can you point to where i say that? why invent a strawman and then pretend its me you're arguing with?

nevertheless - are you willing to condemn the zeal of phinehas?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

---

Well you're in luck, because the catholic church still participates in the indulgence economy. You can't buy indulgences now, but they are reward points you have earn. The underpinning theology behind indulgences was never condemned as it is a central part of catholic teaching - that you have to make atonement for your sins even though you are forgiven. Temporal punishment is such a bedrock catholic teaching that indulgences will never go away.

It is completely transactional. Almost islamic like view of judgement.

---

Yes, indulgences are fine. It's the selling of them that is wrong.

You couldn't buy indulgences now, or indulgences then, licitly. Bad people did bad things.

---

See I actually believe that you should be able to buy indulgences. Christ tells us that one of the most aspirational thing you could do is to sell all your possessions and give to the poor. Who better to hand that out than the church? This is a good thing. St. John Chrysosdom is very adamant that almsgiving to the church is an incredibly great thing to do. You are accomplishing three things in one, you are sacrificing in Gods name. You are being obedient to the teachings of the church, and the church is going to flourish with your gift.

Why should, in Catholic parlance, that gift not count towards my temporal punishment I am due for my sins?

The catholic church moving to credit card reward points where I can convert my dollars into experiences that count as indulgences does not actually change the root issue with indulgences. I would go so far as to say that it undermines tithing in general.

Zobel said:

---

can you point to where i say that? why invent a strawman and then pretend its me you're arguing with?

nevertheless - are you willing to condemn the zeal of phinehas?

---

Maybe it is me but it seems like Quo Vadis was saying if the Pope would have executed the Reformers it would have saved souls. And I guess I jumped to the conclusion you supported what he said. Sorry.

What does that mean? I honestly do not think like that so as I said, maybe it is me.

I just thought it was a shocking statement to read from a Christian poster. As I said, maybe it is me.

Zobel said:

---

scholasticism and universities arent equivalent don't and can't produce the secular worldview. the disjunction between the "two spheres" worldview and the totalizing secular state only happens once you sever the state from the church. and that can only happen when religion becomes a matter of personal conviction, a private matter, versus a public one. that is the entire raison d'etre of the reformation in a nutshell.

i think you have misunderstood my comments about abuses. the abuses to ecclesiology, to the priesthood, to the eucharist, to baptism, etc are all indictments of Protestantism and are all products of so-called "reform".

i'm not advocating for burning heretics at the stake. i'm advocating that everyone should look at the reformation and say "wow this was a terrible thing for Christendom and the world, the fruits are demonic."

you can't say the point of the reformation was to root out corruption when the actual outcome was to destroy the unity of the church, create local churches subordinated to their state governments (and ultimately state governments completely severed from them), and produce radically different and mutually exclusive versions of Christianity.

yes - Rome was bad, the path the papacy took to fight corruption was wrong, and produced all kinds of problems - including the first major schism in 1054. so sure, the reformation itself is the fruit of schism. but the reformation proper was the proximate cause to so much evil. it is so much worse.

---

I think we're cross because we disagree on the reason for schism. My point is that some would have preferred to stay in the church (forget Luther's disciples who wanted it all up for grabs). It was papal authority that was challenged by these proposals, and that's what produced schism. Was the east unfaithful to Christ in the great schism? Was it their desire? Yet here we are.

Speaking of abuses, many of these were found in the Roman church before the schisms. Local abuses kicked off the filioque, did they not? A bishop should be able to run his diocese as permitted through apostolic succession, tradition, and scripture, yes? But it's not so with the papacy. Without the pope to wield authority this plays out much differently.

Is there a reformation without the papal revolution?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

---

Well you're in luck, because the catholic church still participates in the indulgence economy. You can't buy indulgences now, but they are reward points you have earn. The underpinning theology behind indulgences was never condemned as it is a central part of catholic teaching - that you have to make atonement for your sins even though you are forgiven. Temporal punishment is such a bedrock catholic teaching that indulgences will never go away.

It is completely transactional. Almost islamic like view of judgement.

---

Yes, indulgences are fine. It's the selling of them that is wrong.

You couldn't buy indulgences now, or indulgences then, licitly. Bad people did bad things.

