Why Should Jews Be Mad At The Pope For Reinstating... [Archive]

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bravo to the pope. I've never understood people who place respect for other's religions above the truth.

I've always said believers don't really believe their own religion. If they did, they would be working a lot harder to save atheists and jews.

If I knew for a fact that non believers or believers of different religions would spend eternity in a place of horror, I would devote a good portion of my life to making them see the light. So would anyone else who isn't a selfish prick.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it obvious to you why praying is okay to help them see the light but coercion isn't? What about a small tax break to encourage people in the right direction?

chez

Phil153

07-09-2007, 05:30 AM

I disagree with David. It's not obviously a different story at all. Most Christians don't get this, but if hell is literally true, and for eternity, then most means to save another's soul should be permissible, provided they would be grateful for the help if they knew the truth that you do.

I suspect David's problem was more us derailing his gleeful thread.

Duke

07-09-2007, 05:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the prayer asking for the conversion of Jews. If someone thought I was going to hell if I didn't convert to their religion I would be upset it they DIDN'T pray for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's this thing that seems to have developed over the years, and it has to do with respect. Now, this isn't something that I'd call respect, but respecting someone else's beliefs seems to mean just keeping your mouth shut.

So the Jews and the Christians have this "mutual respect" thing going now which stops things like mass slaughters and wars.

So, Jews are totally cool with Christians thinking that they're all going to burn for eternity, but if they say it out loud it's a violation of that respect facade. All of a sudden they're disrespecting their faith because they're vocalizing their beliefs.

Silence is a decent solution for both sides, because neither side REALLY respects the other. Vocalization, though, makes it more difficult to get their kids and various others that they'd like to convert to their brand of religion to come in blindly. It's easier to not be posed with the question of why that other very large group thinks that they're dead wrong.

I'm not saying that this behavior itself makes sense, but I think that my understanding of it is the only way the anger at the prayer can make any sense.

Bigdaddydvo

07-09-2007, 06:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the prayer asking for the conversion of Jews. If someone thought I was going to hell if I didn't convert to their religion I would be upset it they DIDN'T pray for that.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they believed they were saving you from hell by using force to get you to convert would you be upset if they didn't use force on you?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously that's a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
obvious to who? No use it being obvious to you if it isn't obvious to Bluffthis! and co.

Maybe its concern for this lack of obviousness that partially answers your question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

You'd be hard pressed to find any recent examples of the Church using force to convert people. Though there certainly examples in history of it happening on a limited basis among select missionaries, these examples are clearly the exception. Islam, on the other hand, relied heavily on "conversion of the sword" to spread its Faith.

The Church, however, strongly recognizes religious freedom as a fundamental right, one that Pope Benedict has labored intensely for the rest of the world to recognize. Consider a recent speech of his w/respect to Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
"Our duty as believers," the Pope said, "is to announce to our contemporaries the fundamental values of religion. By virtue of natural law God left his mark on man and in doing so he enabled such values to give every person dignity and allowed us to manage our relations with our fellow human beings."

"As I said many times before," the Pope insisted, "Catholics must bear witness in favour of a culture of life, one that respects human life from conception till natural death and protects man's inalienable rights and duties. Among these rights, religious freedom stands out as an essential part of freedom of conscience and so reveals the transcendental nature of the human person."

"The Holy See is counting on Iranian authorities to give Catholics in Iran as well as other Christians the right to rely profess their faith and grant Church institutions the status of legal entities thus facilitating their work in Iranian society."

"Freedom of worship," he reiterated, "is but one aspect of religious freedom which must be the same for all citizens." (FP)

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, praying for the conversion of Jewish folks in no way endangers or suppresses their religious liberty.

vhawk01

07-09-2007, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the prayer asking for the conversion of Jews. If someone thought I was going to hell if I didn't convert to their religion I would be upset it they DIDN'T pray for that.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they believed they were saving you from hell by using force to get you to convert would you be upset if they didn't use force on you?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously that's a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
obvious to who? No use it being obvious to you if it isn't obvious to Bluffthis! and co.

Maybe its concern for this lack of obviousness that partially answers your question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

You'd be hard pressed to find any recent examples of the Church using force to convert people. Though there certainly examples in history of it happening on a limited basis among select missionaries, these examples are clearly the exception. Islam, on the other hand, relied heavily on "conversion of the sword" to spread its Faith.

