Is religious freedom a bad idea?

[Dee_Dee_King]

Does that make sense? Does anyone disagree? (I would be shocked if no one disagreed). I hope I reflected the Church’s views on this accurately. I would not be surprised if I spoke in error somewhere (though I’m fairly certain I didn’t).

finally, someone who agrees with me. i suppose forcing pagans to convert may have been wrong. i’m not sure if forcing pagans or mormons/scientologists to be catholic would be a grave sin, it might be venial. i don’t see how we pretty much force our children to be catholic is any different than forcing an ignorant pagan.

vatican ii’s documents need to be read in light of tradition–they suffer from a overly positive view of mankind in my opinion.

csmonitor.com/2009/1103/p06s24-woeu.html

case in point. italy is being forced to remove crucifixes from classrooms because they “offend” non-catholics. it’s funny how these bishops try on one hand to welcome muslims with open arms, rebuking those legitimate concerns on muslim immigration, yet when they remove crucifixes, they say they are merely “cultural” symbols. they try to have it both ways, catholicism in the public sphere and the embracing of diversity of faith. it would be against their dignity to evangelize them with any conviction.

americans think that religious freedom is more important than the truth.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

We agree on something. In another thread I was wondering why children 7 years old and up can receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. It seems that the Church is pushing us to baptize and confirm our children before they have the opportunity to think about it and make their own decision. Maybe that is why the Catholic Church loses so many in the late teen years and early 20’s. I also agree that we shouldn’t have “converted” anyone, including all those pagans in Europe and the America’s. Especially when the choice was often convert or die.

i’m glad we agree. we both can see inconsistancies with the post vatican ii catholic church. if it’s allways wrong to force religion on someone, than we should allow our children to make up their minds when they are of reasoning age and give them a fair and balanced view of all relgions including secular humanism. this is the most fair way.

The conquest of Prussia was accomplished with much bloodshed over more than 50 years, during which native Prussians who remained unbaptised were subjugated, killed, or exiled. Fighting between the Knights and the Prussians was ferocious; chronicles of the Order state the Prussians would “roast captured brethren alive in their armour, like chestnuts, before the shrine of a local god”.[5]

i was thinking of the teutonic knights rather than the knights templar. to say the church has always been against forced conversions is laughable.

 

[Areopagite]

I think that…you are either joking or very confused.

Oh, it’s both. I assure you.

Well, no I’m not joking … but … I may be confused.

First off, to whose “natural law” are you referring?

I’m referring to the natural law written on our hearts and that can be discovered by human reason.

Most likely Aquinas, but as you certainly know, many others have tried to tackle the same subject. As in many areas of philosophy and theology, which view is correct?

Well, I would say Aquinas’ layout of natural law is true, as well as nearly all the Scholastics. Many early Protestant and modern philosophers and theologians were right on as well, until they really started to get relativistic (and I assume you are not a relativist). But also the vast bulk of surviving Greek philosophy is pretty much spot on too. The only real deviations are some of modern (and esp. late modern) philosophers, who denied the existence of natural law. The prominent Protestant intellectuals didn’t seem to do this. They were largely on board with the Scholastics (but not all of them, of course). And of course there are some strange Greco-Roman thinkers here and there. But it is amazing on most of them have a fairly universal commonality in their perception of natural law. That’s my experience at least. But maybe others have experienced things vastly differently.

Now, are you denying the existence of natural law? Or are you denying the knowability of natural law? What exactly are you implying here?

And second, what does “natural law” have to do with limiting religious freedom?

As I said before, if a religion transgresses natural law, it is the right of the State to forbid the preaching of that religion. For example, if part of a religion is to promote widespread rape and murder, it is the right of the government to ban actions that propagate that religion. I think this is fairly reasonable. No?

Which government on this planet is “natural”?

What do you mean by this? Obviously, all earthly governments are natural, otherwise they would not be earthly governments. But do you mean which government has laws that completely are in harmony with the natural law? I don’t know. I’m not a political scientist. I certainly am aware of many countries that have many unjust laws and are thus not in perfect harmony with the natural law. But to really answer your question, it would take some time to figure it out.

But really, it’s an irrelevant point. Whether there is some existing government that has all just laws or not does not change the fact that natural law exists and should not be transgressed by either government or individual.

Which religion transgresses natural law (as defined by???) and why is it the business of any government to suppress or control that religion?

