Burned at the stake for the Bible

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

I have said nothing offensive. You do not understand the meaning of the word insult. But if you wish to stop this discussion, please feel free to do so.

I am always willing to discuss the issues. You are not, you use emotional excuses to avoid the issues. For example, you continually refuse to discuss the fact that people were forbidden to read or possess Bibles written in their vernacular. It seems the only way you can dodge this issue is to use such emotional excuses. Hopefully, someday, you will be willing to continue discussing the issues.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,
I have said nothing offensive.

Indeed you have, and worse, not to me, but to another:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Not only that, if you disagree with Thomas, he feels he has the right to execute you.

That is unmistakably a slander ... slander is an offence against the character of another, ergo, you have said something offensive.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

you use emotional excuses to avoid the issues.

Au contraire, it is quite apparent it is you who is practicinf avoidance.

I think I can justly say that I have never backed down or away from any 'issue', so that is an empty accusation.

Furthermore, your response implies that, in light of all our previous discussions, if the above is your opinion of me, it is obvious that nothing I might say will alter your presumptions ... as I am heavily engaged in personal studies, I have little time to spare on what is essentially, on my part, a fool's errand.

Certainly there is no point in pursuing a 'discussion' when really there is no discussion taking place.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Once again, you use your emotional excuses to manipulate us, and avoid discussing the issues. I keep trying to bring this discussion back to the issues, but you always try to dodge the issues.

The two issues are

(1) The church felt it had the right to execute people for their religious beliefs, but mysteriously stopped executing these people — why?

(2) The people were forbidden to read or possess a Bible written in their vernacular — why?

When you are ready to come back and discuss the issues, we will be waiting for you.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,
Once again, you use your emotional excuses to manipulate us...

Nope ... slander is not an 'emotional excuse' and I am not trying to manipulate anybody — I could have easily bypassed you altogether and made a formal complaint to the Administrators.

As others have refuted your slander, and no-one had supported it, I think your use of 'us' is concrete evidence of who has manipulation in mind.

So you refuse to acknowledge your offence.

If anyone else is seriously interested in pursuing the points Nick raised, I'll be happy to continue elsewhere.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

That is unmistakably a slander ... slander is an offence against the character of another, ergo, you have said something offensive.

Actually I believe here stateside (and stand to be corrected) that for slander to stick it must have with it some sort of monetary loss, or reputation, or stature.

As most have dismissed the statement with a 'oh peshaw' or 'yeah right' I don't see where your reputation has been affected....only Nick's.

Again, I believe the actions on the part of the church (both those that call themselves universal and the protestors) is abominable and unexcusable and if scripture be interpretted as they did at the time they will deservedly receive their just rewards.

[leastone]

Originally Posted by wil;

the church (both those that call themselves universal and the protestors) ...will deservedly receive their just rewards.

Exactly.

Why does it appear to me then, that Nick the Pilot is relentlessly insisting that our friend Thomas should do account for the misdeeds of others; a supposed "discussion of the issues" that reeks rather of the spirit of an inquisition:
I DEMAND THAT ALL ACCUSATIONS BE ANSWERED AND CONFESSIONS SIGNED. ---Nick the Pilot. Theosophic Persecutor's Office.

Thomas deeply loves his Church. We should respect that.

Would true theosophy really hold him accountable for the atrocities of other men in centuries long past?

Respectfully,

Learner

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Actually I believe here stateside (and stand to be corrected) that for slander to stick it must have with it some sort of monetary loss, or reputation, or stature.

Same here in the UK, I think. In this instance it applies as intent to damage the good name, reputation, standing, etc., so I think if I wanted to be pedantic ...

I know this is a futile exercise Wil, but just wanted to see how far Nick's prepared to go. He has demonstrated a remarkable sensitivity to offence when it suits, which makes his apparent insensitivity to the offence he offers others all the more remarkable.

Originally Posted by wil

As most have dismissed the statement with a 'oh peshaw' or 'yeah right' I don't see where your reputation has been affected....only Nick's.

Thanks.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Again, I believe the actions on the part of the church (both those that call themselves universal and the protestors) is abominable and unexcusable and if scripture be interpretted as they did at the time they will deservedly receive their just rewards.

I join you in that sentiment.

I might be inclined to offer as moderation the fact that men acted according to the socially acceptable norms of the day — but really this is hardly an excuse when the Word of Scripture so evidently preaches forgiveness, understanding, turning the other cheek, etc.

(Not to go overboard however — Scripture also informs the believer in no uncertain terms of the manner by which he should respond to those who offer him ill treatment.)

