Conversion By Violence. Do you approve?

CurtSibling

CurtSibling

ENEMY ACE™
Joined
Aug 31, 2001
Messages
29,447
Location
Innsmouth
Was thinking about this today, and seeing it mentioned on CFC gave me the idea!

Do you think it is a bad thing to violently convert people to religion?

Or do you think any method can be justified if it means saving a soul?

No kneejerk reactions...! Let me hear your thoughts on this.

:)
 
In before: "It worked for Muhammad!"

It is difficult to approve of anything done via violence.

What I don't understand is why people care if some stranger's soul is saved, or not. Why do they care? :confused:
 
in catholic and orthodox theology a non-christian can still be saved. Just orthodoxy is the most direct path to god. Other religions make stupid things like meditating, wearing stupid hats,growing ugly beards, praying 5 times a day in some direction, jihad... all these thngs is useless, that is why Orthodoxy is the most pure religion.

Violence, lets say that some Musselmamma wanted to go blow herself up beause of her religion, I would say violence is justified in this case.
But I dunno, isn't violence like illegal.
I would punch some guy if he was dissing my religion. That convert the slut.
 
CurtSibling said:
Was thinking about this today, and seeing it mentioned on CFC gave me the idea!

Do you think it is a bad thing to violently convert people to religion?

Or do you think any method can be justified if it means saving a soul?

No kneejerk reactions...! Let me hear your thoughts on this.

:)
Click to expand...
Depends on the religion, but concerning one that revolves around free will, it is impossible to violently convert people, so no soul saving can be used for justification.

Barring that, it's quite an interesting question at second glance. If you need to inflict a little pain in this life, but you believe that you're saving someone's eternal soul by doing so, that is a small price to pay.

Also depending on the tenets of that religion, you have to be careful not to damn your own soul because you used violence in the converting. You'd look rather silly in hell.
 
@Tekee, LOL!

Wow, doesn't the New Testament kind of condemn violence, turn the other cheek?
 
civ_king said:
@Tekee, LOL!

Wow, doesn't the New Testament kind of condemn violence, turn the other cheek?
Click to expand...

i think i was understand the new testament good. There is also rules governing what to do when in persecution and I don't feel like being made a martyr myself.
 
People's souls are there own responsibility. Leave them the hell alone.
 
Tekee said:
in catholic and orthodox theology a non-christian can still be saved. Just orthodoxy is the most direct path to god. Other religions make stupid things like meditating, wearing stupid hats,growing ugly beards, praying 5 times a day in some direction, jihad... all these thngs is useless, that is why Orthodoxy is the most pure religion.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by Orthodoxy, exactly? I assume that you are referring to Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am given to understand that they are as prone to pomp and ceremony as the Catholic Church, and far more so than most forms of Protestantism and Islam. Certainly, they're hardly the Religious Society of Friends, are they?

And, for the record, meditation is an ancient Christian practice, inherited from Hebrew traditions, found in all major denominations, including Eastern Orthodoxy.

Cutlass said:
People's souls are there own responsibility. Leave them the hell alone.
Click to expand...
I agree and, by extension, would apply this thinking to the very concept of religious conversion. Present an argument for a particular spiritual model, by all means, but don't feel that you have to inflict your particular dogma upon people.
 
Aegis said:
In before: "It worked for Muhammad!"

It is difficult to approve of anything done via violence.

What I don't understand is why people care if some stranger's soul is saved, or not. Why do they care? :confused:
Click to expand...
Because it's...Christian? You know not being a selfish prick, trying to help others and all that. :rolleyes:

Yet force can not be the answer as a forced faith is no real faith, is it?

But then again there is no god anyway.
CurtSibling said:
You are new to me, Mr Tekee - But I think I like your spam style.

:)
Click to expand...
Yes, he is definitely new to you.
 
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"

In short, no. In long, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 
I approve of any justification for violence, though one need not be necessary.
 
Aegis said:
In before: "It worked for Muhammad!"
Click to expand...

Not really sure why one would say that when forced conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam. Not true for Christianity though; a coerced conversion is legitimate as long as the converted is genuine in his conversion. Denounced, but legitimate, as they have been baptized, anointed the sacred oil, and participated in the Eucharist. (This is excluding illegitimate forms of Christianity, of which it is irrelevant as to whether their conversions are legitimate or not as they lack a Church.)
 
Forced conversion can be useful, but usually isn't it just easier to oppress their religion so severely through burdensome poll taxes, head taxes, confistication of wealth, segregation and discrimination and obstruct the free practice of it to such a degree that they throw themselves into your arms willingly?

Or does that count as coerced?
 
Is this a serious question?
 
SiLL said:
Because it's...Christian? You know not being a selfish prick, trying to help others and all that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not wanting to harass and/or force people to accept "salvation" does not make one a selfish prick. If they want to find god, they'll choose to walk the path themselves. If god wants for them to see the light, there are easier & better ways than using self-important missionaries.
 
Bill3000 said:
Not really sure why one would say that when forced conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam.
Click to expand...
What about coerced conversion? :p
 
Dachs said:
What about coerced conversion? :p
Click to expand...

The level of coercion is overstated, the jizya was not particularly excessive burden, and while at times it could be heavy, generally speaking it wasn't horrible and certainly didn't stop large populations of Jews, Christians, and so forth from existing in those regions for long period of time, it was no worse than the ghetto's or pogroms that Jews in Europe were subject to and the fact that it became Muslim was a process that happened over a significant period of time and is a natural assimilation that occurs. Things like jizya certainely created incentives for conversion but at the same time many Muslim rulers didn't want coversion because the jizya was a good source of revenue, and technically they weren't supposed to tax Muslims I believe.

I
 
Serious response to a semi-serious post is serious...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll
Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?
13 14 15
Replies
291
Views
8K
Comrade Ceasefire
Comrade Ceasefire
Narz
Satirical or serious?
Replies
6
Views
476
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
hokath
  • Locked
(7-27) Buff Fealty Policies Organized Religion and Divine Right
Replies
11
Views
528
Recursive
Recursive
Samson
  • Poll
What aspects of computing tech should we further criminalise?
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
4K
Arwon
Arwon
Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
17K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
Top Bottom