Galileo and Hexenhammer

Galileo and Hexenhammer · Last Days, Kent Hovind Group, Defining "Paedophilia" I · Defining "Paedophilia" II · Defining "Paedophilia" III · If Vampyrism is Wrong (It Is), Is Putting Vampyre Wannabees in Asylum Right? (No)

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

THE SCIENTISTS OF OLD...

They appear a lot more conscientious than the scientists of this day. Although it was also more risky to say certain things in those days of old.

Today they basically can say and claim anything and basically get away with it.

Now, may it be possible they understood things better in the days of old...? 🤔

Omitting

two threads

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why would any of above count as necessarily a great scientist?

Father of "modern observational astronomy" refused to stick to observational, which is why he got in trouble with Inquisition (observational astronomy is geocentric).

Father of "describing planetary motions" certainly made an update in comparison to his geocentric teacher Tycho, but was updated in turn by Riccioli who put his descriptions with ellipses back into line with geocentrism.

Father of "modern physics" (as if Galileo and Mersenne weren't both better at acoustics - as Catholics, they were HEARING the guys Christ sent, get it?) says "gravity explains the motions of the planets" - but he only worked out the two body problem, and a recent study from China on many body problem involved in "solar system" says its stability is moot and very sensitive to initial conditions.

There are two solutions : heliocentrism depends on a VERY good designer, or, God has not left motions of celestial bodies to material only factors after creating them. He and angels are doing some regulation, which makes Him and them current explanations, not just explanations for setting in motion.

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

Why is opposing to what the Inquisition ordains a bad thing? Wasn't the Inquisition bad and mislead at really a lot of things?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why is opposing to what the Inquisition ordains a bad thing?"

It is, as long as it represents the Catholic Church which Christ instituted.

"Wasn't the Inquisition bad"

No, I decided to convert at age 16 after finding out what kind of sectarians they primarily targetted in Middle Ages.

Already against Protestant Reformation, only Inquisition had held me back from finally deciding conversion. THEN ma gave me Umberto Eco's Rosens namn (Swedish translation) for Christmas 1986, and after reading it, I had settled for conversion.

" and mislead at really a lot of things?"

No.

Now, one question in return, since I answered yours: why did you ask on Inquisition rather than specific content of the scientific debate?

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

If you say the Inquisition is a good thing then why would I bother about asking about any other thing?

Targeting sectarians like the Cathars? What they did to them was an indeed awfully cruel act. Who is to judge? According to Scripture that is not man. What does man do pretty much all of the time, judging and persecuting. 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What they did to them was an indeed awfully cruel act."

You mean receving penitents after some weeks of discussions in prison? Or you mean burning those very few who refused to convert?

Stoning sentence for blasphemy in OT is relevant.

NOT getting even first verse of Genesis right means they were blaspheming.

" If you say the Inquisition is a good thing then why would I bother about asking about any other thing?"

Because you brought science up and was willing to set aside a pet peeve to keep on subject?

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

Sorry, I studied the documented deeds and history of the Inquisition rather extensively. With their witch hunting and so on. You may find the Malleus Maleficarum a work a grand scientific achievement, I unfortunately do not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Have you studied how long Malleus Maleficarum had ANY bearing AT ALL on the Inquisition?

Here is about a real story of a man who did have lasting impact on Inquisition:

Tomas De Torquemada: The Grand Inquisitor
Biographics | 6.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4k__nIwII

I'd say the most controversial part of Malleus is how investigations were conducted.

That was perhaps of least influence.

Here is another matter involved in witchcraft:

"Alexander VI published two Bulls upon the same theme, and in a Bull of Julius II there is a solemn description of that abomination the Black Mass, which is perhaps the central feature of the worship of Satanists, and which is unhappily yet celebrated to-day in Londin, in Paris, in Berlin, and in many another great city.

"Leo X, the great Pope of Humanism, issued on Bull on the subject; but even more important is the Bull Dudum uti nobis exponi fecisti, 20 July, 1523, which speaks of the horrible abuse of the Sacrament in sorceries and the charms confuted by witches."

From a modern foreword to Malleus, found here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mmintro.htm

That sacrilege exists is a historic reality, and I don't see what science has to do with the question.

Obviously, people have been executed for sacrilege both inside and outside witch cults, and sacrilege is still a big thing.