The natural law does not exist by mere human promulgation. It is discovered by natural reason. We can call upon certain perennial philosophers for clear definitions on this matter. Or would I be right in assuming you do not believe morality and justice are objectively knowable?

It would be the business of a government to suppress activity that goes against the natural order. What else does government do?

 

[Areopagite]

To “unleash the temporal sword” is to involve government in the spiritual lives of individuals; not a good thing.

It depends what you mean by “the spiritual lives of individuals.” Would you say that certain acts like murder and rape affect the spiritual lives of people? Would you also say that government has the right to stop those acts? And would you also say therefore, in an indirect way, that government involves itself in the spiritual lives of people?

So you reason that to oppose civil government intervention in the personal religious lives of its citizens equates to not making and enforcing laws??? Wow! That is quite a leap.

Once again, I said the government has the right to prohibit the preaching (or public activity) of religions that oppose the natural law. It does not have a right to prohibit the belief from the minds of its citizens. So in that sense, I am not saying that the government should intervene in “personal religious lives” (though this can be a vague phrase).

And “banning sins” is futile; even God can not “ban” the sinful nature of people. Good luck with that one.

When I say “banning sins” I don’t mean “taking away the metaphysical possibility of sinning” … I’m referring to “taking away the legality of sinning.” In other words, I’m using “ban” the same way as “law.” Laws to not make sinning metaphysical or physically impossible, but it can make them morally prohibited. But once again, the government only has the right to prohibit sins against the natural law (not the divine law necessarily).

What I get from your statements is that governments should enforce the “natural law” and suppress any group whose beliefs contradict those laws…which is determined by??? Oh, of course, the Catholic Church! How convenient.

Or any philosopher who has a correct view of natural law. There are many. Many of whom were never Catholic.

You and “DeeDee” should go off some where and start your own religion. The two of you can fight over which of you will be the “earthly king” who will enforce “natural law”, once you decide what that exactly is.

Um … DeeDee and I are both Catholic, so it would be against our religion to start a new religion. Also, I’m not interested in being king, so DeeDee can have the have the throne.

Once again, as well, you seem to have a certain agnosticism with respect to morality and justice and perhaps truth in general. Is this correct?

If anyone can “prove” that the positions of these two posters truly represent the doctrine of the Catholic Church, I will say to everyone out there:

"Run, Run for your lives, as fast you can, and get as far away as possible!!"

I just hope it is not too infectious.

I would like some feedback from wiser Catholics about this. Perhaps I have misspoken and misrepresented Catholic Social Teaching (but I don’t think I have). If I have spoken well, then let it be infectious. The truth should be that way. And criminals and heretics should flee.

 

[Areopagite]

finally, someone who agrees with me. i suppose forcing pagans to convert may have been wrong. i’m not sure if forcing pagans or mormons/scientologists to be catholic would be a grave sin, it might be venial.

Forcing people to convert is sinful. And indeed this was done sometimes in the early middle ages. However, it was usually done by kings acting on the pagan idea that people must convert to the state religion (such rulers that come to mind are Clovis, Charlemagne, … and Justinian?). I don’t know of know of any Catholic clergy who ever forced Catholicism on a people … but maybe someone can dispel my ignorance on this issue.

i don’t see how we pretty much force our children to be catholic is any different than forcing an ignorant pagan.

The teaching, I believe, is that we can baptize anyone under the age of reason without that person’s consent. We can also force children (even above the age of reason) to attend mass and learn about the faith. However, we cannot force belief ever on them. People above the age of reason cannot be baptized validly without their consent. I’m pretty sure this is the teaching.

vatican ii’s document on religious freedom needs to be revisited. vatican ii document documents need to be read in light of tradition–they suffer from a overly positive view of mankind in my opinion.

But do they say anything wrong? The emphasis on the goodness of mankind, I think, that the Vatican II documents have was partly in response to the great dehumanization that was caused by the Second World War (and by Communism). The world was falling into the idea that humanity was evil, and the Church (you could argue) prudently pushed the other way to prevent people from falling into that worldview.

case in point. italy is being forced to remove crucifixes from classrooms because they “offend” non-catholics. it’s funny how these bishops try on one hand to welcome muslims with open arms, rebuking those legitimate concerns on muslim immigration, yet when they remove crucifixes, they say they are merely “cultural” symbols. they try to have it both ways, catholicism in the public sphere and the embracing the diversity of faith. it would be against their dignity to evangelize them with any conviction.

