Jump to content

Why is the past act of burning non believers at the stake seen as bad?


Saiyan300Warrior
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

But countries going to war with others and committing crimes in other countries seen as a lesser evil. British Empire for example going around making a mess of other natives lands and conquering it. 

Are you looking to establish a hierarchy of 'bad deeds'? You do realize no two people will ever completely agree, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's seen as bad in a modern context, but in the past religion played an important role as a means of controlling people. Making an example out of people who were disobedient was necessary to maintain that control. Today we have other means of doing that, so traditional religion as we know it is no longer necessary.

Edited by VenusPrincess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2020 at 1:58 AM, MigL said:

And while the British Empire did have a few redeeming qualities which benefitted some colonials, no-one ever benefitted from burning at the stake.

The church did.
It improved compliance among the flock.

That's why the church kept doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2020 at 7:14 PM, Saiyan300Warrior said:

Why is the past act of burning non believers at the stake seen as bad?

Don’t the core teachings and central dogmas of most believers holy texts pretty explicitly say that the killing of others / murder is wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why is the past act of burning non believers at the stake seen as bad?"

Because it is bad.

On 12/6/2020 at 1:14 AM, Saiyan300Warrior said:

But countries going to war with others and committing crimes in other countries seen as a lesser evil. British Empire for example going around making a mess of other natives lands and conquering it. 

You're conflating religion with politics, 

Religion's seemed to have spread through persuasion rather than force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seriously need to rethink this comment, buddy 😂 

I'm not sure I do, in christianity, for instance, there are many examples of the local traditions being incorporated into "the message" rather than imposing the message.

No-one can force everyone to believe what one thinks.

I just think that a new religion is more easily understood, than it is through the fog of time.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

But that's my point.

Quote

Forced conversion is the adoption of a different religion or the adoption of irreligion under duress. Someone who has been forced to convert to a different religion or irreligion may continue, covertly, to adhere to the beliefs and practices which were originally held, while outwardly behaving as a convert. Crypto-Jews, crypto-Christians, crypto-Muslims and crypto-Pagans are historical examples of the latter.

 if India had a say I think Kabaddi would be the national sport (rather than cricket).

 How did Trump force his followers to follow?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But that's my point.

You quoted a part which states "someone forcibly converted MAY continue to hold old ideas in a covert way." I don't disagree, but the larger point is that many really do get converted... especially as new generations are born into it... and the article then goes on to list like several hundred examples of forced conversion.

Your point, however, suggested that Religions haven't been spread through force, which is plainly false and not subject to honest argumentation. The fact that forced conversion even has its own crazy long wiki page really should be enough for you to just accept my point and move on. 

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Religion's seemed to have spread through persuasion rather than force. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 How did Trump force his followers to follow?

To rebut the notion that "Religion's seemed to have spread through persuasion rather than force." all one has to do is show that some religion is spread through force.

Some conversion is forced ≠ all conversion is forced

 

As Trump's followers are nominally political, it would seem to be irrelevant to the point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, swansont said:

To rebut the notion that "Religion's seemed to have spread through persuasion rather than force." all one has to do is show that some religion is spread through force.

Some conversion is forced ≠ all conversion is forced

But my point was, at the start of a religion the idea is clear enough that it spreads without need of an army (just a few people that understand the idea and just want to help), but as time goes by the idea gets twisted and stretched as the politicos start to tear at the carcass; it's then that the idea needs an army.

I just think an idea that goes viral, when understood, and was accepted across all culture's and beliefs, is worth investigation.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

As Trump's followers are nominally political, it would seem to be irrelevant to the point.

Yeah, fair enough a bad analogy.

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Your point, however, suggested that Religions haven't been spread through force

I didn't say that:

Quote

 

I'm not sure I do, in christianity, for instance, there are many examples of the local traditions being incorporated into "the message" rather than imposing the message.

No-one can force everyone to believe what one thinks.

I just think that a new religion is more easily understood, than it is through the fog of time.

 

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But my point was, at the start of a religion the idea is clear enough that it spreads without need of an army (just a few people that understand the idea and just want to help), but as time goes by the idea gets twisted and stretched as the politicos start to tear at the carcass; it's then that the idea needs an army.

If that was your point, you should have said something like that before now. As it is your 'point' looks like a moving target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But my point was, at the start of a religion the idea is clear enough that it spreads without need of an army (just a few people that understand the idea and just want to help), but as time goes by the idea gets twisted and stretched as the politicos start to tear at the carcass; it's then that the idea needs an army.

Probably depends on how we define religion. I'm of the perspective that basic religious tendencies began well before human primates, and we also know that group control and power is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Religion for a wolf could be something simple like, "don't go into the grey's territory or we'll lose our pups" and could include teachings like, "if you respect this set of trees, they will feed you with bunny rabbits when it gets cold." 

That just evolves into the more formalized stuff we have today (abrahamic and more eastern philosophies alike). Those "teachings" and "codes of behavior" very much were spread through war mentalities because animals kill those who don't subscribe to the "this is my land, bee-atch!!" dogma... Haha... dog-ma...about wolves. I'm in town all week, folks.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

As it is your 'point' looks like a moving target

More like a wave... Dim is a wave/particle duality/complimentarity kinda guy... 😁

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But my point was, at the start of a religion the idea is clear enough that it spreads without need of an army (just a few people that understand the idea and just want to help), but as time goes by the idea gets twisted and stretched as the politicos start to tear at the carcass; it's then that the idea needs an army.

Considering only the Abrahamic religions, we have few, if any, historical records of the beginnings of Judaism or Christianity.
It is mostly in the form of unverified 'scriptures'; they 'tell' us it was mostly about ideas, very little, if any, about force.
But that, obviously, cannot be verified by multiple sources.
We do have historical records for the beginnings of Islam, as that was about 600CE.

After he was kicked out of Mecca, for his teachings, Muhammad moved ( Hijra ) to Medina ( Yathrib ), where his growing religious army was financed by raiding caravans crossing between Mecca and Medina.

"In December 629, after eight years of intermittent fighting with Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The conquest went largely uncontested and Muhammad seized the city with little bloodshed."

From        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

That certainly seems like an army to me, even if there was only a 'little' bloodshed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Probably depends on how we define religion. I'm of the perspective that basic religious tendencies began well before human primates, and we also know that group control and power is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Religion for a wolf could be something simple like, "don't go into the grey's territory or we'll lose our pups" and could include teachings like, "if you respect this set of trees, they will feed you with bunny rabbits when it gets cold." 

I do agree with your basic premise, there's wisdom in them there words, but then religions evolves too and the wolves current wisdom is, don't eat granny.

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Those "teachings" and "codes of behavior" very much were spread through war mentalities

Is that true of taoism?

17 hours ago, MigL said:

Considering only the Abrahamic religions, we have few, if any, historical records of the beginnings of Judaism or Christianity.

So we don't have evidence, either way. That doesn't negate the logic of my arguement, a good idea doesn't need an army to make sense. 

23 hours ago, zapatos said:

If that was your point, you should have said something like that before now. As it is your 'point' looks like a moving target.

I did:

On 12/9/2020 at 1:25 PM, dimreepr said:

I just think that a new religion is more easily understood, than it is through the fog of time.

 

To dismiss something you don't understand is illogical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zapatos said:

Same thing can be said about digging your heels in when you are proven wrong.

When did that happen?  I've been saying it for years, I think, most, religions are just trying to teach us to chill/be content with...

Citation please.


 

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.