The Church, however, strongly recognizes religious freedom as a fundamental right, one that Pope Benedict has labored intensely for the rest of the world to recognize. Consider a recent speech of his w/respect to Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
"Our duty as believers," the Pope said, "is to announce to our contemporaries the fundamental values of religion. By virtue of natural law God left his mark on man and in doing so he enabled such values to give every person dignity and allowed us to manage our relations with our fellow human beings."

"As I said many times before," the Pope insisted, "Catholics must bear witness in favour of a culture of life, one that respects human life from conception till natural death and protects man's inalienable rights and duties. Among these rights, religious freedom stands out as an essential part of freedom of conscience and so reveals the transcendental nature of the human person."

"The Holy See is counting on Iranian authorities to give Catholics in Iran as well as other Christians the right to rely profess their faith and grant Church institutions the status of legal entities thus facilitating their work in Iranian society."

"Freedom of worship," he reiterated, "is but one aspect of religious freedom which must be the same for all citizens." (FP)

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, praying for the conversion of Jewish folks in no way endangers or suppresses their religious liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I recently converted to this new religion, its pretty neat, no real stress or onerous rituals. One sticking point though: my God says that if people pray to any OTHER God for my salvation and conversion, he gets pretty angry and does a little "If I can't have him, no one can" magic, and I'm sent straight to Hell for all eternity.

Faze you at all?

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 06:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you see BluffThis's post justifying the killing of heretics?

chez

Bigdaddydvo

07-09-2007, 06:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the prayer asking for the conversion of Jews. If someone thought I was going to hell if I didn't convert to their religion I would be upset it they DIDN'T pray for that.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they believed they were saving you from hell by using force to get you to convert would you be upset if they didn't use force on you?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously that's a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
obvious to who? No use it being obvious to you if it isn't obvious to Bluffthis! and co.

Maybe its concern for this lack of obviousness that partially answers your question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

You'd be hard pressed to find any recent examples of the Church using force to convert people. Though there certainly examples in history of it happening on a limited basis among select missionaries, these examples are clearly the exception. Islam, on the other hand, relied heavily on "conversion of the sword" to spread its Faith.

The Church, however, strongly recognizes religious freedom as a fundamental right, one that Pope Benedict has labored intensely for the rest of the world to recognize. Consider a recent speech of his w/respect to Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
"Our duty as believers," the Pope said, "is to announce to our contemporaries the fundamental values of religion. By virtue of natural law God left his mark on man and in doing so he enabled such values to give every person dignity and allowed us to manage our relations with our fellow human beings."

"As I said many times before," the Pope insisted, "Catholics must bear witness in favour of a culture of life, one that respects human life from conception till natural death and protects man's inalienable rights and duties. Among these rights, religious freedom stands out as an essential part of freedom of conscience and so reveals the transcendental nature of the human person."

"The Holy See is counting on Iranian authorities to give Catholics in Iran as well as other Christians the right to rely profess their faith and grant Church institutions the status of legal entities thus facilitating their work in Iranian society."

"Freedom of worship," he reiterated, "is but one aspect of religious freedom which must be the same for all citizens." (FP)

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, praying for the conversion of Jewish folks in no way endangers or suppresses their religious liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I recently converted to this new religion, its pretty neat, no real stress or onerous rituals. One sticking point though: my God says that if people pray to any OTHER God for my salvation and conversion, he gets pretty angry and does a little "If I can't have him, no one can" magic, and I'm sent straight to Hell for all eternity.

Faze you at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. Here's an example. Mormons have been postumously converting prominent Catholics via Mormon baptism, including most dead popes, for a long time now. Guess what? None of us care. If you're certain in your faith, you shouldn't either.

Bigdaddydvo

07-09-2007, 06:57 AM

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 07:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you see BluffThis's post justifying the killing of heretics?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to hand and I can't face battling the search engine, you can if you like or just ask bluffThis!.

Edit: Its not an area of history I know much about but they did kill heretics didn't they. Poular opinion seems to be the catholic authorities approved and encouraged such practices. Is this myth and if not why did they do that?

chez

vhawk01

07-09-2007, 07:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the prayer asking for the conversion of Jews. If someone thought I was going to hell if I didn't convert to their religion I would be upset it they DIDN'T pray for that.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they believed they were saving you from hell by using force to get you to convert would you be upset if they didn't use force on you?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously that's a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
obvious to who? No use it being obvious to you if it isn't obvious to Bluffthis! and co.

