What's the best estimation for the death toll of the Inquisition?
idk not very high
one is too many though given that it was a totally pointless exercise
>>793839
In what numbers though?
The protestants on this board usually say up along the seven digits.
2000-5000
Very little.
You actually got a notice before they arrived in the local area in Spain so you could get your shit together and pretend to be a good christian boy.
>>793847
Sounds like a bunch of american protestants who also believe that witch trials were an everyday occurance.
One death is horrible, thousands in the name of the Vatican is straight up demonic.
The Spanish inquisition was even called "santa inquisicion",Anything that belonged to the guilty once sentenced and murdered then became property of the church.
>>793943
And?
>>793949
Who ever kills and hates another human being has no God in him.
I have studied the early church for years now and am still amazed how the church of Christ mutated into the beast of catholicism. As soon as the bishops got that first taste of power, nothing else mattered, least of all the Gospel, and certainly not truth.
>>793966
Won't that mean that Luther to was an ungodly man, since he praised the knights who Crushed the peasant rebellions that hit Germany?
And this isn't really a theological discussion, jsut one on historical numbers.
>be german church
>burn 25000 women as witches
>be spanish inquisition
>burn 46 in five centuries
Guess who got the worse reputation
>>793966
So what do you make of the Protestants who tortured, hanged and burned 'witches' by the thousands?
>>793981
The numbers run into the millions(Cathars, american indians etc), of course the catholic church also let knights and secular authorities do the dirty work.
>>794003
American Indians were actually exempt from the Inquisition and it was the Church that worked to give the Indians equal rights to the Spanish settlers.
>>794003
And if you are just gonna go by secular acts as well, a third of Poland's population died when Protestant Sweden invaded the country.
>>794020
There you go again
"Oh but the protestants were just as bad"
Good thing were not discussing Pedophilia
>>793827
Exactly 0
>>794037
>Here is some evil acts by Catholics
>Don't dare to point out the evil acts by protestants!
Got any research showing that pedophilia is a bigger problem in the Catholic Church than in Protestant ones? All I have seen points to the problem being equally big in Protestant churches.
>>794037
>There you go again
>"Oh but the protestants were just as bad"
Yeah, that's the point. The Catholic Church has some corruption but so does literally everything else on Earth.
>>794126
Neither does the Protestant church seem to be.
And burden of proof stands on you.
>>794138
>Catholic church institutes inquisition
>Thats not very christian
>Neither are protestants!
So your church is shit but so are the protestants.
Pretty effective defense there.
>>794161
I pretty much assumed you too were a protestant, and as I myself isn't really religious I don't care much.
Sorry if I got your wrong.
>>794161
Anybody who says the inquisition killed anybody doesn't know what the fuck the inquisition was.
>>794170
>The Inquisition is[1] a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Husites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[2] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up through the 14th century.
In the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries,[3] resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. Those two kingdoms in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires (Spanish and Portuguese) in the Americas (resulting in the Peruvian Inquisition and Mexican Inquisition), Asia, and Africa.[4]
>Italian Renaissance history professor and Inquisition expert Carlo Ginzburg had his doubts about using statistics to reach a judgment about the period. “In many cases, we don’t have the evidence, the evidence has been lost,” said Ginzburg.[53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
>>793827
Isn't there some pretty good info out there that the inquisition actually saved people given the climate of the times?
I read somewhere that the inquisition was a response to people accusing their neighbor who played their music too loud at night of being a heretic and dragging them to the town square and killing them. After the inquisition, people were less likely to accuse others for shitty reasons because then the inquisition came to town and it was a whole thing.
I dunno, could be wrong, but I read a pretty convincing article about this a couple years ago.
>>794185
Yes and the inquisition (which still exists) didn't kill people
That was never the point of the inquisition
>>794187
Yes
That was what the point of it was
People being called heretics and mobs of peasants killing people
The inquisition was meant to get the accused away from mob justice, find out if they were actually a heretic, and if yea let them confess and repent. If they said no whatever happened to them was the decision of the civil authorities of whatever country they were in based on it's own laws.
