tonyfish58

Yes - Once someone stands their ground then the fencing has started

There are no winners in a verbal fence

Cheers Tony

tonyfish58

Just remember what the thread was devoted to - it was devoted to a verbal fence The thread was started to draw Orthodox & this topic away from other threads.

Most of the thread is just that a fence of words...I have no issue with discussing this topic and do so on many occasions with many people.

Round and round is what this topic will do when you are posting to persons that do not want to hear.

Go back through the thread and tell me most of it is not just that!

Start a new topic no dedicated to Orthodox and I would be more than willing to participate. After all all biblical prophesy has been fulfilled.

Cheers Tony

LordOfGoblins

Brother you are funny. Ok I will say no more then other than this.
Please start a resurrection thread of your own with a more dignified introductory statement. Fadl already tried and there was nothing wrong with his OP Do you remember what happened???

cire perdue

is like trying to control a vine. It goes where it will....as Michael Crichton says, "Nature will find a way....."

It is by experiencing the fence here that I have learned what it means. Our threads are an example of the process of the organic growth of thinking. I am so grateful for this forum and for the contributors of all persuasions.............

tonyfish58

Yes I agree Im a ball of laughts, some mothers do have them

Cheers Tony

Yeshua

One more thing....

When the French Revolutionary Army invaded Italy in 1797, Pope Pius VII cautioned temperance and submission to the Cisalpine Republic they established. In his Christmas homily that year, he asserted that there was no opposition between a democratic form of government and being a good Catholic

"...Become out-and-out Christians and you will also be thorough-going democrats. Christian virtue makes men good democrats.... Equality is not an idea of philosophers but of Christ...and do not believe that the Catholic religion is against democracy...The democratic form of government is not . . . repugnant to the Gospel. On the contrary it exacts all the sublime virtues which are learned only in the school of Jesus Christ..."

- Pope Pius VII, 1797 Christmas Sermon


One historian comments:

"...These words, now commonplace, took vision and courage to utter in 1797 with the smell of blood still rank on French "democracy."..."

pawnraider

All this sounds more like an early attempt at PR! Or to put it more bluntly, Revisionist! Doesn't the Inquisition mean anything?

cire perdue

I don't think one branch of Christianity can be found that did not persecute another branch of Christianity at some time.

Yeshua

Yes precisely! No denomination or indeed religion is totally faultless. Anything run by human beings will make mistakes and do bad things, because that's human nature.


Pawnraider wrote:

The Inquisition? I addressed this in a previous thread. It cannot - and I think should not - be "defended" as no form of religious persecution is acceptable to modern, civilised people like ourselves. I make no excuses in this regard. As Pope John Paul II once said:

“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”

—Pope John Paul II

However it isn't as simple as you think. In fact its been a good deal exaggerated in the past, and modern historians have admitted past excessiveness and clarified what truly happened. I bet you have never actually studied the contemorary sources and secondary sources in depth.

Read post 21 in this previous thread, you might be somewhat surprised: Has anyone seen this?

The Inquisition has been terribly exaggerated. The facts are quite different. Between 1249 and 1257 the Medeival Inquisition sentenced 230 people to prison and only 21 to death. This means that throughout the whole of Europe during the eight year period when the Inquisition reached its height, less than 3 heretics a year were killed. 90% of the sentences were Church-related penances: fasting, pilgrimage, increased mass attendance etc. The number of those put to death was very small indeed. Of every hunded people convicted, something like 1 person was executed and 10 were sent to prison. Abuses of the Inquisition did however take place, most key in the trial of Joan of Arc in the 1400s, who later became a Catholic Saint. Conrad of Marburg was a sadist who was notoriously cruel and was eventually murdered by his own populace. In one horrendous miscarriage of justice Robert the Bruge sentenced 180 heretics to death, including the town's Bishop. The Church was outraged! His own Dominican order suspended him and then sentenced him to a life imprisonment for executing people without reasonable justification. Believe or not, modern scholars actually think that the Medeival Inquisition was a considerable advancement in the humanitarian treatment of criminals. Manuals, for the first time in history, were produced to guide judges in their investigations and these provided suspects with a measure of legal recourse, which may help to explain why such little killings as time went on actually occurred. I know this might be hard to believe, but its the truth and if you ask me I will happily direct you too secular sources that explicitly back this up.

Suffice to say that before the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church did not suppress 'heresy' using intimidation or execution. Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist. To provide you with an example, in 350 the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Most theologians saw punishment for 'heresy' as therepuetic not punitive - Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all. Killing a heretic was viewed by the Catholic Church as a defeat; the sinner would be lost for all eternity and Christians would have to live on with the guilt of that person's damnation forevermore. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, John Chrysostom (d407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, "To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime".

Inquisition trials were confined to Southern France and Northern Italy. No inquisitions took place in Scandanavian countries. England saw practically none. Most of France and Spain saw none, in the case of Spain until the separate Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s. This was because the Medeival Inquisition, so often used to villify the Church, was not a Vatican-run enterprise but was conducted by secular local authorities, friars and clergy. Trials for heresy actually started to recede substantially by 1300.

Two hundred years after the practical ending of the Medeival Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition took place and this had nothing to do with the Church. The secular rulers of Spain wanted to unify their country along ethnic and religious lines. This of course, was a state-run matter - although religion was used to achieve it.

Please have a read over post 21 in the thread that I provided a link to above, before replying, since I go into the topic in more depth.

pawnraider

So you say. I remember when it came out when the Vatican stated just what you are saying. That the Inquisition was not as bad or widespread as claimed. The BBC did some fact checking and found the claims of the Vatican not true. Clearly the Vatican is not a very good source for facts. Given its penchant for cover-ups how can it be with this and its more recent matters?

pawnraider

It's very simple actually. The Roman Catholic Institution adopted it as policy while other "branches" did not. Those from the other "branches" who may have committed such did so independently and without the support of their respective brethren.

Nuck81

What exactly is an "Orthodox" Christian? Serious question.

How does "Orthodox" differ from Catholic or Protestant?

Fadl

Yeshua is a Catholic, and he is tolerant, kind, respectful to all, and very knowledgeable about many faiths and an open person.

Pawnraider is a Protestant, and iconodule is an Orthodox. They like to argue, are intolerant, disrespectful, believe they have a truth monopoly, and are closed to others' views and ideas.

These are the differences and similarities I've come to be aware of from the example of Yeshua, Pawnraider, and iconodule. There might be a few very minor issues over doctrine and theology, but they would have to tell you about that.



PS. Pawnraider and iconodule, the above was meant in jest, because, although you can come over as abrupt or harsh at times, you bring a lot to this forum and if you weren't here the place would be severely lacking in zest and flavor, so please don't think I that I actually dislike you. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the forum is better for you being here.

Also, Merry Christmas to both of you, just in case I don't get a chance to say it later, and may God bless you, your loved ones and families at this special time of year.

Yeshua

I agree Fadl! Our beloved brothers Pawn and Icon bring much discussion to the forum. While I do often find myself disagreeing with their manner of speaking with my Baha'i brothers, I respect the fact that there intentions are pure and are done - ultimately - out of love, even if somewhat misplaced in practice. They are also extremely intelligent people and deserve respect for bringing "flare", I suppose, to the forum!

And thank you very much for your Christmas wishes!

LordOfGoblins

In the words of lord Jesus and other manifestations of God.
"peace be upon you"...

pawnraider

Thank you very much!