Maybe its concern for this lack of obviousness that partially answers your question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

You'd be hard pressed to find any recent examples of the Church using force to convert people. Though there certainly examples in history of it happening on a limited basis among select missionaries, these examples are clearly the exception. Islam, on the other hand, relied heavily on "conversion of the sword" to spread its Faith.

The Church, however, strongly recognizes religious freedom as a fundamental right, one that Pope Benedict has labored intensely for the rest of the world to recognize. Consider a recent speech of his w/respect to Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
"Our duty as believers," the Pope said, "is to announce to our contemporaries the fundamental values of religion. By virtue of natural law God left his mark on man and in doing so he enabled such values to give every person dignity and allowed us to manage our relations with our fellow human beings."

"As I said many times before," the Pope insisted, "Catholics must bear witness in favour of a culture of life, one that respects human life from conception till natural death and protects man's inalienable rights and duties. Among these rights, religious freedom stands out as an essential part of freedom of conscience and so reveals the transcendental nature of the human person."

"The Holy See is counting on Iranian authorities to give Catholics in Iran as well as other Christians the right to rely profess their faith and grant Church institutions the status of legal entities thus facilitating their work in Iranian society."

"Freedom of worship," he reiterated, "is but one aspect of religious freedom which must be the same for all citizens." (FP)

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, praying for the conversion of Jewish folks in no way endangers or suppresses their religious liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I recently converted to this new religion, its pretty neat, no real stress or onerous rituals. One sticking point though: my God says that if people pray to any OTHER God for my salvation and conversion, he gets pretty angry and does a little "If I can't have him, no one can" magic, and I'm sent straight to Hell for all eternity.

Faze you at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. Here's an example. Mormons have been postumously converting prominent Catholics via Mormon baptism, including most dead popes, for a long time now. Guess what? None of us care. If you're certain in your faith, you shouldn't either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm....I think you have that backwards. I should ONLY care if I'm certain of my faith, and if I'm certain of my faith it makes a lot of sense for me to kill you if I think you might be praying for me.

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 07:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I should ONLY care if I'm certain of my faith, and if I'm certain of my faith it makes a lot of sense for me to kill you if I think you might be praying for me.

[/ QUOTE ] sorry, what possible sense could that make?

vhawk01

07-09-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should ONLY care if I'm certain of my faith, and if I'm certain of my faith it makes a lot of sense for me to kill you if I think you might be praying for me.

[/ QUOTE ] sorry, what possible sense could that make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read what I have faith in?

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 07:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should ONLY care if I'm certain of my faith, and if I'm certain of my faith it makes a lot of sense for me to kill you if I think you might be praying for me.

[/ QUOTE ] sorry, what possible sense could that make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read what I have faith in?

[/ QUOTE ]
ah missed that, sorry was thinking of an omnipotent god, yours is as feeble as NotReadies.

chez

vhawk01

07-09-2007, 08:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should ONLY care if I'm certain of my faith, and if I'm certain of my faith it makes a lot of sense for me to kill you if I think you might be praying for me.

[/ QUOTE ] sorry, what possible sense could that make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read what I have faith in?

[/ QUOTE ]
ah missed that, sorry was thinking of an omnipotent god, yours is as feeble as NotReadies.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a jealous God, no doubt about that, but what can I say? I love the Big Guy. And its really my fault when he gets mad. I know better, he's pretty great just to put up with me.

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 08:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should ONLY care if I'm certain of my faith, and if I'm certain of my faith it makes a lot of sense for me to kill you if I think you might be praying for me.

[/ QUOTE ] sorry, what possible sense could that make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read what I have faith in?

[/ QUOTE ]
ah missed that, sorry was thinking of an omnipotent god, yours is as feeble as NotReadies.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a jealous God, no doubt about that, but what can I say? I love the Big Guy. And its really my fault when he gets mad. I know better, he's pretty great just to put up with me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not just jealous, he suffers from "can't"

chez

PokeReader

07-09-2007, 11:54 AM

The Mormons starting doing that because the Jews got mad that they were converting the dead Holocaust Jews. The Mormons have the largest genelogical database in the world, I forget how many, but maybe like 8 billion people, living and dead. It's online now. They are obsessed with this and converting dead people, they do it in groups, 24 hours a day in the temple in Salt Lake. They may have done you or your relatives. They believe that everyone is eternally tied to there family in a sacred way, so I think by their own religion it's kind of vicious to be breaking up families across multiple generational lines.