---

See I actually believe that you should be able to buy indulgences. Christ tells us that one of the most aspirational thing you could do is to sell all your possessions and give to the poor. Who better to hand that out than the church? This is a good thing. St. John Chrysosdom is very adamant that almsgiving to the church is an incredibly great thing to do. You are accomplishing three things in one, you are sacrificing in Gods name. You are being obedient to the teachings of the church, and the church is going to flourish with your gift.

Why should, in Catholic parlance, that gift not count towards my temporal punishment I am due for my sins?

The catholic church moving to credit card reward points where I can convert my dollars into experiences that count as indulgences does not actually change the root issue with indulgences. I would go so far as to say that it undermines tithing in general.

---

Giving money to secure forgiveness or lessen punishment for sins is the sin of simony because there is no conversion; there's no remorse; your money takes the place of that.

Take the example of a millionaire giving $50 for an indulgence vs giving 90% of his money to the poor. One likely shows sacrificial love to the poor, the other costs virtually nothing.

It's the same with confession; the contrite heart, the conversion, and the ministration of the Priest is how you receive absolution; not just giving cash.

not for nothin' and i know it seems like a dodge in modern terms but the church didn't execute people. the civil government did. the church found them guilty of heresy, and the civil government in some cases decided that the appropriate sentence for an unrepentant heretic, who was going to continue to teach others their heresy, was death.

however, i'm not sure where the logic falls apart. there are some crimes that the authority is justified in killing the perpetrator for committing (murder, etc). this is both normal in human experience but also in the divine law given by Christ. this is reaffirmed in the new testament. the governing authority derives its authority from God - Jesus Himself tells this to pilate. this doesn't excuse injustice done by the civil authorities, but the one to hold them accountable for their injustice is God. (this is exactly how ecclesial authority works too, for what its worth).

so, if the state has the divine and moral authority to execute people for crimes against physical personhood, why should they not also have the authority to execute people for crime against souls or corruption of the person? pagans believed this was appropriate. christians believed this is appropriate. only modern secularists believe this is a moral evil - which is weird, because they also don't allow for any absolute morality? the only way you can get there is to assume (probably without meaning to) that physical death is equivalent to the corruption of the person, and being led astray away from spiritual reality to spiritual death isn't real, or isn't worse.

would the state be justified in killing hitler if he openly persisted in his rebellion? does the state reserve the right to execute traitors who are unrepentant and actively working against the stability of the state?

when the state is not secular, and there is a co-equal sphere of religion which both checks the state power, and validates the state power - where the moral agency of the state is derived - an attack on that religion is an attack on the state, no different than treason. and we can see that this is true with how people responded to the reformation - immediate secular strife and bloody warfare, because they 100% understood what this dynamic meant.

why is killing a heretic then a moral question rather than a practical one? i suppose you might disagree with the killing of a traitor if you yourself sympathize with their treason.

is it any more shocking to say "the stat has the right to execute a heretic" than "a criminal" or "a traitor"? or to order a soldier to fight in a war where they may be required to kill? are these unchristian?

the zeal of phinehas was when he ran a spear through an isrealite who was having sex with a pagan priestess-prostitute. God in fact commanded Moses to kill the chieftains of the Israelites who did this. Moses in turn tells the judges of Israel to kill those of their men who had bowed down to a foreign god. during this, while the people were repenting, a person brings one of the foreign women into the camp, and phinehas got the spear. when phinehas did this, he turned back the wrath of God, far from being punished he and his descendants were rewarded with a priesthood. And then God tells Moses to strike the Midianites down.

was God being "unchristlike" there?

papal abuses don't justify further schism. and we don't need to guess about this - you know it by its fruit. what is the fruit of the schism of 1054? and what is the fruit of the reformation?

if you want to say yeah all if this comes back to the filioque, i won't argue. the indictment against it just goes back further, then.

Spoken like a true Sadducee! Er, Christian.

i genuinely don't understand the reference. the sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife.

Zobel said:

---

papal abuses don't justify further schism. and we don't need to guess about this - you know it by its fruit. what is the fruit of the schism of 1054? and what is the fruit of the reformation?

if you want to say yeah all if this comes back to the filioque, i won't argue. the indictment against it just goes back further, then.