>>794195
*if they said no to repentance
If they weren't a heretic they got let go and whoever accused them of heresy could end up getting flogged for a false accusation
>>794190
So what happened to the Cathars? Why was Huss burned at the stake?
>>794201
>So what happened to the Cathars?
The French killed them
>>794205
It was called a crusade
So it was ordered by the pope and overseen by bishops
Why was Huss killed by the inquisition?
>>794201
What happened at Pendle and Salem? Why was Matthew Hopkins having women hanged?
>>794219
>It was called a crusade
Not the inquisition
>Why was Huss killed by the inquisition?
He wasn't
>>793827
0, for Christianity is truly the one Religion of Peace
>>793827
You need to differentiate between the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition.
The Roman inquisition was essentially a bunch of lawyers and clerics who discussed whether people worshipping their local saints was heresy or not, whether certain local customs should be tolerated or not, etc. - they were generally a reasonable bunch.
The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool of the Spanish crown that was used to suppress minorities.
>>793986
>be german church
>burn 25000 women as witches
This wasn't really the "church" though, it was local protestant mobs.
5,000,000,000
we have either all died in it,
have been dying since it,
are about to die because of it after hearing everyone whine about it every day.
About 1500 executions out of 45000 cases.
So really not that bad at all. Plus they cracked down on witch hunting.
>>793966
The early Christians aren't Protesturds especially the ones before Constantine
Inquisition was actually totally cool you guys! Also hitler wasn't christian and christianity invented science!
Revisionism, the thread.
Problem with the Inquisition is they forced local "secular" governments to do the executions for them and then they could just say they hardly executed anybody at all. It's a bit like Guantanamo, they knew what they were doing was shifty as fuck, and they were already covering it up.
>>796767
Nigga I'm as atheist as it gets and I recognize the "evil inquisition" as part of the black legend
>Also hitler wasn't christian
Eh, he flip flopped a lot
I doubt he was a hard atheist
>christianity invented science
It helped bring about proto-science, but the outright rejection of chruch dogma is what brought about true science
Orthodox explain this. Is it true?
>>796775
Heresy was a secular crime, it wasnt forced on anyone. Besides, medieval punishments were pretty harsh by today's standards. I mean, falsifying money in those days got you killed, just like sodomy (late medieval) and other stuff. The secular courts wouldve tried heretics if there were no Inquisition, and those courts didnt know shit about theology
ITT: reverse dick measuring competition
Who cares if the protestants or catholics killed the most? Does whatever your faggot church or your enemies faggot church did centuries ago really effect you so deeply you have to get butthurt and argue over the internet?
OP asked "how many died in the inquisition?" not "who were better fellas the papists or the soup-takers?"
The hostility between Catholics and Protestants is the stupidest shit ever, and will result in the death of both.
>>793827
The inquisition is over exagerated because of anglo propaganda.
Close to zero because formally killing was on local rulers and Inquisition was here only to do judgment who is heretic and who isn't.
>>796767
It really wasn't that bad. There was some totally corrupted and outstanding cases and there was some where you will be punished with mercy to just pray or do your standard religion practices. Church was worse where they just decided use more direct approach and just slay all Cathars, whoever they want en masse.
>>798478
There was a rumour that Jan Hus was venerated as a local saint by the Serbian Church. We discussed it on a Russian Orthodox forum and nobody could show any proof that it was true. And Hus doesn`t appear on any list of saints on Czech and Serbian orthodox websites. So probably it`s all bullshit.
>>793827
I think we should first decide if witches are people.
>>798974
Isn't the first decision if they even exist?
>>798980
> questioning existence of witches
>>798996
>believing in witches
proof? definition? otherwise your opinion is useless.