Yeah, that’s bad. Such actions are the result from the corrupt, liberal view of Vatican II (“the spirit of Vatican II”). It is reasonable, of course, to view Vatican II has a failure. But many Church Councils were viewed that way shortly after their time. After the Council of Nicaea (which addressed the heresy of Arianism), 90% of Christians became Arians for several decades. Nonetheless, after Europe had been steeped in that heresy for quite some time, orthodoxy finally began to emerge.

And it just so happens that presently we are finally seeing the correct interpretation of Vatican II finally being put into practice. I’m seeing a lot of hope everyone (in the Church … not so much in, well, the government and the economy … obviously). But maybe that’s just me. Those are my thoughts. If it matters at all.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

The teaching, I believe, is that we can baptize anyone under the age of reason without that person’s consent. We can also force children (even above the age of reason) to attend mass and learn about the faith. However, we cannot force belief ever on them. People above the age of reason cannot be baptized validly without their consent. I’m pretty sure this is the teaching.

i guess you can say the church allows a passive transmission of faith in the sense that if the child or person doesn’t have the ability to assert their will, then you can force catholicism on them. we know that teenagers who are of reasoning age object to church but parents force them anyways. isn’t that opposed to their dignity?

i find this logic mushy, that there is any ontological difference between babies and ignorant pagans in terms of conversion. if that pagan were a vegetable from an accident, would it be ok to baptize them? and again, if the church were opposed to forced conversions then why did they appear to support such work? the teutonic knights were a catholic religious order of sorts.

i think the church understood that religion and the natural law were intimately connected so that without one, the other goes away. in this sense, forced conversions seem just. we like to pretend that we are not forcing our views on others but it’s impossible to not force your views or religion on others. faith is the key to understanding reality, it expands reason. it would be very difficult to find any non-catholic who agrees with the natural law in its entirety.

i think the only reason we force catholicism on our children is because it is the truth. i don’t do it because it’s nice or my culture. my house is my kingdom and all those in my kingdom will be forced into catholicism. i think the church rightly supports my kingdom.

 

[Areopagite]

i guess you can say the church allows a passive transmission of faith in the sense that if the child or person doesn’t have the ability to assert their will, then you can force catholicism on them.

This is correct. But I am open to correction on this.

we know that teenagers who are of reasoning age object to church but parents force them anyways. isn’t that against their dignity?

It depends what you mean by “forcing the church on them.” Certainly parents have the right to make the teenager go to mass … but they can’t force them to participate in the mass. This is my opinion at least.

i find this logic mushy, that there is any ontological difference between babies and ignorant pagans in terms of conversion. if that pagan were a vegitable from an accident, would it be ok to baptize them?

I don’t know for sure. But I think in the case of human vegetables, they can be baptized without their consent. However, just like with infant baptism, it must be by the consent of the family (however, if there’s no family, then he can be baptized no problem). I’m fairly certain this is the practice.

and again, if the church were opposed to forced conversions then why did they appear to support such work? the teutonic knights were a catholic religious order of sorts.

I don’t know if they did support forced conversions. I never read any history saying the Church was okay with them. If you have evidence of this, I would like to see this.

i think the church understood that religion and the natural law were intimately connected so that without one, the other goes away. in this sense, forced conversions seem just.

Thomas Aquinas would disagree.

we like to pretend that we are not forcing our views on others but it’s impossible to not force your views or religion on others. faith is the key to understanding reality, it expands reason. it would be very difficult to find any non-catholic who agrees with the natural law in its entirety.

I agree that faith is key to understanding reality more completely. However, for someone above the age of reason, the faith must be willfully accepted. ** Baptizing someone an unwilling person is an invalid baptism.** Hence, one cannot and should not force the faith on people.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by (or what your point is when you say) that it’s difficult to find any non-Catholic who agree with the whole moral law. Why do you say this?

Also, it depends what you mean by “forcing our views on other people.” This could mean simply “preaching what we believe” (which is perfectly fine). Or it could mean “demanding that people do what we think they should do.” This could be appropriate, if we are talking about wanting someone adhere to the natural law. However, we cannot demand acts of faith from them … that’s really between them and God. That’s my opinion. Church teaching has seemed to have said this all along.

i think the only reason we force catholicism on our children is because it is the truth. i don’t do it because it’s nice or my culture. my house is my kingdom and all those in my kingdom will be forced into catholicism.