---

I argue you have it backwards: the papacy is the fount of modern schism. By granting itself the authority to call councils, it supersedes episcopal structure and upends the order of Christ's church. Hence my analogy to the wife with BPD to divorces others and blames them for what she does.

It also granted itself the right to depose monarchs, which is a driving force in the secularizing state that you left out. The Roman church owns its offspring in the west, much like the east owns competing national churches that fight in times of war.

Zobel said:

---

i genuinely don't understand the reference. the sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife.

---

They also handed heretics over to the ruling authorities, after finding them guilty in the same way.

Zobel said:

---

not for nothin' and i know it seems like a dodge in modern terms but the church didn't execute people. the civil government did. the church found them guilty of heresy, and the civil government in some cases decided that the appropriate sentence for an unrepentant heretic, who was going to continue to teach others their heresy, was death.

however, i'm not sure where the logic falls apart. there are some crimes that the authority is justified in killing the perpetrator for committing (murder, etc). this is both normal in human experience but also in the divine law given by Christ. this is reaffirmed in the new testament. the governing authority derives its authority from God - Jesus Himself tells this to pilate. this doesn't excuse injustice done by the civil authorities, but the one to hold them accountable for their injustice is God. (this is exactly how ecclesial authority works too, for what its worth).

so, if the state has the divine and moral authority to execute people for crimes against physical personhood, why should they not also have the authority to execute people for crime against souls or corruption of the person? pagans believed this was appropriate. christians believed this is appropriate. only modern secularists believe this is a moral evil - which is weird, because they also don't allow for any absolute morality? the only way you can get there is to assume (probably without meaning to) that physical death is equivalent to the corruption of the person, and being led astray away from spiritual reality to spiritual death isn't real, or isn't worse.

would the state be justified in killing hitler if he openly persisted in his rebellion? does the state reserve the right to execute traitors who are unrepentant and actively working against the stability of the state?

when the state is not secular, and there is a co-equal sphere of religion which both checks the state power, and validates the state power - where the moral agency of the state is derived - an attack on that religion is an attack on the state, no different than treason. and we can see that this is true with how people responded to the reformation - immediate secular strife and bloody warfare, because they 100% understood what this dynamic meant.

why is killing a heretic then a moral question rather than a practical one? i suppose you might disagree with the killing of a traitor if you yourself sympathize with their treason.

is it any more shocking to say "the stat has the right to execute a heretic" than "a criminal" or "a traitor"? or to order a soldier to fight in a war where they may be required to kill? are these unchristian?

the zeal of phinehas was when he ran a spear through an isrealite who was having sex with a pagan priestess-prostitute. God in fact commanded Moses to kill the chieftains of the Israelites who did this. Moses in turn tells the judges of Israel to kill those of their men who had bowed down to a foreign god. during this, while the people were repenting, a person brings one of the foreign women into the camp, and phinehas got the spear. when phinehas did this, he turned back the wrath of God, far from being punished he and his descendants were rewarded with a priesthood. And then God tells Moses to strike the Midianites down.

was God being "unchristlike" there?

---

So should the state have the authority to execute heretics? And who decides what is heresy? I assume the Catholic Church? Or the Orthodox Church?
I know you would not think it would be anyone outside of those two.
Sorry But I am against that.
I know the story of Phineas. And all the OT brutality.
I do not see that in Jesus which is the revelation of God himself..

Quote:

---

so, if the state has the divine and moral authority to execute people for crimes against physical personhood, why should they not also have the authority to execute people for crime against souls or corruption of the person?

---

Just thinking out loud. Because the church and state have different realms of jurisdiction. The state over the physical and the church over the spiritual. Where do you draw the line?

You're not going to get me to defend the papacy man. But even if the rulers are corrupt, schism adds to the evil.

The break in communion isn't the same thing as schism.
Interesting article on this point. https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/08/01/is-roman-catholicism-is-schismatic-the-case-for-orthodoxy/

And I'd say that in a two-spheres doctrine the church has the role to coronate the ruler, which implies consent and perhaps a right to depose - for heresy, etc. but certainly the right to excommunicate. At any rate I am not sure that this maps to any kind of modern way of thinking about it. Most people's mental model for this kind of thing is cartoonish.

