Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

To see part one, click here.

As I have stated in part one, there are many who post here who seem to be quite ignorant of certain history.  I thought I would post this, in several parts.  Part two follows.


by Barbara G. Walker


By the twelfth century it became a
firm rule that all who entered holy
orders must turn over all their property
to the church. Wealthy female
landowners who had joined convents
in order to keep their property to
themselves were now threatened with
excommunication and prison. Some
groups of nuns, such as the well-

endowed and enlightened teaching
order of Beguines, were forced to integrate
into papally approved orders
where education of, and teaching by,
women was forbidden, and all real
estate and other valuables were appropriated
by the church. Frequently, the
formerly female-owned buildings were
converted into dwellings and prisonhouses
for the Inquisition.29 Such
rules, together with its crusades and
wars of acquisition, made the church
the owner of nearly half of all the feudal
lands in Europe. Here began the
era of Renaissance heresy-hunting,
when the greed and corruption of the
church were at their height, and critics
were attacked with the most ruthless
cruelty ever seen in the history of civilization,
surpassing even the Nazi holocaust
of the twentieth century. That
holocaust lasted less than ten years.
The church’s version lasted more than
five hundred years, and its Inquisition
is still nominally part of the Holy
The Inquisition was created to win
the war between the church and the
disillusioned public, during the period
when ecclesiastical corruption was at
its height. It was established by a series
of papal bulls, notably the 1251 Ad
extirpanda of Pope Innocent IV, de -
scribed by J.B. Russell as “a terrible
measure against heretics . . . authorizing
seizure of their goods, imprisonment,
torture, and . . . death, all on
minimal evidence.”30 The “minimal
evidence” was usually obtained by torturing
previous victims until they gave
names of so-called accomplices, who
were then arrested and tortured to
contribute more names, and so on,
until whole villages were implicated
and everyone went in terror of the
devil on the one hand, and the church
on the other.
Only a few decades ago, Catholic
manuals mendaciously claimed that
the Inquisition was a purely civil tribunal,
established to punish secular
crimes.31 Actually, the Inquisition was
not interested in secular crimes except
as they might relate to heresy, the one
offense whereby otherwise law-abiding
citizens could merit the death penalty.
Even today, Catholic sources continue
trying to falsify the staggering numbers
of legal murders committed by the
Inquisition and the extraordinary cruelty
of its methods.
The great historian Henry Charles
Lea considered the Inquisition “a
standing mockery of justice—perhaps
the most iniquitous that the arbitrary
cruelty of man has ever devised. . . .
Fanatic zeal, arbitrary cruelty, and insatiable
cupidity rivaled each other in
building up a system unspeakably atrocious.
It was a system which might well
seem the invention of demons.”32
Here’s how it worked. 1) All procedures
were kept secret. 2) “Common
report” and hearsay were accepted as
proof of guilt. 3) The accused was
never told of the nature of the charges
nor allowed legal counsel. 4) Witnesses
were kept concealed. 5) Perjurers,
excommunicates, or children could
give evidence. 6) No favorable evidence
or character witnesses were permitted.
In any case, anyone who spoke
for an accused heretic was arrested as
an accomplice. 7) Torture was used
always, without limit of duration or
severity. (Official sources said that torture
could be used “only once,” but
weeks or months of daily torturing
were simply described as “continuations.”)
Even if the accused confessed
be fore torture, the torture was applied
anyway, to “validate” the confession. If
the accused died under torture, the re -
cord stated that the devil
broke his neck in prison.
8) The accused was
forced to confirm under
torture the names of
“accomplices” suggested
to him by the judges. 9)
No accused person was
found innocent.33
The rule of confiscation
was what made the
Inquisition so enormously
profitable. All the pro perty of an
accused heretic could be seized by the
church immediately upon his arrest.
The popes praised the rule of confiscation
as a prime weapon against
heresy.34 Victims were expected to pay
the expenses of their own imprisonment
as well, even to pay for the ropes,
wood, and stakes used to kill them.
There was a schedule of fees for each
torture operation. Those without
money could starve to death in prison.
Pope Gregory XI wrote that too many
accused heretics were dying of starvation
in prison before they could be
brought to the stake, and he offered
indulgences to all who would donate
food to them. Lea comments: “There
is something so appallingly grotesque
in tearing honest, industrious folk
from their homes by the thousand, in
thrusting them into dungeons to rot
and starve, and then evading the cost
of feeding them by presenting them to
the faithful as objects of charity, that
the proclamation which Gregory
issued August 15, 1376, is perhaps the
most shameless monument of a shameless
The title of Inquisitor was applied
for the first time to the judges who
investigated the Albigensian heresy in
the south of France, which was “the
most civilized land in Europe” in the
twelfth century, according to Briffault:
“There commerce, industry, art, science
had been far in advance of the
age. The cities had won virtual self-government,
were proud of their wealth
and strength, jealous of their liberties
. . . The nobles, for the most part, were
cultivated men, poets themselves or
patrons of poetry, who had learned . . .
that municipal liberties were a safeguard
rather than a menace to the wise
ruler.”36 The church’s problem was
that these enlightened people paid no
allegiance to Rome, followed Gnostic
beliefs concerning reincarnation and
the demonic nature of the biblical
Jehovah, condemned idolatry, denied
the Trinity, and refused the sacraments
of the Roman Church, which they
called the Synagogue of Satan.