Once again, it depends what you mean by “forcing your family into Catholicism.” You certainly can’t force anyone to receive the Eucharist, for example. That could be really bad. If you mean something like attending mass, then I would agree. And I agree, of course, that Catholicism is the truth, but it is a supernatural truth and requires the act of faith. This cannot be forced.

I’m quite sure I have spoken with complete orthodoxy. But please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

However, we cannot demand acts of faith from them … that’s really between them and God. That’s my opinion. Church teaching has seemed to have said this all along.

i generally agree but not absolutely. what is clearly wrong is killing someone on account that they don’t convert. using force to motivate people to convert does not seem wrong all the time.

The crusader army came under the command, both spiritual and military, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.

here’s an example of a papal sanctioned forced conversion lead by a catholic priest. job well done! no more cathars.

 

[James_Least]

The call of God is irresistible, yet He does not force anyone to believe. Paul’s journey to Damascus: “Who art thou Lord”… “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads”. Paul was sincerely wrong thinking he was doing God service–killing Christians. God got his attention. There is evidence that even “christians?” have been killing Christians since Jesus was here. Who authorized that?

“Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s; and unto God that which is God’s”.

“God is longsuffering to usward not willing that any should perish…”

God’s Word does not support enforcement of religion by man. God is still on His throne…and He does not need us to help carry out His Will.

“You shall know The Truth, and The Truth shall make you free”.

Are we free from that yoke of bondage?

Where will we be in 100 years?

Are we sure?

James Least

 

[o_mlly]

dignitatis humanae from vatican ii teaches that religious freedom is demanded according to our human dignityif this document is specifically directed towards communist and muslim countries, then i sort of understand. but we have fraud religions like mormonism and scientology which prey on people. we know that catholicism wouldn’t have spread if not for the kings forcing his kingdom to be catholic. many of us would probably still be pagan if we weren’t forced to be catholic. we know that the truth doesn’t always get through to people because of the effects of original sin. hence the fact that the protestants are still here and probably growing, along with islam, mormonism, scientology, jw’s… etc.

my point is that if catholicism is the truth, then the state which recognizes it to be the truth shouldn’t allow absolute religious freedom. they should try to convert all to catholicism. it’s the only faith which recognizes the entirety of the natural law.

Catholicism should be proposed to everyone and imposed on no one. Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Detales]

The forcing of Catholicism on populations by kings, the horrors of the Inquisition, the crusades, and the cultural devastation of missionaryism, among other things, all ought to “demon”-strate the highly questionable assertion that the Church is, in practice, even remotely associated with Truth. Having a form of belief that claims validity by claiming itself sanctioned by God is, as we have seen, is little more than a power trip in the hands of men. The materialistic and exoteric form of the Church points clearly to this. It is only the Church taking advantage of the inherent goodness stemming from each man and woman as rightfully being a child of God that give the illusion that the Church has any claim to even a misguided interpretation of the actual teachings of, or more likely, about, Jesus. What we truly need is freedom not only from religion, but from belief itself. The structure of your relationship with God is inherent in your being as a child of God, not in the contents of the acquired form of your religion, whatever its denomination, or the lack of such. Know ThySelf, and discover what the statements of Identity attributed to Jesus actual might mean in terms of your actual salvation, distinct form the story book of the Church.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Catholicism should be proposed to everyone and imposed on no one. Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit.

if catholicism should be proposed, then also islam, buddism, satanism, paganism, protestantism, hiduism… etc. then you should agree that the state should treat all religions as if they are equal. the state should also protect people from being baptized without full consent. catholic teachings on abortion, contraception and pornography should also not be forced on anyone.

Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit

not in most people’s case. we are born without a religion, then our parents baptize us as babies without us having the faintest idea what the Holy Spirit is. of course, we absolutely depend on the Holy Spirit to live out our lives as catholics.

 

[o_mlly]

if catholicism should be proposed, then also islam, buddism, satanism, paganism, protestantism, hiduism… etc. then you should agree that the state should treat all religions as if they are equal. the state should also protect people from being baptized without full consent. not in most people’s case. we are born without a religion, then our parents baptize us as babies without us having the faintest idea what the Holy Spirit is. of course, we absolutely depend on the Holy Spirit to live out our lives as catholics.

Is “rat island” located off of communist China? Do you really think the state has a right to prevent parents from baptizing their infant children into their faith community?

I think if you believe what you write, “we absolutely depend on the Holy Spirit” then you must agree with me that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[chaunceygardner]

i generally agree but not absolutely. what is clearly wrong is killing someone on account that they don’t convert. **using force to motivate people to convert does not seem wrong all the time. **here’s an example of a papal sanctioned forced conversion lead by a catholic priest. job well done! no more cathars.