>>794219
Hus wasn`t killed by the inquisition. At Konstanz he was judged by the clergy to determine whether his views were heretical or not. This was the only thing the churchmen could do, they couldn`t sentence anyone to death. Also, there was no inquisition there. After that Hus was arrested by secular authorities, i.e. the emperor of HRE who executed him.
>>798998
Witch trials are proof. There can't be witch trial if there is no witches.
>>799005
> emperor of HOLY roman empire
> secular authority
>>799008
hahahaha
I agree with you, but this is a pathetic false flag.
>christcucks dismissing their own crimes because of a technicality
>protestants and catholics duking it out over their incredibly minor differences
Sorry these faggots ruined your thread OP
Everyone from /pol/ should he burnt at the stake
>>798497
This
People don't understand that inquisition was a major positive development in the justice system from the accused's point of view. The heretic was offered several chances to repent and renounce heresy, and promise not to cause trouble anymore. Basically a slap on the wrist.
The inquisition was an answer to mob justice. People were hysterical and burning and killing suspicious people without any trials.
Also it was pretty difficult to get in front of inquisition in the first place. Not enough to hold suspect beliefs (catholic church was fairly tolerant actually), but when suspect beliefs combined with political ambitions against state (king), that's when the inquisition came in. Even Galileo Galilei was tried, not because his views were hated, but because he was a bit of a dick and embarrassed the king (who used to favor him).
>>799029
We all know that secular rulers was atheists and not catholic or affiliated with church in any way.
>>799031
>catholic church was fairly tolerant actually
In 1231, with the establishment Excomunicamus, Pope Gregory IX codified repression.
Inquisitors can use informers, imprisonment or torture,legitimized by Innocent IV in his Bull Ad extirpenda in 1252. In the absence of a confession, the evidence may be provided by witnesses, who are not seen by the accused.
In addition, the suspect can not be assisted by a lawyer.
Saint Thomas Aquinas later justify the death penalty considering that it is worse to distort the faith than to counterfeit coin (also a crime punishable by death).
Anyone arrested for heresy or aposty could ask for reconcilation with the church,but they would have to prove that their confession was sincere.The only way to do that was to inform on friends. If it were judged that their confession was not sincere,they would be handed over to the civil authorities and be put to death.
>>799150
OK? People and laws in that time were brutal.
You see an improvement to vigilante mob justice and only say, "that's not good enough." It obviously wasn't perfect but it was an improvement.
>>794013
> Church that worked to give the Indians equal rights to the Spanish settlers.
Yeah the right to be obedient Catholics and have their over a melenia of culture destroyed.
>We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they (the Maya) regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.
- Bishop Diego de Landa
>>801031
>Yeah the right to be obedient Catholics and have their over a melenia of culture destroyed.
The Jesuits let the Indians keep their traditions, they were pretty based
>>801411
>The Jesuits let the Indians keep their traditions, they were pretty based
Which practically meant completely discarding all their religious beliefs and and practices and physically destroying their everything associated with that and replacing those with Catholic ones.
but hey as long as we get to keep our names its all good and based right?
>>793847
There were thousands of trials, but not every trial ended in a death sentence.
>>801498
>Which practically meant completely discarding
No, it meant they let the Indians keep their traditions. The Indians liked the Jesuits, even more than the other preaching orders, and they (Indians) were pretty pissed with the Crown when it got them expelled from the Americas, so much that they started rebellions against the authorities.
I dont know what their names have to do with this thread, let alone the subject, so I'd think you only brought it up to shitpost. You do know /his/ is a place for serious discussion, right??
>>800017
>OK? People and laws in that time were brutal.
Odd, they had the examples of Jesus in the bible to live by,I guess somebody wanted the times to be brutal and imperfect...
Now who could that be????
>>801609
>No, it meant they let the Indians keep their traditions. The Indians liked the Jesuits, even more than the other preaching orders, and they (Indians) were pretty pissed with the Crown when it got them expelled from the Americas, so much that they started rebellions against the authorities.
Are you referring to their missions or Indians under actual control of foreigners.
