Christianity started the Crusades Witch Hunting and The Inquisition

1. 52

   paarsurreyposted 12 years ago

   Mick Menous wrote:
   
   Now I do know for a fact that it was Christianity that did start The Crusades, Witch Hunting, and The Inquisition which resulted in the deaths of so many people, but that was a VERY LONG time ago.
   
   Paarsurrey says:
   
   I think the present day Christians would agree to it.
   
   http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/70755?page=2

   replyreport
   1. 52

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think the Christians were responsible for the inquisition. Didn't they?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actuallty, the Inquisition was started by a government that believed in torture to set an example to the people. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
         
         Gladiators, you know, those condemned people who were sent to the arena to fight for their lives in a big and horrible bloody display for the entertainment of the millions: Those were Romans who worshipped Zeus and the Olympian pantheon.
         
         Vikings who traveled to the Americas and raped and tortured native Americans? They weren't Christians either. They were Norseman who followed Odin, Thor and the other Norse gods.
         
         So, what am I trying to get at here? Yes, there were plenty of Christians who could be held responsible for the deaths of "so many people" as you put it. But Christianity is not the sole source of all death, destruction and senseless mayhem.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that government was the Pope, who assigned "inquisitors of heretical depravity" to inquire into heresy. This was in stark contrast to Roman laws of judicial process.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               so....in your opinion having trained animals rape people before a crowd of spectators was somehow more...appropriate than a visit to the Pope's Little House?

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Huh? What are you talking about?

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh, since you're the expert around here I thought you knew about some of the less than savory "events" that took place in the Roman blood games.
                     
                     The "Roman laws of judicial process" that you find to be in "stark contrast" to the Pope's choice of punishment, often involved such gory events. Remember, the gladiators and other condemned of the old Roman Empire died for entertainment.
                     
                     So, lets say you were a woman who was found guilty of killing her children. Or maybe of sleeping with a man outside of marriage. Oh and if you're not a noble, or of noble blood, you won't be given the consideration of a private death. You'd be staked to the ground, your body exposed for all to see. And a trained animal, a donkey, or a leopard, depending on what's hot at that moment, would come out into the center of the arena and rape you.
                     
                     And people would be cheering.
                     
                     So reiterate my point. The Catholic Church is most definitely not the sole source of all torment and rape.

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I never said I was an expert, although it's evident I know substantially more about believers religions than they do.
                        
                        I wasn't aware that the "Pope's Little House" was the same thing as "Roman blood games."
                        
                        
                        
                        So what? The judicial process refutes your claim of what occurred during the Inquisition, which was the entire point.
                        
                        
                        
                        No one said it was the sole source or said it was more appropriate. What a ridiculous thing to say.
                        
                        It's as if you were defending the Catholic Church and the atrocities it committed. Is that what you're doing?

                        replyreport
   2. 71

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Untrue.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wasn't there, so I don't know!
      But rumor has it that Christianity started the witch hunting and Crusades.  Again, wasn't that the Catholic Church which started the Crusades?  And that does not always equal to Christianity!
      As far as witch hunting.....well, does it ever occur to ANYBODY that just maybe WITCHES were the cause of the problem at the root?  Sheesh.  The modern fad is to blame everything on everyone else EXCEPT anti-Christians.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The people accused of witchcraft were innocent. And the ways used to determine whether or not someone was a witch were horrendous and cruel.
         
         So unless you don't mind standing by and watching while someone is burned, drowned, pressed to death, lowered into scalding oil, or smashed against rocks because they were a woman who delivered babies or practiced medicine, then perhaps you shouldn't be auditioning for the part of the kettle. Because the pot is definitely black.
         
         The point I am making is that it is not the religion, or the Bible, or God, or whatever deity you chose to believe that causes the murder. It's people. Plain and simple.

         replyreport
         1. 52

            paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You are right there; those who do such acts "someone is burned, drowned, pressed to death, lowered into scalding oil, or smashed against rocks" do it on their own; there are no such teachings in the truthful Word revealed.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               True, these acts have been going on throughout recorded history. Any religion or philosophy or nation or race or ethnic group, etc. that tells their members that they are somehow better than the "others" is sowing the seeds for man's inhumanity to man.
               
               Religious leaders, in particular, eternally claim their innocence for any atrocities done on their watch, but by promoting divisiveness, they too bear responsibility for the ungodly results of such teachings.

               replyreport
               1. 52

                  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Buddha, Krishna, Moses,Zoroaster,Jesus and Muhammad; they were humble persons with no claims of any superiority; they did not divide the people; if people opposed them tooth and nail; that is their responsibility not of those religious humble persons.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     They were probably all great guys -- I don't have any proof of that nor does anyone else. If they had some magical words or writings to assure peace and honesty among future generations, then the results should have been better than we see.
                     
