The philosophy of forced conversion

[valueperson]

Some countries are predominantly Christian because they were colonized or conquered by Christians.

Think about the millions and millions of souls saved in (for example) Latin America over the last four hundred years or so. Would all those souls have been saved if their ancestors had not been forced to convert?

Not all of their ancestors were forced to convert, obviously, but a great many of them were.

So, picture one 17th Century Incan or Aztec who was forced at gunpoint to become Catholic. His own soul may or may not have been saved, depending on his actual, inward acceptance of Jesus. His children, though, were born and confirmed in the faith, and most were definitely saved. So was the next generation, and the next and the next, to the present day.

If that Incan or Aztec had not been forced to convert, some in the generations after would have converted on their own, for reasons of their own. But, obviously, culture and parents influence this sort of thing a lot.

Which do you think is more important: the souls of that Aztec’s many descendants, or his right of choice in his religion?

Is forced conversion justified for the sake of generations to come?

Why or why not?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Some countries are predominantly Christian because they were colonized or conquered by Christians.

Think about the millions and millions of souls saved in (for example) Latin America over the last four hundred years or so. Would all those souls have been saved if their ancestors had not been forced to convert?

Not all of their ancestors were forced to convert, obviously, but a great many of them were.

So, picture one 17th Century Incan or Aztec who was forced at gunpoint to become Catholic. His own soul may or may not have been saved, depending on his actual, inward acceptance of Jesus. His children, though, were born and confirmed in the faith, and most were definitely saved. So was the next generation, and the next and the next, to the present day.

If that Incan or Aztec had not been forced to convert, some in the generations after would have converted on their own, for reasons of their own. But, obviously, culture and parents influence this sort of thing a lot.

Which do you think is more important: the souls of that Aztec’s many descendants, or his right of choice in his religion?

Is forced conversion justified for the sake of generations to come?

Why or why not?

what is a right to to choice in religion?

sounds like something protestants made up, G-d most certainly sees no right in which one may be allowed to worship other dieties, or to ignore the one true G-d. the old testament is full of those who were punished just for those activities.

 

[valueperson]

what is a right to to choice in religion?

sounds like something protestants made up, G-d most certainly sees no right in which one may be allowed to worship other dieties, or to ignore the one true G-d. the old testament is full of those who were punished just for those activities.

Great point. Truth is truth, right? If it comes to you by force, it’s still truth.

 

[Leela]

Think about the millions and millions of souls saved in (for example) Latin America over the last four hundred years or so. Would all those souls have been saved if their ancestors had not been forced to convert?

Saved from what?​

 

[valueperson]

Saved from what?
​

Saved from Hell in the Catholic sense of that word. Sorry about that; I should have been clearer that the topic was intended to be entirely within the scope of Christianity.​

 

[JDaniel]

Some countries are predominantly Christian because they were colonized or conquered by Christians.

Think about the millions and millions of souls saved in (for example) Latin America over the last four hundred years or so. Would all those souls have been saved if their ancestors had not been forced to convert?

Not all of their ancestors were forced to convert, obviously, but a great many of them were.

So, picture one 17th Century Incan or Aztec who was forced at gunpoint to become Catholic. His own soul may or may not have been saved, depending on his actual, inward acceptance of Jesus. His children, though, were born and confirmed in the faith, and most were definitely saved. So was the next generation, and the next and the next, to the present day.

If that Incan or Aztec had not been forced to convert, some in the generations after would have converted on their own, for reasons of their own. But, obviously, culture and parents influence this sort of thing a lot.

Which do you think is more important: the souls of that Aztec’s many descendants, or his right of choice in his religion?

Is forced conversion justified for the sake of generations to come?

Why or why not?

What?

Are you insinuating that all, or most, of the inhabitants of South America are, and were, Indians: Aztecs and Incans?

Further, are you insinuating that all, or most, of the Indian inhabitants of South America were “forced at gunpoint” to become Catholic?

Can you produce documentation proving these claims?

That “choice” rarely, if ever, was a factor?

jd

 

[valueperson]

What?

Are you insinuating that all, or most, of the inhabitants of South America are, and were, Indians: Aztecs and Incans?

Further, are you insinuating that all, or most, of the Indian inhabitants of South America were “forced at gunpoint” to become Catholic?

Can you produce documentation proving these claims?

That “choice” rarely, if ever, was a factor?

jd

I’m not insinuating anything, or proving anything. I’m asking a philosophical question. Forget I mentioned Latin America, and let’s assume nobody’s ever been forced to convert.

We can instead take hypothetical Group A who are somehow forced to convert. Some of these conversions are genuine, some aren’t. The children of Group A are educated and accepted into the faith just as children in any group are, and stay in the faith in same numbers. The children of those children are educated in the same way, and so on for generations, until the group (now very large) is overwhelmingly Christian.

Some in these generations would have entered the faith in other ways, but clearly to grow up Christian makes it more likely.

So. Were the forced conversions of Group A justified for the sake of so many more souls being saved?

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not insinuating anything, or proving anything. I’m asking a philosophical question. Forget I mentioned Latin America, and let’s assume nobody’s ever been forced to convert.