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

It is pending to which story you will listen, anything can be justified through a story. What you look at however is how things evolved, which is recorded and documented history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As I said the procedural part was more contested, here is beef for that:

_________

Laien und Kleriker, die die Hexenjagd ablehnten, wurden im Hexenhammer zu Häretikern erklärt und mithin der Verfolgung preisgegeben: “Hairesis maxima est opera maleficarum non credere” (deutsch: „Es ist eine sehr große Häresie, nicht an das Wirken von Hexen zu glauben“).

__________

Bei einigen Autoren regte sich deutlicher Widerstand gegen diese Schrift. Die Spanische Inquisition beispielsweise erklärte den Hexenhammer nach eingehender Prüfung als „ungeeignet“ (die Suprema, der oberste Rat der spanischen Inquisition, urteilte: „Denn der Autor nimmt für sich in Anspruch, genau die Wahrheit ermittelt zu haben, in Dingen, die so beschaffen sind, daß er so leicht wie alle anderen getäuscht werden kann.“). Petrus Dusina, Beisitzer am römischen Inquisitionsgericht, schrieb um 1580, die Grundsätze des Hexenhammers seien „vom Inquisitionstribunal nicht angenommen worden“. 1631 veröffentlichte einer der bekanntesten Gegner der Hexenprozesse, der Jesuit Friedrich Spee, anonym die Cautio Criminalis, in der er vor allem die juristischen Methoden, die bei diesen Prozessen angewandt wurden, allen voran die Folter, kritisierte.

___________

Der Jurist und Aufklärer Thomasius verwies in seiner Dissertatio de crimine magiae 1701 auf fehlende Beweise für die Existenz von Hexen und ihren Teufelspakt.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexenhammer

Now, Malleus was not used for charges of heresy, so first paragraph has little relevance.

Last paragraph makes Thomasius a very provincial man or a heretic.

The other paragraphs say Inquisitors agreed witchcraft exists, but Malleus gave bad ideas on how to search for witches.

"What you look at however is how things evolved, which is recorded and documented history."

How things evolved is "assessed" history.

What a thing was then or there in the view of such a contemporary, that is what "recorded" history is.

A historiographer has two steps in his work plan.

Get the facts from recorded history, i e preferrably primary sources, then, from that, make an assessed history.

How sth developed is assessed, not per se recorded.

Brush up your historical theory of knowledge.

A T

"Stoning sentence for blasphemy in OT is relevant."

If stoning is so relavant now, why dont we find it in the NT?

Jesus is clear that Christians are not to "pull weeds" on their own but they must leave that to God!

Matthew 13: The Parable of the Weeds

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters.

----------------------------------------------

Romans 12:19

"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord."

----------------------------------------------

There are many more relavant verses in NT against the Inquisition (eg Matthew 5:43-48, Romans 12:18, Matthew 26:52, etc) but there is none to my knowledge that would justify it, so it is clearly the work of Devil.

https://youtu.be/TrZ617fTHzc?t=63

-----------------------------------

"(Inquisition ) it represents the Catholic Church which Christ instituted"

1. Inquisition does represent the Catholic Church :)

2. but the Catholic Church is following a different "christ" and was not instituted by Jesus Christ but Lucifer, Satan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1DL-boyvE

Note

As I did not in the following answer on parable of weeds to him, the servants in parable are angels, not Christians on Earth, the parable explains why there are bad Catholics (heretics would even be outside the field of the master in the parable).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If stoning is so relavant now, why dont we find it in the NT?"

Bc Romans had no competence to stone, and Jews no longer a right to do so (their stonings were lynchings).

No verses?

" Matthew 21:[44] And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder."

Prophecy that Catholics shall survive both their persecutors and those they persecute.

"Romans 12:19"

Refers to the work of Christians as individuals (revenge was a very active thing in Rome, see how Caesar lost power and how Augustus gained it).

It is NOT sth which forbids death penalty.

Matthew 5 - does it or doesn't it forbid death penalty?

If it does, how come so many Evangelicals single out inquisition?

If it doesn't, how come you can't see Inquisitors weren't private citizens happening to be Catholic and instituting a plot to take revenge they were officials trying suspects for charges they could hang.

And they did so with so much love that they converted any more than burned ("hang" is general term).

Also, an Inquisitor did not pronounce (usually) death sentence, he left it to civil authorities, except in Spain where he was both royal and ecclesiastic, not pure ecclesiastic authority (possibly same in Papal states).

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

If you quote German you may wish to consult the books written by Kurt Baschwitz about this... Science you say, was it a good thing that Copernicus and Galilei were forced to renounce the things they had found?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You claim to know history?