It you believe in the truth of older Catholism, maybe they should put back the word they used to use in that prayer perfidis, or faithless, in the interest of not sugar-coating anything for the benefit of inter-faith relations. Although, even though I don't practice Catholism, I do think that this kind of complex liturigical practice is actually the best of the religion, without Latin Mass Catholism loses too much of it's mystery and distance, and becomes too close to every other Protestant religion.

Peter666

07-09-2007, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you see BluffThis's post justifying the killing of heretics?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to hand and I can't face battling the search engine, you can if you like or just ask bluffThis!.

Edit: Its not an area of history I know much about but they did kill heretics didn't they. Poular opinion seems to be the catholic authorities approved and encouraged such practices. Is this myth and if not why did they do that?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Killing of heretics is perfectly acceptable in a Catholic State, because public profession of heresy is an act of treason and revolution, or the modern day equivalent of terrorism.

The distinction must be made between liberty of conscience and public practice of the same. No one is able to coerce anyone to believe anything by force. Even if a person is tortured to agree to something, it would not stand as being their true will. Thus using force to change someone's privately held opinion is useless.

However, when someone starts spreading and corrupting others with their false views in public, as in the case of a heretic, it is a revolutionary act in the Catholic State, and they must be dealt with like revolutionaries.

Historically speaking though, very few people have been killed due to heresy in a Catholic State. It was only a last resort after all other means were exhausted. The Spanish Inquisition is probably the most overblown and overexaggerated historical event in history.

Silent A

07-09-2007, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Killing of heretics is perfectly acceptable in a Catholic State, because public profession of heresy is an act of treason and revolution, or the modern day equivalent of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly acceptable? Understandable, perhaps, but surely not acceptable. Certainly, it's not the modern equivalent of terrorism. The idea that a verbal challenge of authority is equivalent to terrorism is laughable.

I can't help but wonder how this line of argument would parallel in a Nazi State. Still perfectly acceptable?

vhawk01

07-09-2007, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing of heretics is perfectly acceptable in a Catholic State, because public profession of heresy is an act of treason and revolution, or the modern day equivalent of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly acceptable? Understandable, perhaps, but surely not acceptable. Certainly, it's not the modern equivalent of terrorism. The idea that a verbal challenge of authority is equivalent to terrorism is laughable.

I can't help but wonder how this line of argument would parallel in a Nazi State. Still perfectly acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I wonder what Peter would feel about some of the things posted in the Politics forum. If heresy is a capital offense in a Catholic society, then surely 50% or more of the posts in Politics are a capital offense in a democractic society, right? Is it perfectly acceptable to execute Nielsio and pvn and Borodog for spreading dissent and dangerous ideas about ACism?

Peter666

07-09-2007, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing of heretics is perfectly acceptable in a Catholic State, because public profession of heresy is an act of treason and revolution, or the modern day equivalent of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly acceptable? Understandable, perhaps, but surely not acceptable. Certainly, it's not the modern equivalent of terrorism. The idea that a verbal challenge of authority is equivalent to terrorism is laughable.

I can't help but wonder how this line of argument would parallel in a Nazi State. Still perfectly acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I wonder what Peter would feel about some of the things posted in the Politics forum. If heresy is a capital offense in a Catholic society, then surely 50% or more of the posts in Politics are a capital offense in a democractic society, right? Is it perfectly acceptable to execute Nielsio and pvn and Borodog for spreading dissent and dangerous ideas about ACism?

[/ QUOTE ]

What laws have those in the politics forum broken? They are perfectly within their State granted rights to profess their opinion. They are not living in a Catholic State, and even if they were, political opinion is not a matter of heresy.

And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

Silent A

07-09-2007, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "perfectly acceptable" do you mean within the logic of their own ideas? Or, do you mean it in a broader sense, as if it should be seen as acceptable to outsiders as well?

PokeReader

07-09-2007, 04:46 PM

Actually, the majority of the south of France in the 12 Century had converted to a heretical sect called the Cathars or Algensians. The Catholic Church started a major crusade against them which lasted more than 20 years, as they had political support from the local nobals who were happy to limit local Church power. Whole cities of thousands of both Cathars and Catholics were put to the sword. The Inquision which followed, and created the formal, permanent structure for inquisions, lasted another 30 years, during which thousands more were burned, even included the exhumation of dead bodies for burning. Just the first of many Inquisions.