                     Crusades & Jihad -- can any really rational person believe that a higher consciousness would approve of such atrocities?

                     replyreport
                     1. 52

                        paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If the non-believers attack  the humble persons aggressively like Buddha, Krishna, Moses,Zoroaster,Jesus and Muhammad; what rational action is left with them than to defend themselves.

                        replyreport
         2. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I agree it's people!
            
            But how do you know the accused were innocent?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So, a woman delivers a baby in a time when women weren't allowed to perform medicine...and it's perfectly acceptable to burn her in front of a crowd because you don't know for sure that she was innocent? What was she guilty off exactly? Bringing a healthy child into the world?
               
               You do realize that the people accused of witchcraft weren't actual witches, right?
               
               These people were accused of witchcraft for having boils on their bodies which were said to be the *ahem* holes, from which the Devil sucked.
               
               There was no scientific basis for the accusations. And these people did not get justice, so don't you dare act like those atrocities were in anyway justified. Because if men like that were still in power, you'd be beaten to death just for posting online.
               
               How about the innocent baby that died in jail during the Witch Trials because they couldn't get food to it after it was born. Maybe the baby was guilty of peeing on Reverend Hale's shirt, who knows. You're right. Condemn the innocent baby.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I got this from Wikipedia.  Notice the notation of the word "theory" after item 14.  Is that where you get your views of this subject, from a "theory"???
                  
                  ------------------
                  
                  During the Christian era in Europe, midwives became important to the church due to their role in emergency baptisms, and found themselves regulated by Roman Catholic canon law.[12] In Medieval times, childbirth was considered so deadly that the Christian Church told pregnant women to prepare their shrouds and confess their sins in case of death. The Church pointed to Genesis 3:16 as the basis for pain in childbirth, where Eve's punishment for her role in disobeying God was that he would "multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." A popular medieval saying was, "The better the witch; the better the midwife"; to guard against witchcraft, the Church required midwives to be licensed by a bishop and swear an oath not to use magic when assisting women through labour.[13]
                  
                  [edit] Later historical perspectiveIn the 18th century, a division between surgeons and midwives arose, as medical men began to assert that their modern scientific processes were better for mothers and infants than the folk-medical midwives.
                  
                  At the outset of the 18th century in England, most babies were caught by a midwife, but by the onset of the 19th century, the majority of those babies born to persons of means had a surgeon involved. A number of excellent full-length studies[which?] of this historical shift have been written.[citation needed]
                  
                  German social scientists Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger theorize that midwifery became a target of persecution and repression by public authorities because midwives not only possessed highly specialized knowledge and skills regarding assisting birth, but also regarding contraception and abortion.[14] According to Heinsohn and Steiger's theory, the modern state persecuted the midwives as witches in an effort to repopulate the European continent which had suffered severe loss of manpower as a result of the bubonic plague (also known as the black death) which had swept over the continent in waves, starting in 1348.
                  
                  They thus interpret the witch hunts as attacking midwifery and knowledge about birth control with a demographic goal in mind. Indeed, after the witch hunts, the number of children per mother rose sharply, giving rise to what has been called the "European population explosion" of modern times, producing an enormous youth bulge that enabled Europe to colonize large parts of the rest of the world.[citation needed]
                  
                  While historians specializing in the history of the witch hunts have generally remained critical of this macroeconomic approach and continue to favor micro level perspectives and explanations, prominent historian of birth control John M. Riddle has expressed agreement.[15]

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No, sweat pea. I definitely don't get my views from a wikipedia article.
                     
                     The atrocities commited against women and the uneducated innocents who were harmed by people who took religion out of context to justify their actions, were being taught to us in school long before the Internet was a gleam in Al Gore's eye.
                     
                     And the history of places like Salem, Mass were built on such innocent bloodshed.
                     
                     Perhaps you think you would have had a fair trial in 1692, being a woman who spoke freely, if you were accused of witchcraft. But the majority of historians who work and are active in this town would tell  you otherwise. And no, they didn't get their info from wikipedia either.

                     replyreport
            2. 92

               Rochelle Frankposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Only God knows who were innocent, and who should be be forgiven.
               Jesus did not say the woman accused of adultery was innocent, He only asked a question of those who wanted to stone her to death.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Rochelle, good call!  I agree with that.

                  replyreport
      2. 60

         Maembeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         lol, you can't be serious

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            She is serious. Those Witches were ASKING for it and the Kristians were jus' doin' wot god sed.

            replyreport
   4. 57

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not att that knowledgable of all the facts, but it is my understanding that the crucades began after Islam had conquored over half of the known world and wasn't finished yet.
      