by on Jul. 16, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Replies (41-43):
by Silver Member on Jul. 17, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Quoting WImom2:


Quoting home-sweet-home:

Good so now tell me. If you ONLY live according to the Bible- then you throw out all other history and scientific fact?

If other history or "scientific fact" is contrary to the Bible, then yes I would. 

If you follow only the Bible- then I want to know. Have you indeed gouged out an eye? Have you cut off the hand that offends?

As far as Matthew 5 says, Jesus is telling you that adultery is not just having sex, but lusting after a woman. However when Jesus died on the cross and rose again, he took the punishment for ALL our sins. You need to look at the concept He is giving you. If you read the whole passage, any sane person would know that He was not literally telling you to gouge out your eye.

By the way ADULT Baptism is also NOT mentioned in the Bible as the end all be all of Baptism- so then I guess you are not following JUST the Bible. You do use tradition as well.

Up, it is the only one pictured in the Bible. It is the only one He has shown an example of. So yes I am following the Bible's examples, Jesus' examples.

Now why this: EXCERPTS

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

Because he was a prophet of God, given words straight from the Lord and they are neither adding or contrary to the Holy Scriptures.

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Or this:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

I beleive that oral teaching and preaching are beneficial to the believer. As long as they do not contradict the Bible. My preacher studies and prays and is given great sermons from the Holy Spirit to share with us, but if he were to ever go against what the Bible says, we would all leave or kick him out!

I believe that there are many good things taught in the Catholic church. However, I do not think everything is based on Bible and for me, that is not good.

Check out Jacob's jouney on my home page!

by Silver Member on Jul. 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Quoting WImom2:


Quoting home-sweet-home:

Try this on why infant baptism is not scriptural.

So basicaly Jesus didn't mean it when he said:

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Children can understand. They can become saved and baptised when they can understand. We have 4 and 5 yr olds get baptised often.

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him"

You forgot to add this: that he might touch them. It does not say that he baptised them. It may have been for healing or blessing.



Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

 Circumcision to the Jew was a way for them to "be Jew" it showed they were Jew. Christ has adopted the Gentiles into his kingdom and we are now as the Jew because of His salvation, we no longer need the circumcision.


Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Actually like I said before, we do not restrict it to adults, there are many children that are baptised. They have to know Christ as their savior to follow Him in baptism. An infant cannot make that choice.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.


But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

That actually supports being able to make the decision. They were converted as well as the household.

Also you need to make sure that there is two baptism, one with water and one with the Holy Spirit (when you are saved and the Spirit come in. ) In either case, it was a decision made.

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Again, if a child is old enough to understand, they would be baptised. You have still yet to show me an example of an infant.....

Check out Jacob's jouney on my home page!

by on Jul. 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM

the catholic church is not 2000 years old.if i remeber correctly from my private high school days the catholic Church came around after the first millenia

first Paul did not invent the "catholic" church. paul picked up Jesus teachings and preached his word world wide. That is how the Christian Church got started.

Second the catholic church has always been a corrupt . why do u think Martin Luther put the 95 Thesis up. He wanted the catholic church to change.

I was baptised and brought up Lutheran. sure its an off shoot of catholic, but guess what we dont belive in praying to a woman who gave birth to Christ. thats all Mary was. dont belive in praying to saints. to me that disobeying Gods 1 commandment,.

bash me all u want but this is what i belive and what i was taught growing up, both in the lutheran church and in a cathloic high school.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)