>I dont know what their names have to do with this thread, let alone the subject, so I'd think you only brought it up to shitpost.
Its shitposting as much as saying that the culture they were allowed to keep was superficial and minimal.
>You do know /his/ is a place for serious discussion, right??
Is that why you feel free to completely handwave the literal destruction wrought on Ingenious peoples of the Americas at the hands of the church?
>>801815
>Are you referring to their missions or Indians under actual control of foreigners.
Is there a difference? The indians in the missions were governed by the Crown
>Its shitposting
Agreed
Do you have any proof that the culture they kept was superficial and minimal?
>Is that why you feel free to completely handwave the literal destruction wrought on Ingenious peoples of the Americas at the hands of the church?
Since when do we consider the actions of secular governments "hands of the Church"? If anything, the Church was at odds with the government
>>801789
We arent Jesus
>
>>793827
>What's the best estimation for the death toll of the Inquisition?
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num25.htm
>>801905
>Is there a difference? The indians in the missions were governed by the Crown
Quite so, the difference is between defacto and dejure governance. Relationships under a dejure system are always more controlled and moderate as they cannot be effectively enforcing.
>Do you have any proof that the culture they kept was superficial and minimal?
My point was based on their religion and folk practices being such a big part of their culture that when they took moves to eradicate the heathen faith anything left was fairly superficial.
>Since when do we consider the actions of secular governments "hands of the Church"? If anything, the Church was at odds with the government
A bishop who went around organising book burnings isnt something you can pawn off to secular authorities.
>Landa was remarkable in that he was willing to go where no others would. He entered lands only recently conquered where native resentment of Spaniards was still very intense. Armed with nothing but the conviction to learn as much of native culture as he could, so that it would be easier for him to destroy it in the future,[8] Landa formulated an intimate contact with natives. Natives placed him in such an esteemed position they were willing to show him some of their sacred writings that had been transcribed on deerskin books.[9] To Landa and the other Franciscan friars, the very existence of these Mayan codices was proof of diabolical practices. In references to these books, Landa has said:
>We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they (the Maya) regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.[10]
Do you want to know the best part? The secular authorities actually were the ones who had a problem with him and and him tried by a committee of theologians who went on to fully absolve him of any wrong doing.
>>802026
>My point was based on their religion and folk practices being such a big part of their culture that when they took moves to eradicate the heathen faith anything left was fairly superficial.
But the Indians on Jesuit missions converted voluntarily, what are you talking about?
>A bishop who went around organising book burnings isnt something you can pawn off to secular authorities.
So your proof for a widespread destruction at the hands of the Church is a rogue priest who didnt actually follow the legal procedures of the Church and was against human sacrifices done by the Indians? Ok, point taken
>Do you want to know the best part? The secular authorities actually were the ones who had a problem with him and and him tried by a committee of theologians who went on to fully absolve him of any wrong doing.
FIrstly, everyone had a problem with him, even fellow clerics.
Secondly, your cherrypicking from wikipedia leaves some pretty juicy parts unposted, most notably the parts about Indians sacrificing humans to idols
Thirdly, where do you get that a committee of theologians absolved him of wrong doings?
Finally, if he was so opposed by the secular authorities, why was he named bishop of Yucatan by the king?
>>802137
>But the Indians on Jesuit missions converted voluntarily, what are you talking about?
Hence my inquiry into the defacto dejure issue.
>So your proof for a widespread destruction at the hands of the Church is a rogue priest who didnt actually follow the legal procedures of the Church.
Did you read the whole post he was cleared of any wrong doing by the Church, not just priest but a bishop.
Likewise when you combine this with things like Requirement which with clerical support (including the Holy See and not just random priests) justified spanish exploitation action and their wholesale destruction of idols
>and was against human sacrifices done by the Indians?
All Christians were against human sacrifice but they didnt need to destroy an entire religion or anything that had a vauge connection to it to go about dealing with it.
>FIrstly, everyone had a problem with him, even fellow clerics.
