[bremenboy]

Bible Burnnig How bout Dog burnnig

An example of the cruelty meted out is that of Mr Collins in 1538. Collins was a Catholic and mentally subnormal. He was known as an idiot without common sense. In the terms of the day, a madman. He had no religious affiliations other than being a Catholic. During mass at a church in London, when the priest lifted up the host, Collins lifted up his dog. He was arrested, along with his dog and taken immediately to Smithfield’s. Both were burnt alive. People recognised that he was wrong; the feeling at the time being that he should have been tied to a cart and whipped, or sent to the madhouse. But people felt that there was no excuse for the scene of cruelty that took place. Questions were asked which the Catholic Church has never answered. For the dog to be burnt under Church law it had to be excommunicated first, but before you can excommunicate a dog, it would have to have been baptised! Equally the same applied to poor Collins, whilst he was baptised into the Catholic Church, he was not excommunicated before burning. His burning was murder by the laws of the time, yet the church was so evil and so powerful it could murder in this way without trial and laugh at the questioning of this illegal act.

After torture, victims would be taken to a public place and either hung for slow strangulation or chained to a stake and burnt alive.

http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/burningandpersecutions.html

[Pyro7480]

His burning was murder by the laws of the time, yet the church was so evil and so powerful it could murder in this way without trial and laugh at the questioning of this illegal act.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Church couldn't execute anyone. It was the state that did this.

If you want to bring up executions, how about the Martyrs of England?

[Nihil Obstat]

Today's culture is so much more civilized. We would have had pre-natal tests that determined he was mentally sub-normal. Then he would have aborted. Thus sparing the dog, for PETA's sake.

(big sarcasm of course)

[SoothingDave]

If your choice of religion is based upon polemical fantasies about how evil other religions are, you might want to try some introspection.

SD

[dangus]

Ah, the tragedies of misunderstood dyslexia.

(No, no, no, Mr. Collins, the bread becomes GOD!)

Are you suggesting that the corruption behavior of a civil authority in 1538 somehow justifies the slaughter of thousands of nuns by another corrupt civil authority a century later? As you point out, the dog was not hung under Church law, since church law doesn't apply to dogs. He was hung under civil law.

[dangus]

Actually, as I read this carefully, it is a perfect example of the wicked defamation of the Body of Christ practiced by so-called "reformers."

While I am unfamiliar with Bremenboy's case, his explanation of it yields sufficient detail to exonerate the Church from this wicked deed. He plainly notes that the man was NOT excommunicated for his offense. This plainly indicates that the man was the victim of the State, not the Church.

It is standard operation procedure for all enemies of Christianity to blame Christianity for the actions of civil leaders. We see that today in the Middle East, where Catholic Priests in retaliation for President Bush and agnostic and Lutheran cartoonists. In the "reformation," and, on this thread, today, brutal massacres of nuns and priests were justified because of the actions of kings.

The irony is that in 1538, the King of England was none other than Henry VIII. By this time, King Henry, one of the history's most notoriously violent, anti-Catholic maniacs, had already divorced his first wife and MURDERED his 2nd, and COMMITTED FULL APOSTASY by proclaiming himself de-facto Pope over England.

Yet this bizarre little tale of Mr. Collins, so insignificant among the horrors of his day, is remembered to this day...

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Ummm ... okay, but there was no Catholic Church in England in 1538. Henry VIII had nationalized it.