Was that the problem? Or was the problem that the person they found guilty was both innocent and their king and lawgiver and God? I know you're winky facing here but this is an incoherent approach.

in my opinion, yes. the state has the authority to use the sword, period. in modern terms they have the policing power. the check on that authority should be the church. in the secular, modern state there is no check on that authority, because the state has arrogated total authority to itself, and made morality a private rather than a public matter.

the church has the right to decide what is heresy, yes. heresy just means unrepentance in the face of correction - the church says this is true, you say that is true, and you refuse to be obedient when the church says "if you believe that you're not the same faith as us." every Christian group has this. every group has this. if you say "we shouldn't let the church call people heretics" you're just saying "no group is allowed to decide who is in their group."

you didn't answer my question. was Phinehas wrong? was it "brutal" for God to command the execution of the idolaters? or to send a punishing plague that killed thousands of israelites ? was it wrong for God to reward Phinehas' zeal? i think this is a huge caution point. you say you don't see this in Jesus, but Jesus is the exact expression of God, as you say. God did this. Meaning Jesus is the perfect expression of that God. you're getting very close to Marcionism.

that's why in the traditional model the church excommunicates but cannot execute, and the civil authority can execute but not excommunicate.

what is the line that needs to be drawn?

if you're asking "who has the right to tell the state what they're doing is wrong" the answer is the church. or it used to be. today the answer is a diffuse collective citizenry, but in reality the state is total so the answer is "nobody".

Zobel said:

---

You're not going to get me to defend the papacy man. But even if the rulers are corrupt, schism adds to the evil.

The break in communion isn't the same thing as schism.
Interesting article on this point. https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/08/01/is-roman-catholicism-is-schismatic-the-case-for-orthodoxy/

And I'd say that in a two-spheres doctrine the church has the role to coronate the ruler, which implies consent and perhaps a right to depose - for heresy, etc. but certainly the right to excommunicate. At any rate I am not sure that this maps to any kind of modern way of thinking about it. Most people's mental model for this kind of thing is cartoonish.

---

So your argument is that authority and morality always coexist? All exercise by earthly authority is just, as God granted them such power? If this is not what you believe, then the position of, "all reformers are schismatics," is very open to question. Schism is determined by those in power, specifically the papacy, in both our contexts. Surely you don't believe the east is schismatic.

That's why the Sadducee argument is beneficial. Christians kicked out of synagogues were schismatics? No, they practiced the fulfillment and continuation of God's church.

Zobel said:

---

that's why in the traditional model the church excommunicates but cannot execute, and the civil authority can execute but not excommunicate.

what is the line that needs to be drawn?

---

That the civil authority would execute for a soul matter. It would be like the church excommunicating for murder.

The church does excommunicate for murder…

AGC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i genuinely don't understand the reference. the sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife.

---

They also handed heretics over to the ruling authorities, after finding them guilty in the same way.

---

Isn't that what the Jews did with Jesus?

Zobel said:

---

The church does excommunicate for murder…

---

Even if they're repentant?

AGC said:

---

So your argument is that authority and morality always coexist? All exercise by earthly authority is just, as God granted them such power?

---

goodness can we move away from this tiresome form of argumentation? Did i say that?

The authority has the authority because of God. That doesn't make their use of their authority good or bad.

Quote:

---

If this is not what you believe, then the position of, "all reformers are schismatics," is very open to question. Schism is determined by those in power, specifically the papacy, in both our contexts. Surely you don't believe the east is schismatic.

---

Reformers who 1) leave and 2) set up opposing churches are schismatic.

Read the article. Your understanding is not the historical understanding.

Actually, yes, temporarily. It is traditional for a person to spend a time as a penitent for a sin like that. That is between them and their spiritual father.

But why does a repentant person come into play? The whole basis of this is an unrepentant heretic; that is what makes them a heretic.

Zobel said:

---

Actually, yes, temporarily. It is traditional for a person to spend a time as a penitent for a sin like that. That is between them and their spiritual father.

But why does a repentant person come into play? The whole basis of this is an unrepentant heretic; that is what makes them a heretic.