Did I miss something here? “Clearly wrong” to kill someone who doesn’t convert, and in the next breath say “job well done” for murdering Cathars??? Weren’t Cathars Catholic?? or at least Christian? Perhaps the reason some “Catholics” remained with the Cathars (and were undoubtely killed too) is that they recognized those who were “Cathars” to be brothers and sisters in Christ. So you praise those who would act in a very un-Christian manner and kill those who would actually live the Gospel of Jesus and support their persecuted neighbors, even if it meant their own deaths! Way to go! That should gain the Church a few more converts.

catholicism should be proposed, then also islam, buddism, satanism, paganism, protestantism, hiduism… etc.

NOT proposed, but allowed, as it is now.

then you should agree that the state should treat all religions as if they are equal.

Certainly; just as all citizens are to be treated equal, so should their beliefs or choice of religion.

the state should also protect people from being baptized without full consent.

Nothing to protect against, as it is a **personal choice **(or will be when they are of age to make such a decision), not a requirement.

catholic teachings on abortion, contraception and pornography should also not be forced on anyone.

Catholic teachings per se, or specific teachings by any religion,** Correct**. Certain actions (not teachings alone) which could harm others should be prohibited or controlled (just as they are now).

Are there any other Christian Catholics out there who can jump in on this? I don’t think anyone will be able to convince “DeeDee” of the errors in her thinking, but it would be nice if more would come in on the side of Jesus.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Did I miss something here? “Clearly wrong” to kill someone who doesn’t convert, and in the next breath say “job well done” for murdering Cathars??? Weren’t Cathars Catholic?? or at least Christian? Perhaps the reason some “Catholics” remained with the Cathars (and were undoubtely killed too)

i believe the cathars were killed as an act of war because they were considered enemies of the state and not because they didn’t convert pre se. killing innocent people is always wrong, killing in self defense isn’t. they saw the cathars as undermining society and therefore were killed out of self defense. the cathars were not catholic or even christian. they were very gnostic and pretty much evil as a religion. they believed that creation was bad so they somehow justified murder/suicide.

Catholic teachings per se, or specific teachings by any religion, Correct. Certain actions (not teachings alone) which could harm others should be prohibited or controlled (just as they are now).

all three are opposed to the natural order. but only the catholic church recognizes that they are evil and should be therefore prohibited by the state. moral questions can only be answered using philosophy, not science. philosophy must be illuminated with the christian faith for it to be purified. therefore, no chrisitan faith, no correct teaching on morals, no legetimate basis for laws.

 

[Areopagite]

i generally agree but not absolutely. what is clearly wrong is killing someone on account that they don’t convert. using force to motivate people to convert does not seem wrong all the time.

Perhaps. I suppose it depends what you mean by “force.”

here’s an example of a papal sanctioned forced conversion lead by a catholic priest. job well done! no more cathars.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think this was a forced conversion … though it may have been a forced apostasy from Catharism. Catharism was one of the most unnatural heresies the Church has ever seen. The State had the authority, therefore, to prohibit both its preaching and its practice. Some of the things the Cathars believed:

• Marriage vows were evil
• Sexual reproduction was evil
• Infertile sex was okay (and hence sodomy was okay)
• To attain salvation, a Cathar would have to lay his hands on you at the moment of your death
• If that happened, and you recovered, the only way to attain salvation was starving yourself to death

And there were some other things. The government perfectly has the right to squash this nonsense. Since it profoundly intersected with the Church, a crusade could fittingly be waged. Which is awesome.

The forcing of Catholicism on populations by kings,

And I am still asking whether the Church ever said this was okay. Maybe they did. If so, I’d like to see the source. Pagans, of course, forced their pagan state religions on conquered people much more so than any Catholic King. So, paganism is much more to be scolded for this than the Catholic Church. But, no one ever scolds those silly pagans.

the horrors of the Inquisition,

The Inquisition’s purpose was to find Islamic spies who were conspiring against the Spanish government. The Muslims had invaded Spain without any cause, and the Spaniards eventually began to fight back. The Inquisition was completely called for. It was meant for finding self-proclaimed converts who had been exposed to still practicing Islam.

the crusades,

The Crusades were not waged simply because Muslims were a different religion from the Pope. The Muslims had been attacking the Holy Land, killing thousands of Christians. The Crusades were a just defensive action.

and the cultural devastation of missionaryism,

What are you referring to exactly? Aztecs and Mayans?

all ought to “demon”-strate the highly questionable assertion that the Church is, in practice, even remotely associated with Truth. Having a form of belief that claims validity by claiming itself sanctioned by God is, as we have seen, is little more than a power trip in the hands of men. The materialistic and exoteric form of the Church points clearly to this. It is only the Church taking advantage of the inherent goodness stemming from each man and woman as rightfully being a child of God that give the illusion that the Church has any claim to even a misguided interpretation of the actual teachings of, or more likely, about, Jesus.