Care to provide evidence of that? Sepúlveda certainly was of his persuasion.
>Secondly, your cherrypicking from wikipedia leaves some pretty juicy parts unposted, most notably the parts about Indians sacrificing humans to idols
Come now, I didnt even mention all the torutre which is something a cherrypicker would have focused on instead. Why do you ignore the points regarding how its prevalence exagerated and how other Christians were able to end human sacrifice without brutality?
>Thirdly, where do you get that a committee of theologians absolved him of wrong doings?
Finally, if he was so opposed by the secular authorities, why was he named bishop of Yucatan by the king?
I made a mistake by neglecting the before when it came to the council of indes. I was wrong in this count.
Yet whilst I do admit that I still find you to be dishonest by attempting to act as if Jesuits were the primary converters/agents of the Church when that is clearly not the case and other Orders who worked on a much larger scale were far more heavy handed and brutal.
>>793827
>What's the best estimation for the death toll of the Inquisition?
Zero. The Catholic Church has never done anything wrong, and any statements to the contrary are propaganda by Atheists and Protestants.
>>802332
Protestants are much more dishonest through their blatant exaggeration of the Inquisition's death toll
Less than 1% of all tried people were actually killed
>>793827
Not alot.
And the inquisition in Portugal was more brutal than in spain and lasted a bit longer, if i recall.
There are records of everyone evolved in the inquisition. Some of the cases are ridiculous...
>>802509
Of course they are but that doesnt justify using similar tricks in the opposite direction.
>>802548
Correct. Catholics are guilty of downplaying the attrocities of the Inquisition. Protestants are guilty of overexaggerating it to retard levels
>>802570
exactly
>>802332
>Did you read the whole post
He still did it illegaly. Also, your source just says he was cleared by a committee of "doctors", not the Church.
The Requerimiento was criticized by many clerics (I'd have to see where the Holy See explicitly supported the Requerimento), and it was drafted by the Spanish crown, not the Church
>All Christians were against human sacrifice but they didnt need to destroy an entire religion
the Native religions revolved around human sacrifice. Landa may have been harsh, but his motives werent unreasonable either.
>Care to provide evidence of that?
He was sent to face trial by his bishop.
>Sepúlveda certainly was of his persuasion.
Sure, but he wasnt traditional in his thinking, using Machiavellian thought to justify the treatment of the Indians. His ideas arent representative of the Church.
>Why do you ignore the points regarding how its prevalence exagerated and how other Christians were able to end human sacrifice without brutality?
I didnt deny that he exagerated, or that he did horrible things, but he was a rogue priest and took action against the Indians illegaly.
> I still find you to be dishonest by attempting to act as if Jesuits were the primary converters/agents of the Church
Thats pretty much what they were/are. Why do you think all anti-Catholic polemic is directed at their "world-dominion"?
>other Orders who worked on a much larger scale were far more heavy handed and brutal.
Sure, the Franciscans were the first ones to get there so they expanded easily, and some of them were pretty harsh with the Indians, but they also discouraged using brutal punishments. Of course their treatment must be acknowledged as brutal in some cases. However, the Franciscans have been the weird ones of the bunch when it came to almost everything (philosophy, etc), being met with opposition by the Dominicans and the Jesuits (especially on the Indians, or China, in which the latter held up the moral teaching of the Church).
>>802650
>He still did it illegaly.
So why was he not found guilty of anything?
Also, your source just says he was cleared by a committee of "doctors", not the Church.The Requerimiento was criticized by many clerics (I'd have to see where the Holy See explicitly supported the Requerimento), and it was drafted by the Spanish crown, not the Church
What do you think the term doctors would refer to in this context- a breach of a religious matter raised by a Bishop.
