Would it be a good Idea to torture unbelievers until they recanted?
Absolutely NOT!!!
I’m a Christian. The book I go by, the Bible, does not commission me to CONVINCE anyone that Christianity is the way to go. It simply says to preach (one quote I like, from some unknown saint, states “Preach. Use words if necessary.”). The Holy Spirit does the convincing.
You cannot force anyone to believe anything. Torture someone and they may VERBALLY recant but you cannot change what’s going on in their hearts.
the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a product of, nor is it endorsed by the RCC. It is NOT doctrine.
Furthermore, it dates from approx. 1918, and many of the tenets reflected in it (Protestants are heretics, Jews are bigger heretics, etc.) were renounced by the RCC via Vat. II.
it is STILL a fascinating read, for those wishing an unsanitized look at pre-WW II Catholic thinking.
There are some gray areas here. Most people think of Pascal’s Wager as straight up nonsense because they think it silly to think that god would be impressed by belief that was motivated by mere hedonistic gambling. But while the wager isn’t ultimately a very sound arguement, Pascal wasn’t so silly as to think what’s often attributed to him. What he thought was not that one would instantly really believe sincerely for the right reasons, but rather that the initial belief would, over time, develop into a more sincere and uncalculating one via time and steady practice. So, at least by his formulation, it would be sometimes worthwhile to have a forced insincere belief: because that would at least put one in the state of being ready to accept it for real (as practice becomes thought). The percieved problem really emerges from the severity of what will happen if a person is not open to being saved and consequently isn’t: when the stakes are so high, any successful path looks justifiable. Most theologies have developed approaches to head off this problem (which would otherwise condone forced conversion), though the motives for doing so are different (certainly one reason might be the development of ideas about free will: another might be the emergence of a unsecretarian mutual moral consensus about forced conversion being evil and unacceptable)
This same strange problem comes up with regards to the question of whether the unborn or babies will be automatically saved if they are killed prematurely. If they are, then it would seem that the best course of action would be to kill them immediately, because letting them grow up would put them at a risk of not being saved that they would otherwise face. Certainly the killer could not possibly be saved, and would be an evil person: but that would seem to be a worthwhile sacrifice: to become evil and damned in the service of ensuring that many others are ensured their salvation. Various theologies deal with this question in different ways, from purgatory to even reincarnation to the idea that even fetuses actually are given a fair shake at accepting or rejecting Jesus.
The possibility of outside effects on salvation continues to be a tricky issue, for instance in theologies that include Satan as a supposed tempter, working against people’s salvation, and also cocnepts of free choice. The problem for these theologies is that on one hand, everyone is supposed to have a fair shake (they are ultimately the ones that choose whether to be saved or not), and on the other the idea that Satan has any power whatsoever. If everyone has an equally fair choice, regardless of situation or influence, then a being like Satan cannot possibly have an ultimate effect on the outcome: making him and his influence completely toothless. To say that Satan could ever make a final difference (that is, without Satan’s involvement, an unsaved person would have been saved) in the ultimate outcome would be to destroy the concept of a fair shake. The opposite problem is involved in crediting anything external with leading one to salvation: if some special opportunity can ever claim to have made a difference in the ultimate outcome, then the freeness of the choice is again at question.
Again, as with all these sorts of problems, different theologies have dealt with them in different ways. The current thinking in Catholic circles, for instance, would not support the use of forced conversion, but leaves open the question of whether forced conversions had ever had a positive deciding influence on whether someone ended up choosing salvation or not.
happyheathen, you are displaying some ignorance here. Spain today is a country much less polarised by religion than the US. Unlike the US, in Spain you will not hear any politician making reference to the Bible and such things because he would be laughed at. There is no debate about teaching creationism in schools and, best of all, nudity is considered pretty normal.
There are plenty of mosques and synagogues in Spain.
I do not know the details of that incident and you might want to provide a cite but it seems to me you are strectching it in presenting it as a case of religious intolerance. If citizens of any denomination decide to go into a religious building of another denomination and hold their rites and ceremonies there uninvited, then it seems pretty logical to me that they be asked to leave and this has nothing to do with religious intolerance. More to do with private property and such. Europeans today are a lot more tolerant about religion than Americans.
smiling bandit, I am not sure if you are being facetious because if there is a country where churches have been burnt it is the US. Let’s see how many instances of churches, mosques or synagogues you can find burnt in Spain in (say) the last 20 years. I can guarantee you that I can find many more in the US.
Let’s see how many religious cites you can find by Spanish politicians. I can guarantee they are much more common in US politics.
Let’s see if you can find in Spanish society the polarization you have in American society regarding abortion. I don’t think so.
Let’s see if you can find in Spanish society the division and polarization about prayer in school or religious education. I don’t think so.
Can you find Televangelists in Spain? I don’t think so.
The equivalent of Chick Tracts? I don’t think so.
Religious intolerance is much higher in the US than in Spain today.
Sex, nudity, prostitution, alcohol, drugs, etc are not the taboo they are in the US.
By any standard you choose, Spanish society today is much more tolerant than US society. Ask anyone who’s been there.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Chick lambasts the Catholic church for it’s threat of torture (specifically burning people at the stake) to gain followers and/or crush resistance to their theology and then goes on to talk about an everlasting, torturous and burning hell for those who don’t believe in his brand of Christianity?
It seems the threat of burning is still pretty popular as a conversion tool in much of Christiandom.
The Edsel was a bad idea. Changing the formula of Coke was a bad idea. Trading Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio was a bad idea. Giving Geena Davis her own sitcom was a bad idea.
Ok, now that’s settled we can go on to discuss whether burning witches at the stake is a good idea.
On the other hand, since I do not expect anyone to say it was a good idea and since there is nothing we can do about it anyway, why don’t we discuss whether keeping prisoners in Guantánamo and denying the their human rights is a “good idea”? At least it is a current issue and there is a reasonable expectation that someone might think it is a “good idea”. I do not expect anyone here to say burning people at the stake is a good idea.
I’m guessing you’re one of these “anything goes” types, Sailor, a world in which nothing is ever wrong, just a matter of opinion or “lifestyle choice”?
Ok. The wolves remark thing was a cheap shot. I apologize.
But still … I really have a hard time understanding people who act as if stuff like that is perfectly okay, and those who have a problem with it are the ones with the problem.
Would you want your daughter to be a prostitute, for example?
I wouldn’t mind my daughter being a prostitute if it would not instantly make her a felon only able to find business amongst the criminal element. After that, and even including that, it would be her choice, not mine to make.
I prostituted myself once. $40. Righteous. Not a single one of my girlfriends has ever minded that fact, and instead found it somewhat amusing.
Meh. It’s the Catholic Church’s property, as far as I’m concerned they decide what goes on there and what doesn’t. You may say it is “open to the public”, but it’s not “open to the public” in the same way a McDonald’s restaurant is.
Just because it used to be a mosque doesn’t mean anything. I can’t walk into the house where I grew up in Rock Island, IL, and start using it for my own purposes. It’s got new owners, I have to respect their wishes. Even if I show up during an “open house”, for example, I can’t start rearranging the furniture.