In all such cases however, as I think your own post alludes, it is man who is at fault, not the object of his faith.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

You were quoted,

"...I believe the actions on the part of the church (both those that call themselves universal and the protestors) is abominable and unexcusable...."

--> Thank you for affirming that. I see that Thomas has also finally affirmed that point. But this now begs the question, how can a church which is "the authority when it comes to affirming a correct interpretation" allow such a thing to happen in the first place? Either the church has no such authority, or the executions were justified. I am afraid Thomas cannot have his cake and eat it too.

And, we can only wait for Thomas to explain the other question, which is if and why the people were forbidden to read or possess a Bible written in their vernacular. (This is the topic of the original post of this thread. We have finally taken care of all of the side-tracks, and gotten back to the original issue. Whew!) Thomas' silence on this issue is fascinating.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

But this now begs the question, how can a church which is "the authority when it comes to affirming a correct interpretation" allow such a thing to happen in the first place? Either the church has no such authority, or the executions were justified.

Replace church with US and then contemplate the treatment of the natives and the black man. Contemplate the pre-emptive WMD democracy nation building occupation. Contemplate the treatment of soldiers returning from wars. Are you willing to take on the burden for all the mistakes the US has made in the past 250 years as you wish Thomas to take the burden of what the church did 400 years ago?

I believe Thomas is working on his path today, and not that of rectifying his churches mistakes of yesteryear to your satisfaction.

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

The difference is that Thomas says his church has divinely-given authority to execute people for their religious beliefs, and cannot make a mistake when exercising this authority.

I feel the exact opposite, regarding the American govenrment's 'authority' to do the same thing. I do not think the American government has the right to execute people for their religious beliefs. American presidents can claim some type of divine inspiration (I believe George W. Bush did), but in my opinion they have no such 'divine inspiration'

Thomas, on the other hand, IS saying his church can do no wrong because of some type of divine inspiration. If he says this, and since he acknowledges that the church has executed people for their religious beliefs, and since he now acknowledges that those executions were abominations, then either his church has no such guarantee of not making such mistakes, or it was fully justified in executing those people. There can be no middle ground here.

You have brought up the idea of his church's need to rectify mistakes of yesteryear. (I have not, but it is a fascinating topic, because I believe in group-karma, and I very much believe Thomas will suffer from the church's bad group-karma of those executions.) Rectifying his church's mistakes of yesteryear is one thing. Claiming his church has divine inspiration which allowed/allows them to execute people is a whole different question. It is important to keep the two issues separate.

[Thomas]

Actually, came upon this, which has some relevance ...

"Assayas: Speaking of bloody action movies, we were talking about South and Central America last time. The Jesuit priests arrived there with the gospel in one hand and a rifle in the other.

Bono: I know, I know. Religion can be the enemy of God. It's often what happens when God, like Elvis, has left the building. [laughs] A list of instructions where there was once conviction; dogma where once people just did it; a congregation led by a man where once they were led by the Holy Spirit. Discipline replacing discipleship. Why are you chuckling?

Assayas: I was wondering if you said all of that to the Pope the day you met him.

Bono: Let's not get too hard on the Holy Roman Church here. The Church has its problems, but the older I get, the more comfort I find there. The physical experience of being in a crowd of largely humble people, heads bowed, murmuring prayers, stories told in stained-glass windows …

Assayas: So you won't be critical.

Bono: No, I can be critical, especially on the topic of contraception. But when I meet someone like Sister Benedicta and see her work with AIDS orphans in Addis Ababa, or Sister Ann doing the same in Malawi, or Father Jack Fenukan and his group Concern all over Africa, when I meet priests and nuns tending to the sick and the poor and giving up much easier lives to do so, I surrender a little easier."

Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas (Riverhead Books)

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

"...with the gospel in one hand and a rifle in the other."

--> How true. I am reminded of the story of a tribe of Indians in Cuba that was massacred by Cortez's troops for refusing to convert to Christianity. As the story goes, the chief of the tribe made a moving speech just before he was murdered in the name of Jesus. The people were so moved that someone built a statue of this great chief right across the street from a Christian (Catholic?) church somewhere in Cuba, to mock the Christians, and remind them of what they had done. It is said the statue is still there today.

Does anyone have a picture of that statue?

Thomas, it is horrible to think that a great man like Father Jack Fenukan will suffer even a tiny piece of the bad group-karma that Cortez created in the name of Jesus, but that is exactly what will happen. The law of karma is unforgiving, and cannot be subverted.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

bad group-karma

I suppose you are welcome to whatever you choose to believe, and in order to believe it it must seem true to you. For what it's worth though, I draw the line at being held guilty for the sins of my fathers, or anybody else's fathers for that matter.

