone who wants to make a statement that has any actual meaning. the reality is that these faith-based beliefs held by 157 and supa only demonstrate that these guys are unable to accept reality for what it is. and if their crazy opinions were not so widespread, and they happened to have another less-popular, but equally outlandish theory we would cease to repect their opinions. but because there is such an overwhelming number of irrational lunatics, we are used to it and pretend faith based views are worthy of some respect. they arent. like if we are talking about why jamarcus russell makes mistakes sometimes and somebody keeps saying "he has invisible fairies tugging him around like a marionette". thats a stupid fantasy, and a person advancing that theory would deserve to be ridiculed. same thing with any other faith.