---

Because repentance is a soul matter. The church should take it into account. Unless you think the state should take into account repentance in their decision to execute.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

---

Well you're in luck, because the catholic church still participates in the indulgence economy. You can't buy indulgences now, but they are reward points you have earn. The underpinning theology behind indulgences was never condemned as it is a central part of catholic teaching - that you have to make atonement for your sins even though you are forgiven. Temporal punishment is such a bedrock catholic teaching that indulgences will never go away.

It is completely transactional. Almost islamic like view of judgement.

---

Yes, indulgences are fine. It's the selling of them that is wrong.

You couldn't buy indulgences now, or indulgences then, licitly. Bad people did bad things.

---

See I actually believe that you should be able to buy indulgences. Christ tells us that one of the most aspirational thing you could do is to sell all your possessions and give to the poor. Who better to hand that out than the church? This is a good thing. St. John Chrysosdom is very adamant that almsgiving to the church is an incredibly great thing to do. You are accomplishing three things in one, you are sacrificing in Gods name. You are being obedient to the teachings of the church, and the church is going to flourish with your gift.

Why should, in Catholic parlance, that gift not count towards my temporal punishment I am due for my sins?

The catholic church moving to credit card reward points where I can convert my dollars into experiences that count as indulgences does not actually change the root issue with indulgences. I would go so far as to say that it undermines tithing in general.

---

Giving money to secure forgiveness or lessen punishment for sins is the sin of simony because there is no conversion; there's no remorse; your money takes the place of that.

Take the example of a millionaire giving $50 for an indulgence vs giving 90% of his money to the poor. One likely shows sacrificial love to the poor, the other costs virtually nothing.

It's the same with confession; the contrite heart, the conversion, and the ministration of the Priest is how you receive absolution; not just giving cash.

---

Right but you've made my central point against indulgences here. You don't actually need a bartering economy of good deeds to trade for the 'stain' of your sins. You immediately recognized the goodness that is giving up your whole fortunes for Christ while on this earth, and the hollowness of just giving $50 for the removal of temporal punishment. Isn't it the same amount of hollow for a contrite prayer versus a contrite $50? You do your best when you don't even think about the temporal punishment aspect. Its vestigial to the whole process of salvation.

There is no temporal stain of sin that needs extra steps. You are free to cling to Christ as the debt has been paid. Sins cannot stick to Christ that's part of the point of him doing miracles on earth. Sins making things unclean by proximity, Christ makes things clean by His proximity.

There isn't the economic layer to the good deeds you do. Indulgences create this Japanese Giri like process that strips the love and heart and joy from the action.

If a person repents of their heresy, they're not a heretic any more. I don't understand your objection.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

If it makes you guys feel better, the selling of indulgences is a sin; and I would have had no problem with burning the clergy who purposely did it at the stake either.

---

Well you're in luck, because the catholic church still participates in the indulgence economy. You can't buy indulgences now, but they are reward points you have earn. The underpinning theology behind indulgences was never condemned as it is a central part of catholic teaching - that you have to make atonement for your sins even though you are forgiven. Temporal punishment is such a bedrock catholic teaching that indulgences will never go away.

It is completely transactional. Almost islamic like view of judgement.

---

Yes, indulgences are fine. It's the selling of them that is wrong.

You couldn't buy indulgences now, or indulgences then, licitly. Bad people did bad things.

---

See I actually believe that you should be able to buy indulgences. Christ tells us that one of the most aspirational thing you could do is to sell all your possessions and give to the poor. Who better to hand that out than the church? This is a good thing. St. John Chrysosdom is very adamant that almsgiving to the church is an incredibly great thing to do. You are accomplishing three things in one, you are sacrificing in Gods name. You are being obedient to the teachings of the church, and the church is going to flourish with your gift.

Why should, in Catholic parlance, that gift not count towards my temporal punishment I am due for my sins?

The catholic church moving to credit card reward points where I can convert my dollars into experiences that count as indulgences does not actually change the root issue with indulgences. I would go so far as to say that it undermines tithing in general.

---

Giving money to secure forgiveness or lessen punishment for sins is the sin of simony because there is no conversion; there's no remorse; your money takes the place of that.