Gee, what were we thinking?

What we truly need is freedom not only from religion, but from belief itself. The structure of your relationship with God is inherent in your being as a child of God, not in the contents of the acquired form of your religion, whatever its denomination, or the lack of such.

Freedom from belief itself? What does that even mean?

The “structure of your relationship with God is inherent in your being as a child of God” is a religious claim and certainly a belief, right?

Know ThySelf, and discover what the statements of Identity attributed to Jesus actual might mean in terms of your actual salvation, distinct form the story book of the Church.

For the record, I don’t object to the Oracle of Delphi’s catch phrase “Know thyself,” but doing just that isn’t going to save you.

catholic teachings on abortion, contraception and pornography should also not be forced on anyone. not in most people’s case.

These things (as you yourself later acknowledge … but I’m making this clearer for everyone) are not condemned only by divinely revealed Catholic dogmas but by natural law.

but only the catholic church recognizes that they are evil and should be therefore prohibited by the state.

I don’t know about this. I think many Protestants still condemn them. And of course there is an infinite medley of paganism … some might condemn all them as well.

 

[simple_soul]

Hello everyone,

I was fallowing along this thread and I have gotten a little lost with it all so please have a little patience with me while I try to understand this.

The first thing I would like to understand is when and were Jesus Christ or any of His followers ever taught us to force a belief in Himself or His teachings on anyone?

Thank you for your time,

Simple soul

 

[Areopagite]

Hello everyone,

I was fallowing along this thread and I have gotten a little lost with it all so please have a little patience with me while I try to understand this.

The first thing I would like to understand is when and were Jesus Christ or any of His followers ever taught us to force a belief in Himself or His teachings on anyone?

Thank you for your time,

Simple soul

Good question.

As far as I know, Christ never said it. However, Christ never said the opposite either. He never explicitly said either way. I think he provided us the answer, however, in more implicit ways.

Now, the first thing to help resolve this question is how one defines “force.” It can be defined in different ways.

Some people say that simply preaching the Gospel is “forcing” one’s religion on people. In that sense, at least, I would say that “forcing one’s belief” is perfectly fine. No?

On the other hand, you can force belief in someone by torturing them. That is a kind of force that would be in conflict with Christianity.

So, there are different ways to use the word “force.” So the answer to the question “Should Christians force their religion onto people?” is a complicated question, due to the ambiguity of the word “force.”

That’s what I think.

 

[simple_soul]

Good question.

As far as I know, Christ never said it. However, Christ never said the opposite either. He never explicitly said either way. I think he provided us the answer, however, in more implicit ways.

Now, the first thing to help resolve this question is how one defines “force.” It can be defined in different ways.

Some people say that simply preaching the Gospel is “forcing” one’s religion on people. In that sense, at least, I would say that “forcing one’s belief” is perfectly fine. No?

On the other hand, you can force belief in someone by torturing them. That is a kind of force that would be in conflict with Christianity.

So, there are different ways to use the word “force.” So the answer to the question “Should Christians force their religion onto people?” is a complicated question, due to the ambiguity of the word “force.”

That’s what I think.

Dear Areopagite,

Thank you for such a quick response.

I would like to take this one step at a time.

Could you please clarify for me how Jesus Christ, through His actions,or His implicit ways, ever taught to force one to believe in Him in any way, shape, or form.

Always praying and pondering

 

[Areopagite]

Dear Areopagite,

Thank you for such a quick response.

I would like to take this one step at a time.

Could you please clarify for me how Jesus Christ, through His actions,or His implicit ways, ever taught to force one to believe in Him in any way, shape, or form.

Always praying and pondering

Well, once again, Christ certainly said to preach the Gospel. Some people say that preaching the Gospel to people (esp. those who don’t want to hear it) is “forcing religion on them.” But Christ would certainly approve of such “force.” Would you agree?