>The Requerimiento was criticized by many clerics (I'd have to see where the Holy See explicitly supported the Requerimento), and it was drafted by the Spanish crown, not the Church
Given that the Church had issued previous bulls allowing for countries to enslave and rob pagans and Muslims as well as bulls which divided up the new world between Spain and Portugal there seems to good evidence that the Church if not supportive was compliant in this imperialism
>the Native religions revolved around human sacrifice. Landa may have been harsh, but his motives werent unreasonable either.
So the end justifies the means no matter what?
>He was sent to face trial by his bishop.
Youve gone from everyone had a problem with him to just one bishop.
>Sure, but he wasnt traditional in his thinking, using Machiavellian thought to justify the treatment of the Indians. His ideas arent representative of the Church.
How were his ideas Machiavellian and not representative of the Church?
If anything the Jesuits had far more Machiavellian themes to them if Gracián is any indication.
>I didnt deny that he exagerated, or that he did horrible things.
You dont deny you just ignore it and focus on motives instead.
> he was a rogue priest and took action against the Indians illegaly.
One who received no censure or punishment and was elevated to the position of Bishop.
>>802785
>Thats pretty much what they were/are.
Im under the impression that franciscans and dommicans were the primary agents do you have evidence for your account?
>Why do you think all anti-Catholic polemic is directed at their "world-dominion"?
Because the anticatholic polemic is absolute rubbish and no different from the diatribe heaped on Masonic and Jewish world dommination plots
Jesuits were a well educated and ambitious group who excelled at diplomacy and realpolitik they are magnets for the warped ideas of conspiracy types.
>>802785
>So why was he not found guilty of anything?
I honestly dont know, but he did it illegaly
>What do you think
It could mean a doctor of law, since he was on trial by the secular council
>there seems to good evidence that the Church
Why do you think a bull on muslims applied on the Indians? That isnt evidence of anything
>So the end
I didnt say it was justified though, just that it wasnt unreasonable
>to just one bishop.
Him along with Quijada were the most significant who opposed him. Had he not been opposed by many more he wouldnt have been sent to trial
>How were his ideas Machiavellian
He thought the Spanish's superiority made it right for the Indians to be enslaved
>and not representative of the Church?
He was in direct opposition of the Thomistic natural law approach of the School of Salamanca
>if Gracián is any indication.
Who?
Considering theyre known for ideas like Molina's and Suarez, I dont think so.
>focus on motives instead.
because you were focusing on motives in the first place
>was elevated to the position of Bishop.
by the King, yes. I dont know why he was acquitted though, I cant find any source.
>>802818
>Im under the impression
It depends on the time. At the time of the Americas and Reformation the Jesuits were the primary agents of the Church, that's why they were expelled from various kingdoms
>Because the anticatholic polemic is
I know what it is, I asked why this is so?
One of the reasons is their oath of obedience to the Pope, of course there are other reasons but this is one of the main reasons for the polemic.
literally in the millions.
>>799014
So you don't even know that every single word in the HRE's name is a misnomer.
What the hell are you doing on this board.
Next you're going to say that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is actually democratic.
>>793827
Not all that high.
Firstly, you need to make a distinction between the Inquisition at large and the Spanish Inquisition in Particular. The Inquisition could use some torturous methods but they were more concerned with doctrinal correction. Those methods were used to remove non-compliance. The violence that came about was mostly due to grass-roots agitation on the part of Catholic and Protestant subjects alike. People forget that the congregation of medieval and early modern christianity drove a lot of these movements.
The Spanish Inquisition itself was more brutal and incestuously tied to the crown. They were quicker to use violence and singled out more groups but were still not all that murder happy.
>>802531
Are you kidding? Hey barely killed anyone here. It was completely controlled by the Crown in Portugal, and used mostly as a censorship bureau than anything else.
>>802785
>judging medieval people by current standarts
you're a fucking idiot, anon.
A tiny fraction of the death toll caused by Protestant witch hunts.
I'm Catholic but the Church at that time was rotten, usually the inquisition would come into town and round up a few poor people at random and burn them alive the next day. They can't even give estimates because the inquisition hid a lot of its records
>>805053
Literally never even nearly happened.
