Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Just now, dimreepr said:

You're gonna have to explain how that's relevant.

You asked when did it happen, this article says that tens of thousands of people were killed for witchcraft, it lists several specific individuals who were burned for witchcraft.. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 th

Is what you said. It was proven wrong. Rather than concede the point you moved the goalposts to say... Of course that was shown to be wrong too so now you have settled on...  

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

On 12/9/2020 at 7:13 AM, dimreepr said:

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

Is what you said. It was proven wrong. Rather than concede the point you moved the goalposts to say...

On 12/10/2020 at 7:31 AM, 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

Of course that was shown to be wrong too so now you have settled on...

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think, most, religions are just trying to teach us to chill/be content with...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

You asked when did it happen, this article says that tens of thousands of people were killed for witchcraft, it lists several specific individuals who were burned for witchcraft.. 

 

That just creates more questions:

For instance... Were they killed because they were understood?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

That just creates more questions:

For instance... Were they killed because they were understood?  

They were killed because they were convicted of witchcraft, sometimes just suspected... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Is what you said. It was proven wrong.

Citation needed.

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

They were killed because they were convicted of witchcraft, sometimes just suspected... 

But, doesn't that bolster my argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Is that true of taoism?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Of course there will be exceptions, but you were discussing religion more broadly, not taoism specifically. Also, one might ask whether it's better to describe taoism as a religion or as a philosophy, but this ties back to my very first sentence... depends on how you define religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MoontanmanSurely they were killed because they weren't understood, I think it would be safe to say that an elder that understands the benifits of a dock leaf after falling into some nettles, does not deserve to die...

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

depends on how you define religion.

Indeed, I choose to define the early ones as happy until proven otherwise...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Citation needed.

For Christ's sake, don't you read the responses to your posts? I'm not going to re-post the entire thread here so you can continue to deny, obfuscate and dance the two-step.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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. 

That's what happens when you quote something out of context …
The rest of my post goes on to explain how the third Abrahamic Religion, Islam, does have historical records, and it started out more as a conquest by the sword, rather than convincing people of a 'better' way.
Which does negate the logic of your argument for at least the Islamic Religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

I know that. you know that.

Religion can't understand it.

It couldn't a thousand years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

And it still can't today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

I'm just trying to show a distinction between a new religion (when it's understood) and an old religion (that's not understood); the older it gets the more it's driven by politicos and they only understand how "the book" can benefit them.

If you read "the book's" of religions with the premise, in mind, that they are trying to teach the populous to be content/at peace, they not only make sense, but are worth reading.

I don't believe in god but I do believe in the message.

It's the difference between a tythe and a tax; a tythe you give happily...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2020 at 5:39 PM, iNow said:

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

I've often wondered whether he's from Cheshire rather than Gloucestershire. :D 

I think religions are born (were born) rather in the wolf way that iNow describes and Dimreepr would have them be. But as soon as a place becomes densely populated, the temptation for some individuals to get hold of it and use it as a tool of power is just too tempting much to overlook.

There are strong hints of that going on at Stonehenge, Göbekli Tepe, the first Mesopotamian cities, like Eridu, even before the Abrahamic religions were set in motion. Human sacrifice and storage and management of surpluses go hand in hand in the archaeological record. And I don't think that's a coincidence.

Edit: Another very interesting place in Jordan, now disappeared under a dam: Jerf-el-Ahmar. Goes back not very long after the end of the last Ice Age. There is evidence of human sacrifice and the existence of storage of agricultural surpluses.

Priestly figures of power that somehow appear out of nowhere, wearing official gear, are very common already in pre-agricultural societies. Even in aboriginal Australia at some point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradshaw_rock_paintings

They all wear funny hats and wield weapons or symbols of power of some kind --sceptre, mace, or similar--.

Edited by joigus
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Religion can't understand it.

It couldn't a thousand years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Religion was just an excuse for the crusades.

During one of crusades, crusaders destroyed.... Constantinople.. capital city of other Christian country..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople

They were just a band of brainwashed thugs claiming to be knights, who wanted to get rich, became famous and important, conquer new lands and fill their pockets by treasures..

 

Similar excuse was used to establish the 1st caliphate couple hundred years earlier to conquest Arabian Peninsula and letter Persia. To gain power over the land and people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate

 

It does not differ much from US attack on Iraq. One soldier asked by journalist about reason of attack honestly said "what for? for oil!"..

Pressure on politicians from all parties made by arms industry lobby, and oil & gas lobby. War means large contracts from government and military. War in oil & gas producing country means increased prices on stock markets. If somebody is insider knowing when and where will be attack, such person can use/abuse derivatives for oil&gas to become ultra rich within a couple days, weeks or months, depending on initial amount of money, and level of leverage.

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

They were just a band of brainwashed thugs claiming to be knights, who wanted to get rich, became famous and important, conquer new lands and fill their pockets by treasures..

Same could be said for Popes ( and the Church ) of those times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2020 at 9:11 AM, iNow said:

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

Admittedly torture to death may seem as a heinous act...but how else do you ensure others will agree to commandments such as "thou shalt not kill"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Admittedly torture to death may seem as a heinous act...but how else do you ensure others will agree to commandments such as "thou shalt not kill"?

We’ve tried literally nothing and we’re all out of ideas! 😂 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2020 at 3:08 PM, joigus said:

I think religions are born (were born) rather in the wolf way that iNow describes and Dimreepr would have them be. But as soon as a place becomes densely populated, the temptation for some individuals to get hold of it and use it as a tool of power is just too tempting much to overlook.

But imagine the intervening year's of peace, with each new iteration trying to extend those years; with such rhetorical idea's as god and karma and chi and etc...

And how many religions share the proficy of the next profit, that makes sense of the previous iteration and ushers in a new period of peace and general contentment.

On 12/13/2020 at 3:08 PM, joigus said:

I've often wondered whether he's from Cheshire rather than Gloucestershire. :D 

Thank you, but how very dare you. 🖖

On 12/13/2020 at 2:01 PM, John Cuthber said:

I'm happy enough to pay taxes.
Like most of the UK population, I voted against the party that cuts taxes.

Not everyone needs a religion to be happy to pay taxes/help people; but imagine if the other's were afraid of religion/the consequences. 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But imagine the intervening year's of peace, with each new iteration trying to extend those years; with such rhetorical idea's as god and karma and chi and etc...

And how many religions share the proficy of the next profit, that makes sense of the previous iteration and ushers in a new period of peace and general contentment.

Intervening years of peace between different periods of organised, faith-based religion are few and far between, I'm afraid.

These religions never bring periods of peace by themselves. But general contentment they do try to usher in, because they need general contentment to control people in periods of strife, during which they tend to thrive. A laudable religious attitude, if any, should be a personal positioning in reference to your own existence, to other people, and your connection with the cosmos, that includes compassion and well meaning to others; not a creed that some authority spoonfeeds you or forces you to believe.

As long as we're discussing matters of belief, I feel free to say what I think without worrying too much about making it philosophically watertight. It's common sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joigus said:

These religions never bring periods of peace by themselves. But general contentment they do try to usher in, because they need general contentment to control people in periods of strife,

That's the mistake of context, if one is content, what period of strife?

Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.