Take the example of a millionaire giving $50 for an indulgence vs giving 90% of his money to the poor. One likely shows sacrificial love to the poor, the other costs virtually nothing.

It's the same with confession; the contrite heart, the conversion, and the ministration of the Priest is how you receive absolution; not just giving cash.

---

Right but you've made my central point against indulgences here. You don't actually need a bartering economy of good deeds to trade for the 'stain' of your sins. You immediately recognized the goodness that is giving up your whole fortunes for Christ while on this earth, and the hollowness of just giving $50 for the removal of temporal punishment. Isn't it the same amount of hollow for a contrite prayer versus a contrite $50? You do your best when you don't even think about the temporal punishment aspect. Its vestigial to the whole process of salvation.

There is no temporal stain of sin that needs extra steps. You are free to cling to Christ as the debt has been paid. Sins cannot stick to Christ that's part of the point of him doing miracles on earth. Sins making things unclean by proximity, Christ makes things clean by His proximity.

There isn't the economic layer to the good deeds you do. Indulgences create this Japanese Giri like process that strips the love and heart and joy from the action.

---

I think you're looking at it too deeply, it's the "time off your sentence for good behavior" which has a pretty decent foundation even in the earliest years of our faith.

Sts.Augustine recommending fasting, almsgiving, and regular prayer to help remove temporal punishments for sin. Cyprian mentioning his approval of bishops shortening penances for lapsed Christians based on the prayers of the community. John Chrysostom saying almsgiving extinguishes the fire of punishment.

If the power to bind and loose extends to sin, why not temporal punishment of sin? I'm loose on the orthodox ideas of purgatory, but I thought that toll houses may or may not be present in some of the churches of the east, and they were somewhat analogous.

Zobel said:

---

in my opinion, yes. the state has the authority to use the sword, period. in modern terms they have the policing power. the check on that authority should be the church. in the secular, modern state there is no check on that authority, because the state has arrogated total authority to itself, and made morality a private rather than a public matter.

the church has the right to decide what is heresy, yes. heresy just means unrepentance in the face of correction - the church says this is true, you say that is true, and you refuse to be obedient when the church says "if you believe that you're not the same faith as us." every Christian group has this. every group has this. if you say "we shouldn't let the church call people heretics" you're just saying "no group is allowed to decide who is in their group."

you didn't answer my question. was Phinehas wrong? was it "brutal" for God to command the execution of the idolaters? or to send a punishing plague that killed thousands of israelites ? was it wrong for God to reward Phinehas' zeal? i think this is a huge caution point. you say you don't see this in Jesus, but Jesus is the exact expression of God, as you say. God did this. Meaning Jesus is the perfect expression of that God. you're getting very close to Marcionism.

---

I personally find it very hard to reconcile the OT brutality with the example of Jesus. But I accept it on faith and realize I do not understand everything. Definitely not a follower of Marcion.

So you say that heresy is not responding to correction from a religious group.
I believe Catholics and Orthodox consider Calvinism a heresy.
And a lot of Calvinists think Catholics/Orthodox are heretical.
Which group sets the rules for heresy?
And would that group, if it were say the Calvinists, turn all the Catholics/Orthodox over to the governing authorities? Or vice versa?

dermdoc said:

---

Which group sets the rules for heresy?

---

I think that has been established on this thread ad nauseum

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Which group sets the rules for heresy?

---

I think that has been established on this thread ad nauseum

---

Well they won't really say it.
Bring back the Inquisition!

---

The holy inquisition never went away, it just got renamed.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Which group sets the rules for heresy?

---

I think that has been established on this thread ad nauseum

---

Well they won't really say it.
Bring back the Inquisition!

---

The holy inquisition never went away, it just got renamed.

---

Can you explain what the Holy Inquistion is? And do you approve of torture and execution for what Catholics call heretics?
Should that apply to all Protestants?

I wouldn't turn you in either, brother.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I wouldn't turn you in either, brother.

---

All I know is somebody, somewhere thinks every Christian alive is a heretic in some form or fashion. The Nazis thought the Jews were heretics and acted on it. And almost 100% were Christian's. This is scary stuff.
Love you brother.