Numbers tried in Spanish Inquision: Of a total of 49,092 trials from the period 1560–1700 registered in the archive of the Suprema, appear the following: Jews (5,007); Muslim(11,311); Lutherans (3,499); alumbrados (149); superstitions (3,750); heretical propositions (14,319); bigamy (2,790); prositutes(1,241); offences against the Holy Office of the Inquisition (3,954); miscellaneous (2,575). This wouldn't count the approximate 40,000 Jews that were forcible deported out of Spain, or the or the hundreds of thousands of "converted" muslims that were forcibly deported as well. Look, this was done to people that had converted, and people who were good Catholic were put to the sword, because they were in a city with Cathars, the statement being, "God knows which ones are His". It wasn't pretty, and it wasn't right, and the Church itself doesn't think so now.

vhawk01

07-09-2007, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing of heretics is perfectly acceptable in a Catholic State, because public profession of heresy is an act of treason and revolution, or the modern day equivalent of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly acceptable? Understandable, perhaps, but surely not acceptable. Certainly, it's not the modern equivalent of terrorism. The idea that a verbal challenge of authority is equivalent to terrorism is laughable.

I can't help but wonder how this line of argument would parallel in a Nazi State. Still perfectly acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I wonder what Peter would feel about some of the things posted in the Politics forum. If heresy is a capital offense in a Catholic society, then surely 50% or more of the posts in Politics are a capital offense in a democractic society, right? Is it perfectly acceptable to execute Nielsio and pvn and Borodog for spreading dissent and dangerous ideas about ACism?

[/ QUOTE ]

What laws have those in the politics forum broken? They are perfectly within their State granted rights to profess their opinion. They are not living in a Catholic State, and even if they were, political opinion is not a matter of heresy.

And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean they had broken any laws. I was trying an analogy. You made the point that heresy is so terrible because it spreads dangerous ideas and erodes the bedrock of a Catholic society. Certainly, spreading AC propaganda does this same thing. Boro and pvn are spreading some dangerous ideas over in Politics, and they are winning converts. I know political opinion isn't a matter of heresy, my point was that what heresy accomplishes in a Catholic society, seditious discussions accomplish in a democratic one. So, if it is reasonable to execute people for the protection of the Catholic State, is it reasonable to execute people for the protection of a democratic one?

Basically I'm trying to figure out some way to get Boro lynched. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BluffTHIS!

07-09-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you see BluffThis's post justifying the killing of heretics?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

I'm fairly certain that I have never posted that here, as I don't believe it, and that you must be misinterpreting/spinning something I did post. I have posted that Islam was the aggressor who provoked a Christian response during the crusades, and that regarding the Inquisition, it was not the church itself which executed heretics, but rather the state, although granting that church prelates judged whether the persons involved were in fact heretics. Also Peter666 is partially correct, as in where he gives the reasons heresy was deemed an offense against the state back then according to the understanding of those then living, but not correct if he means to imply it is a justification morally today for such actions.

This is all I have to say on this as I don't wish to hijack David's thread on a different issue than his OP.

Metric

07-09-2007, 05:08 PM

BluffTHIS!

07-09-2007, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the prayer asking for the conversion of Jews. If someone thought I was going to hell if I didn't convert to their religion I would be upset it they DIDN'T pray for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

Despite the way some Jewish or other critics may be portraying this issue, this is a derivative issue to the larger one where the pope has given greater permission to use the older form of the Latin liturgy in the church, which happens to contain such prayers for the conversion of Jews. It's not like Benedict went out of his way to bring back those prayers universally, and it is a distinct minority of catholics who even wish to attend such Latin liturgies. Furthermore it should be noted that he envisions that older form of the Mass, whose latest version was promulgated in 1962, with now continuing its former development, which means that those prayers could be removed at a future date. Indeed I think that after a few years a newer form of the Tridentine Mass will be promulgated, containing not only rubrics for massess for saints who previously weren't included, but also which will eliminate those conversion prayers.

However your question does have merit, and indeed is similar as stated above to the various rites Mormons do for the dead. I don't care if the Mormons do those things for my dead ancestors, nor if they or others pray for my conversion to their religion. I think they're silly and I don't care, which is what Jews should think about this catholic conversion prayer thing as well.

chezlaw

07-09-2007, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholics are strongly opposed to converting anyone by force. As I'm sure BluffTHIS! is, so don't misrepresent his position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you see BluffThis's post justifying the killing of heretics?