         So it seems to me to have been all political.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      MysteryPlanetposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Crusades was about control and power by the Roman Church and although they labeled themselves as Christian they were not. Just my own opinion on the matter but calling oneself something does not make them that no matter how many times they do it or how many others they convince.

      replyreport
      1. 52

         paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         replyreport
      2. 52

         paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         The Christians had deviated from the path Jesus had highlighted; and it was the wrong of the Church to start crusades in the name of Jesus or religion. It was only a power struggle nothing to do with religion or Jesus.

         replyreport
2. 63

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   Why oh why couldn't the crusaders have had the benevolent peaceful dispositions possessed by the followers of Islam!?!?!

   replyreport
   1. 67

      NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The bathing practices might have been nice too. At least the Muslims invented travel soap.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         please elaborate on these bathing practices with pictures

         replyreport
3. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "Heinsohn and Otto Steiger theorize that midwifery became a target of persecution and repression by public authorities because midwives not only possessed highly specialized knowledge and skills regarding assisting birth, but also regarding contraception and abortion". Agrees with what I have read. "effort to repopulate the European continent which had suffered severe loss of manpower as a result of the bubonic plague". That's a new one - thanks. Think the church position is anti-abortion, since souls must be born in order to be saved. And of course there always those who view population increase in terms of political tactics and demographics and especially when the population is considered the elite of mankind.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago

   What does "a visit to the Pope's Little House" mean?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      NateSeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If you were a prisoner of the Inquisition during the mid-to-late 17th century, you were said to be a visitor to the Pope's Little House. It was a place you went to to be tortured.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I see.
         I thought you were trying to compare the old savagery of the Roman Empire to the molestation of children by the Catholic priests, like one was worse than the other....

         replyreport
      2. 56

         Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, for being a heretic and not accepting the church's doctrines. Are you proud of this heritage?

         replyreport
5. 0

   Digsposted 12 years ago

   Mankind has done much in the name of God that has nothing to do with God!  Ask yourself whether the events occurring during the Crusades, Inqusition, and witch hunts lined up with God's word.  If not, then you know who is responsible don't you?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, That is a very good question!
      
          And diserves a great deal of consideration.
      
          Do you have an answer?   I do. But would love to hear yours. (first)

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Digsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Scripturally, there are only two forces at work in the universe.  Mankind has a choice as to which he/she lend themselves.  You can make it more complicated than that, but it wouldn't change anything.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Can I presume you to mean that, if people who believe themselves to be Godly people are doing unGodly things, that they have been deceived?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Digsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Sounds like a man who isn't sure what to make of life or the universe in which he lives.  There are two spiritual forces at work in creation and we all eventually choose which one we serve.  Choosing light over dark does not mean instant perfection.  It does mean that you have set your feet on a path in acknowledgement of truth.  There is a scripture found in Joshua 24; 14&15, that says in part, "Choose this day whom you will serve."   Existentialist theorizing can be entertaining much in the same fashion a card trick is entertaining.  But its plausibility is based on a distraction not reality.

               replyreport
6. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "Scripturally, there are only two forces at work in the universe." So what is that God and the Devil?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      scripturally there is only one force at work in the universe. God
      
      Isaiah 45
      
        Isaiah 45:2   I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
      
        Isaiah 45:3   And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou may know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
      
        Isaiah 45:4   For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
      
        Isaiah 45:5   I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
      
        Isaiah 45:6   That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
      
        Isaiah 45:7   I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
      
        Isaiah 45:8   Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
      
        Isaiah 45:9   Woe unto him that strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashions it, What make you? or thy work, He has no hands?
      
        Isaiah 45:10   Woe unto him that saith unto his father or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
      
        Isaiah 45:11   Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel,  Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
      
        Isaiah 45:12   I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
      
        Isaiah 45:13   I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.
      
        Isaiah 45:14   Thus saith the LORD, The labor of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.
      
        Isaiah 45:15   Verily thou art a God that hides thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior.
      
        Isaiah 45:16   They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols.
      
        Isaiah 45:17   But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
      
        Isaiah 45:18   For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
      
        Isaiah 45:19   I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
      
        Isaiah 45:20   Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
      
        Isaiah 45:21   Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.
      
        Isaiah 45:22   Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
      
        Isaiah 45:23   I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

      replyreport
7. 0

   brotheryochananposted 12 years ago

   The army of darkness did it 
   
   
   

   replyreport
8. 0

   zampanoposted 12 years ago

   You are all innocent.

   replyreport
9. 61

   kephriraposted 12 years ago

   I'm not usually one to defend Christianity but the Crusades were
   
   1) A direct response to the takeover of many countries neighbouring Europe by Islamic armies, and invasions of Europe such as the occupation of Spain. The pope used the promise of forgiveness of all sins to mobilise ordinary citizens against the Islamic armies because the rulers of Europe could not afford to raise big enough armies to defend themselves in the conventional manner.
   
   2) Just a set of wars over land, which was quite normal at the time, and hence not the horrific act you seems to be making them out to be.

   replyreport
10. 64

    pisean282311posted 12 years ago

    yes they did...so?...why do we take religion too seriously?..as long as we do we would see bloodshed in future too...religion creates divide and wars...it is inherent nature of religion and nothing new in it...

    replyreport