"that Copernicus and Galilei were forced to renounce the things they had found"

Neither of them was forced to do that.

Copernicus didn't renounce anything and what Galileo renounced was not empirical facts he had found through telescope, but conclusions from those.

It was a good thing he was told to renounce wrong conclusions, yes.

As I said "wrong" I am of course also interested in the science part here, hence my initial response.

"Siegfried Kurt Baschwitz (* 2. Februar 1886 in Offenburg; † 6. Januar 1968 in Amsterdam) war ein deutsch-holländischer Journalist, Sozialpsychologe und Publizistikwissenschaftler. "

A shrink is your source?

"Sozialpsychologe"

On top of that, he was from Protestant North Germany, died in Amsterdam and can be without too much bias on my part reasonably suspect of being biassed.

AND he died in 1968, previous to research that has dug up other aspects I have been able to read about the matter in.

Thanks for giving your source!

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

Not 'my source', but 'a source'. One that you totally and utterly discard of based on some prejudices you spout with. I am fairly sure you could also take pieces from Scripture and 'prove' that Jesus in reality was Satan. You research materials, you don't discard of materials based on a superficial prejudice about the person presenting the material...

Thanks for sharing your prejudices!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"One that you totally and utterly discard of based on some prejudices you spout with."

Like research from 1997 involving looking at more historic material than one from before 1968?

Like historians being better at looking at historic evidence than social psychologists?

Or like men from North Germany, dying in Amsterdam and having Jewish origins perhaps being often a bit biassed against the Inquisition?

Yes, these are prejudices I do enjoy sharing!

Michel Snoeck (Admin)

No use talking to you as you are not even listening...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Projecting?

[No response]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I responded to the part I thought more important, about my being prejudiced.

When it comes to your other sources, how about saying which ones?

Or did you mean responding to sth else than your words by "listening"?

I am not your close pal, I am very far from you ideologically.

You think you are the Church Christ founded, which was lost under Constantine and which Luther etc restored. And that Catholic Church is the Fourth Beast.

I think Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and which never was lost, and that your extremely anti-Catholic Protestantism is one of the four heads of Third Beast, namely leopard.

In their NT and endtime realisations.

This is NOT an ideal set up for emotional "listening" with "empathy" since we are not two people meant to empathise all that much with each other.

Not on this question.

What remains are arguments and reasons, and these I very much do listen to and respond to in order of reasonable dignity.

If the order of dignity was rather like your other sources first, why didn't you mention them?

They have similar problems as Kurt Baschwitz?

Michel Snoeck

The problem is that you rely blindly on your quick web searches, pick up one thing you don't like, and condemn the person and the materials that have never even looked at. The problem is not Baschwitz, it's you. You condemned him solely based on a brief description mentioning "Sozialpsychologe", suddenly he is "a shrink" according to you. Are you a Scientologist or something, they are particular fixated by any such. Again, it's no use talking to you...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The problem is that you rely blindly on your quick web searches,"

A quick web search is reliably not biassed by my choices.

You chose to mention Kurt, I did a websearch.

"pick up one thing you don't like, and condemn the person and the materials that have never even looked at."

In a debate, I can not hold myself to examining whole books before making a response.

Don't like is not the exact point.

Don't find it probable he was equipped to do the correct research is the exact point.

And on each item, I have ample (as ample as his book's contents) evidence before me.

I cannot directly share it with you, in a debate, except in a snappy manner.

"The problem is not Baschwitz,"

Yes, it is.

"it's you."

Your evidence being ...

"You condemned him solely based on a brief description mentioning "Sozialpsychologe", suddenly he is "a shrink" according to you."

His specialty is analysing minds, not evidence about history.

There were two more warning signals in it about his possibility to be accurate on Inquisition.

However, his observations on mass hysteria might have a bearing on how you behave with me, even if they have very little bearing on actual behaviour of Inquisition with witches.

"Are you a Scientologist or something, they are particular fixated by any such."

Since you reason about my mind and use the term "fixated" - are YOU some kind of shrink?

No, I am not a scientologist, but I really and truly think when it comes to shrinks they are right.

I am also not a "Bible believing independent chicken eating Baptist" but I think Kent Hovind is right on Evolution.

"Again, it's no use talking to you..."

If you are a shrink, no.

Epilogue

Honour where honour is due:

I contacted him about the attacks of near "inquisitorial" virulence (thpugh real Inquisitors hardly were all that virulent, mostly?), and I got this response:



I am thankful for that!/HGL