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chez,

I'm fairly certain that I have never posted that here, as I don't believe it, and that you must be misinterpreting/spinning something I did post.

[/ QUOTE ]
My apologies. Maybe thios is what I was thinking of from Peter666:

[ QUOTE ]
First, heretics damn others by spreading false doctrine. Second, they propagate revolution in the state. As such, the most severe punishments possible should be reserved for heretics. If eternal salvation is not a priority for a person, than the combatting of heresy looks out of place. But if eternal salvation is a person's priority, which it should be, combatting heresy is of utmost concern.

[/ QUOTE ]here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6417750&page=0&fpart=4&v c=1)

This is the sentiment relevent to this thread.

chez

PokeReader

07-09-2007, 08:32 PM

What I would say on behalf of Jews that are upset at this, is that this is connected to a history of Jews being persecuted and killed by the Church, and by people who were inspired by teachings of the Church. In that way, it is not like the Mormons doing rites for your relatives.

KipBond

07-09-2007, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So the Jews and the Christians have this "mutual respect" thing going now which stops things like mass slaughters and wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's not just the Jews & Christians. Catholics & Protestants have the same "mutual respect", even though I've known several Protestant churches that believed that Catholics were not "saved", so they would pray for them. Then there's certain Protestant denominations that pray for other Protestant denominations to be "saved". It's all really quite interesting. Yawn.

Peter666

07-10-2007, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "perfectly acceptable" do you mean within the logic of their own ideas? Or, do you mean it in a broader sense, as if it should be seen as acceptable to outsiders as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

But everyone should be able to acknowledge that if it is possible to absolutely know the way to one's eternal salvation, an attack on this truth would be the greatest evil a human can commit, because nothing is more precious than this knowledge.

SNOWBALL

07-10-2007, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If I knew for a fact that non believers or believers of different religions would spend eternity in a place of horror, I would devote a good portion of my life to making them see the light. So would anyone else who isn't a selfish prick.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah me too.

vhawk01

07-10-2007, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "perfectly acceptable" do you mean within the logic of their own ideas? Or, do you mean it in a broader sense, as if it should be seen as acceptable to outsiders as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

But everyone should be able to acknowledge that if it is possible to absolutely know the way to one's eternal salvation, an attack on this truth would be the greatest evil a human can commit, because nothing is more precious than this knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still having a hard time grasping why it isn't reasonable to execute the bastards in Politics. If I feel the same about democracy as you do about Catholicism....

MidGe

07-10-2007, 04:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately the axioms they rest their logic on, is manifestly false, a denial of reality, that their god id benevolent etc...

To be sure it is the falsity of rhe axiom which is the real danger of theses type of religion. They surreptitiously open the door to an inversion of values and its attendant immorality. Obviously if it is good enough for god, soon or later they believers will take matters in their own hand, and justify state sanctioned murders (execution and wars), in the name of freedom of religion, or against heresy, etc...

What gets me, is that so very few people do see this as truly an inversion of values. Obviously endlessly repeating the mantra makes things appear true for those that lack independence of thoughts.

Silent A

07-10-2007, 04:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

But everyone should be able to acknowledge that if it is possible to absolutely know the way to one's eternal salvation, an attack on this truth would be the greatest evil a human can commit, because nothing is more precious than this knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better demonstration of what makes religion inherently dangerous cannot be found in this thread.

Peter666

07-10-2007, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately the axioms they rest their logic on, is manifestly false, a denial of reality, that their god id benevolent etc...

To be sure it is the falsity of rhe axiom which is the real danger of theses type of religion. They surreptitiously open the door to an inversion of values and its attendant immorality. Obviously if it is good enough for god, soon or later they believers will take matters in their own hand, and justify state sanctioned murders (execution and wars), in the name of freedom of religion, or against heresy, etc...

What gets me, is that so very few people do see this as truly an inversion of values. Obviously endlessly repeating the mantra makes things appear true for those that lack independence of thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what axioms are you comparing all this to? And why do so few people adhere to your axioms?