I don't know you well enough to say, Nick, but I would hazard a guess that if what you say about "bad group-karma" is true, then surely there is at least one group and probably several groups to which you can be included by extension (the same kind of extension you are offering Thomas). Which would reduce the argument to the pot calling the kettle black...

I certainly wouldn't of my own volition accuse you of being guilty of trying to subvert and politically wrangle all of the world faiths into one corral, for who knows what nefarious purpose...just because I had that conversation with another Theosophist. Of course, when I called the bluff there was considerable backtracking and attempting to deny...but the evidence was there in his own words. According to your very own standards you are eliciting here, you would be guilty of the same conspiratorial conniving, by virtue of "bad group-karma."

I know how it can fuel an ego to get a representative of a self-referential institution that claims infallibility to admit fallibility...but going so far as to accuse that representative of having a murderous heart and intent against those who disagree with him, is just wrong. Otherwise, the same could be said of any Theosophist for precisely the same...the desire to murder those who will not willingly fall into the fold!

I am making no excuses for any church...I have no need to. I am beholding to none, but G-d alone. Different periods of history brought different human tragedies brought about by differing understandings and differing culture clashes. No culture I can think of is immune...though some are more visibly evident to us in part because of the Western cultural lens and disposition we are viewing from. Even the uber-pacifist Buddhists are not immune, historically. Even the Native Americans waged war among themselves. The East Indians still wage cultural and psychological war of self-denial to distance themselves from their Aryan ancestors, and the Chinese-Japanese-Korean "who came first" and "who has the biggest/baddest/bestest" penis envy continues today after thousands of years. So you caught the Catholic church in an OOOPS. Not to make light but, big deal...there are plenty of OOOPs to go around. Humans are prone to OOOPS.

In my humble opinion, to seek the betterment of humanity includes being able to look beyond the OOOPS. The only caveat I can see is unless that OOOPS is current and ongoing and you happen to be caught up in it or are in a position to do anything about it. If there were a Catholic Inquisition going on today, yes I could see taking a strong stance against such. But there isn't, and there hasn't, and accusing someone today of injustices waged hundreds of years ago is simply not justifiable in any real sense.

Unless one happens to be trying to validate their own injustices?

[Nick the Pilot]

juantoo3,

You said,

"...surely there is at least one group and probably several groups to which you can be included by extension...."

--> Of course there is. I am Caucasian, which means I must suffer a small piece of bad group-karma for every white person who ever lynched a black person (even though I have never lynched anyone). I am not too happy about it, but that is just the way karma is. But I know about it, and now you know about it too.

"... when I called the bluff there was considerable backtracking and attempting to deny...but the evidence was there in his own words."

--> I am not sure what you are referring to. Please explain.

"...going so far as to accuse that representative of having a murderous heart and intent against those who disagree with him, is just wrong."

--> I have not accused anyone hear of having a murderous heart merely because they are Christian. I have continually asked how a church that has a leader who claims to be infallible (at times, according to Thomas) can be justified in executing people for their religious beliefs. This is the question that no one will answer for me. The accusation I am putting forth is that either the Pope's approving of the executions means the executions were totally justified (which means you approve of those executions too), or the Pope's approval of those executions was wrong, in which case his claim of infallibliy goes out the window. This is the accusation I am making, and no one wants to address it. Have I been able to distinguish the two types of accusations that we are talking about here?

"Otherwise, the same could be said of any Theosophist for precisely the same...the desire to murder those who will not willingly fall into the fold!"

--> I am not aware of any Theosophist who has executed people in the name of Theosophy. I am aware of Catholics who have executed people in the name of Catholocism -- and claim a god-given right that such executions were totally justified, and are still totally justified even today. You seem to be making the same claim that the executions were totally justified because an infallible Pope approved them, correct?

"I am beholding to none, but G-d alone."

--> I think you are beholding to your karma.

"...there are plenty of OOOPs to go around. Humans are prone to OOOPS."

--> How many of those groups claim that there leader has/had a god-given ability to be infallible?

"If there were a Catholic Inquisition going on today, yes I could see taking a strong stance against such. But there isn't, and there hasn't, and accusing someone today of injustices waged hundreds of years ago is simply not justifiable in any real sense."

--> This begs the question: Why did the Inquisition stop executing people? If their Pope provides them with infallibilty, then do they still have the right to be performing 'infallibilty-approved' executions like they did in the good old days? (It seems all Catholics must answer yes.) Such infallibility is a very handy thing to have.