We can instead take hypothetical Group A who are somehow forced to convert. Some of these conversions are genuine, some aren’t. The children of Group A are educated and accepted into the faith just as children in any group are, and stay in the faith in same numbers. The children of those children are educated in the same way, and so on for generations, until the group (now very large) is overwhelmingly Christian.

Some in these generations would have entered the faith in other ways, but clearly to grow up Christian makes it more likely.

So. Were the forced conversions of Group A justified for the sake of so many more souls being saved?

Are you substituting the word, “forced” for the word “evangelized” perhaps? Jesus commanded that we evangelize. He didn’t necessarily command that we resort to force.

However, if it were me, I think that, in the long run, I would appreciate and thank the person who “forced” me to accept Catholicism. Obviously, only God and I truly know my heart, so, all things being equal, I must pray that my heart is there - and in it - too.

jd

 

[valueperson]

Are you substituting the word, “forced” for the word “evangelized” perhaps?
jd

No, I’m thinking of force in conventional terms.

…and your answer makes perfect sense, thanks.

 

[valueperson]

Anybody else?

 

[Just_Lurking]

From Dignitatis Humanae (see here):

The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

…

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

 

[valueperson]

From Dignitatis Humanae (see here):

The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth…

And yet, the truth appears to have imposed itself with the help of all sorts of other things, no? Many Christians are Christians partly because they were, for example, forced by their parents to attend Mass.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And many literate people are literate because they were forced by their parents (or by the state) to attend school. Your point? We don’t live in a vacuum, you know. Parents “force” their children into all sorts of things (eating patterns, manners, visits to granny) in the sense that, if left to themselves, many of said children would rather subsist on junk food, ‘do as they please’ while any unwanted work or chores be foisted onto ‘somebody else’, and consign granny along with any ‘uncool’ or ‘related’ adults onto the nearest ice floe for the arctic while the kids wave buh-bye but does that make what they would rather do ‘right’ and what the parents insist on wrong? I dinna think so.

 

[valueperson]

And many literate people are literate because they were forced by their parents (or by the state) to attend school. Your point? We don’t live in a vacuum, you know. Parents “force” their children into all sorts of things (eating patterns, manners, visits to granny) in the sense that, if left to themselves, many of said children would rather subsist on junk food, ‘do as they please’ while any unwanted work or chores be foisted onto ‘somebody else’, and consign granny along with any ‘uncool’ or ‘related’ adults onto the nearest ice floe for the arctic while the kids wave buh-bye but does that make what they would rather do ‘right’ and what the parents insist on wrong? I dinna think so.

“You’ll thank me later.”

Perfectly valid.

As I said before, I’m not expressing an opinion one way or another. I’m just asking the question, hoping that folks’ll explore the outer limits of their answers.

Who should be forced to be Christians and who should not?

 

[crowonsnow]

“You’ll thank me later.”

Perfectly valid.

As I said before, I’m not expressing an opinion one way or another. I’m just asking the question, hoping that folks’ll explore the outer limits of their answers.

Who should be forced to be Christians and who should not?

Being somewhat familiar with the gospels I can’t imagine the protagonist pointing a gun at someone’s head or the head of someone’s child and saying, “Worship me or die!”

So I’m inclined to argue that “forced conversion” is an immiscible amalgam.

 

[valueperson]

Being somewhat familiar with the gospels I can’t imagine the protagonist pointing a gun at someone’s head or the head of someone’s child and saying, “Worship me or die!”

So I’m inclined to argue that “forced conversion” is an immiscible amalgam.

Well, for the protagonists in The Bible not to be capable of forced conversion doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

 

[Just_Lurking]

Which do you think is more important: the souls of that Aztec’s many descendants, or his right of choice in his religion?

The problem with this argument is that the ends don’t justify the means. Otherwise, it would have been a good thing if Hitler’s mother had had an abortion when she was carrying unborn baby Adolf.

 

[valueperson]

The problem with this argument is that the ends don’t justify the means. Otherwise, it would have been a good thing if Hitler’s mother had had an abortion when she was carrying unborn baby Adolf.

This isn’t an argument at all, actually. More like a poll. Thanks for your answer.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

I can’t think of anything more repugnant, totalitarian, and evil than forced conversion. There is no such thing as the “philosophy of forced conversion”. Forced conversion is not a philosophy, it is an aggressive, evil act with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. It is foul and fascist. It makes no ethical sense whatsoever, and is against freedoms and civil rights, and degrades humans.

It has no theological justification whatsoever, and those who subscribe to it do their faith a great disservice. Any religious body that took on this “cause” I would oppose with every fiber of my being, including the use of military force.

Is anyone so insecure in their faith to believe that religion must be so bad as to be forced on others? Where are such people’s humanity, or respect for humans and their souls and dignity? I am throughly disgusted that such a subject is being even discussed.

 

[valueperson]

I am throughly disgusted that such a subject is being even discussed.

Whooooooaaaaaaa there, big fella.

I appreciate your choosing a side, but disgust at discussion isn’t cool, even for bulldogs.