Peter666

07-10-2007, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "perfectly acceptable" do you mean within the logic of their own ideas? Or, do you mean it in a broader sense, as if it should be seen as acceptable to outsiders as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

But everyone should be able to acknowledge that if it is possible to absolutely know the way to one's eternal salvation, an attack on this truth would be the greatest evil a human can commit, because nothing is more precious than this knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still having a hard time grasping why it isn't reasonable to execute the bastards in Politics. If I feel the same about democracy as you do about Catholicism....

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your democracy which does not allow you to execute the bastards because of their political opinions. So maybe you should consider adhering to a different political system to get the results you want.

Democracy is a bad way of getting things done quickly.

vhawk01

07-10-2007, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if anything, a heretic is worse than a terrorist in a Catholic State, because while a terrorist destroys the body and social order, a heretic can lead one to eternal Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "perfectly acceptable" do you mean within the logic of their own ideas? Or, do you mean it in a broader sense, as if it should be seen as acceptable to outsiders as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, a heretic or a person ignorant of the Catholic religion would not find this acceptable. But to Catholics, who claim their Church to be indefectibly true, it is acceptable within their own logic.

But everyone should be able to acknowledge that if it is possible to absolutely know the way to one's eternal salvation, an attack on this truth would be the greatest evil a human can commit, because nothing is more precious than this knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still having a hard time grasping why it isn't reasonable to execute the bastards in Politics. If I feel the same about democracy as you do about Catholicism....

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your democracy which does not allow you to execute the bastards because of their political opinions. So maybe you should consider adhering to a different political system to get the results you want.

Democracy is a bad way of getting things done quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. We still have a strong government, we'd have no problem rounding up the trouble-makers. You are sort of dodging the point, though. I'm not asking if its FEASIBLE to execute Boro, I'm asking if its legitimate. In other words, under what circumstances is it morally ok to execute people for spreading dangerous ideas? You've made it clear that in a Catholic state, spreading heresy is definitely punishable by death, and that this is morally fine. I'm wondering why that doesn't hold in any other kind of state. Not really interested in laws, here, so much as your own moral compass.

gaming_mouse

07-10-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Church using force to convert people. Though there certainly examples in history of it happening on a limited basis

[/ QUOTE ]

roflol

Peter666

07-10-2007, 11:43 PM

All states should follow the principles of natural law. The authority of the state, no matter what form it takes (democracy, monarchy, dictatorship...etc) should be acting for the common good.

All legitimate authority has the right to self defense from revolutionaries or anarchists. The ways a state can combat this problem is through censorship, imprisonment, exile, and execution. The punishment should fit the crime.

So no, it would not be legitimate to execute Boro. People proposing dangerous ideas may be subject to censorship in public. And if they continue, then exile or imprisonment. But you could only execute them if they pose a deadly threat.

As for the anarcho-capitalists in general, send them to Somalia where they can test their theories.

vhawk01

07-10-2007, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All states should follow the principles of natural law. The authority of the state, no matter what form it takes (democracy, monarchy, dictatorship...etc) should be acting for the common good.

All legitimate authority has the right to self defense from revolutionaries or anarchists. The ways a state can combat this problem is through censorship, imprisonment, exile, and execution. The punishment should fit the crime.

So no, it would not be legitimate to execute Boro. People proposing dangerous ideas may be subject to censorship in public. And if they continue, then exile or imprisonment. But you could only execute them if they pose a deadly threat.

As for the anarcho-capitalists in general, send them to Somalia where they can test their theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

What right do you have to send them to Somalia? What right do you have to prevent them from practicing their theories right here?

Ok, thats a pretty giant hijack, you don't have to answer.

Peter666

07-11-2007, 12:31 AM

"What right do you have to send them to Somalia? What right do you have to prevent them from practicing their theories right here?"

Me, I have no right. The state though has the natural right of self defense if them practicing their theories causes the state harm, or harm to the common good in general.

Of course, this only makes sense if you believe in natural laws and morals. If you don't, then might makes right.

MidGe

07-11-2007, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And what axioms are you comparing all this to? And why do so few people adhere to your axioms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Axioms which are in accordance with what I observe, with the facts that life is cruel and could not possibly be the result of benevolence. As to why so few people adhere to my axioms, I think this is not the case. That there may be more people that don't, is possible, I am not sure, the cause would be the imperfections of what you may call the design and what I will call nature as it is. Since humans are part of nature, they are also imperfect and thus able to disregard the facts even when not to their advantage to do so. I don't subscribe to the view that evolution tends towards perfection. That view is again not in accordance with the facts.