Hmm, well that actually would make an interesting discussion in and of itself, but I was really trying to justify using the Inquisition as evidence against the divinity of the Church without being an expert on the reasons, methods and scriptural justifications for them. And it looks like you agree?
Of course we agree. I am just objecting to the specific formulation of your statement.
There is no guidance in the New Testament about the proper role of civil and church authorities in suppressing dissenting opinion. Paul railed against it, but then again his adversaries included St. Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. Jesus himself was on the wrong side of the only religious authorities he knew, and thought the world was ending in any case. The Inquisition, aka the Counter-Reformation, was based on novel ideas and traditional xenophobia. (The Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 as part of a spiritual cleansing.
In any case, the Church can still be divine even if a subset of its servants err. IMHO the reason the church is not the worldly incarnation of the religion based on Jesus is that everything about it is the exact opposite of his message. It is about faith, not acts. Rather than preparing for the coming Kingdom of God it sees itself as that Kingdom (actually kind of reasonable since Jesus was dead wrong about the apocalypse) and where he envisioned a new order where every meal was a holy mean they created a patriarchy whose ability to perform a magic trick depends on some sort of spiritual cooties (the laying on of hands) and the voluntary adoption of the sexually deviant practice of celibacy. They could have fed kittens and cooed at babies rather than burning heretics and their religion would still be bullshit.
Knowing the details does allow a more sophisticated attack on the foundations of the religion. Beat up on just the Catholics and you have Pat Robertson cheering you on.