Why is it bad to force conversions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
I know that it’s bad but let me give an argument:

The will is always free (unless something so scary utterly dominates it and makes it shrink back into instinct).

Now most people aren’t completely terrified (scarred enough to be unable to exercise use of their mind) of anything. So threats and force can be used to make people (to some degree) freely convert.

And another question. Is it good to convert people though enticements (rewards, incentives)?

After all, the better the reward, the more voluntarily a person tends to it. Unless the reward is so overpoweringly good that you lose all your senses, but again, that rarely happens.
 
So threats and force can be used to make people (to some degree) freely convert
Click to expand...
That statement has no logic. ‘Threats and force’ negates the concept of ‘freely.’
 
I suppose the number one reason why it would be bad to force a conversion is that it might rebound on you and the person who was coerced into converting might at some point rebel and revert back to his former ways.

Without involvement of the free will, the conversion would not last long.
 
fakename said:
So threats and force can be used to make people (to some degree) freely convert.
Click to expand...
Oxymoron.

Read Gospels. What did Jesus do and say?

How did Saint Francis convert practically every person he came into contact with?

Go pursue your own holiness.
 
fakename said:
I know that it’s bad but let me give an argument:

The will is always free (unless something so scary utterly dominates it and makes it shrink back into instinct).

Now most people aren’t completely terrified (scarred enough to be unable to exercise use of their mind) of anything. So threats and force can be used to make people (to some degree) freely convert.

And another question. Is it good to convert people though enticements (rewards, incentives)?

After all, the better the reward, the more voluntarily a person tends to it. Unless the reward is so overpoweringly good that you lose all your senses, but again, that rarely happens.
Click to expand...
Forced conversion is no conversion at all. One may appear to be converted but it is just that, an appearance; inside he is whatever he wants to be.
It is what is in the heart that counts.
Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Matthew 7:21-23
 
user "Bezant":
Not to any degree.
Click to expand...
As Aquinas wrote, the will can never be coerced. This is because in man there are, poetically speaking, two wills -the outer will and the inner.

The outer are simply the commands of the will regarding external acts, and the inner are commands of the will regarding acts which don’t go outside the mind (thought). Clearly, the mind as such, cannot be coerced on the inside but only indirectly on the outside.

Now, for something more specific, I’ll give examples of half-free, half-compelled choices (1) agreeing to go to the front after being drafted, (2) paying taxes, (3) agreeing to be arrested.

In all these, threats of external pain, limit the wills freedom and determines it to some action, yet the fact that this action is not an automatic reflex shows that the will is still somewhat free and freely does what it proposes.
 
fakename said:
As Aquinas wrote, the will can never be coerced. This is because in man there are, poetically speaking, two wills -the outer will and the inner.

The outer are simply the commands of the will regarding external acts, and the inner are commands of the will regarding acts which don’t go outside the mind (thought). Clearly, the mind as such, cannot be coerced on the inside but only indirectly on the outside.

Now, for something more specific, I’ll give examples of half-free, half-compelled choices (1) agreeing to go to the front after being drafted, (2) paying taxes, (3) agreeing to be arrested.

In all these, threats of external pain, limit the wills freedom and determines it to some action, yet the fact that this action is not an automatic reflex shows that the will is still somewhat free and freely does what it proposes.
Click to expand...
Humans are the only animals that will consider the latter when it comes to a do-or-die situation and the benefit is merely symbolic.

However, it’s not enough to assume your premise and then argue that it’s possible to “freely” convert, and certainly not legitimately.

Philosophers think too much for their own good anyway.
 
To Bezant:

well it would be bad if I assumed my conclusion.

But another argument would better show what I’m saying:

If you cannot force someone to convert, because coercion eliminates free will, then instantiate to something which is coercive, (like paying taxes) and from that conclude that paying taxes is not done freely. But this contradicts an assumed premise that people freely pay taxes. So by reductio ad absurdum, we clearly know that coercion doesn’t eliminate free will and by modus tollens, we know that we can force someone to convert.

That’s logical enough. But there must be some reason why forced conversions are wrong or why they restrict the will.
 
fakename said:
To Bezant:

well it would be bad if I assumed my conclusion.

But another argument would better show what I’m saying:

If you cannot force someone to convert, because coercion eliminates free will, then instantiate to something which is coercive, (like paying taxes) and from that conclude that paying taxes is not done freely. But this contradicts an assumed premise that people freely pay taxes. So by reductio ad absurdum, we clearly know that coercion doesn’t eliminate free will and by modus tollens, we know that we can force someone to convert.

That’s logical enough. But there must be some reason why forced conversions are wrong or why they restrict the will.
Click to expand...
Your error is stating that people freely pay taxes. They do not!

People pay taxes or they go to jail. No one pays MORE taxes than they owe, so therefore, people do NOT freely pay taxes. They are coerced by the threat of arrest and jail.

A forced conversion is not a real conversion.
 
fakename said:
That’s logical enough. But there must be some reason why forced conversions are wrong or why they restrict the will.
Click to expand...
Because it’s rude?

Is it really necessary to philosophise about man’s State of Nature?
 
fakename said:
But there must be some reason why forced conversions are wrong or why they restrict the will.
Click to expand...
If there were such thing as forced conversions, they would be wrong because Jesus said so.

But they don’t exist. Paying a tax is a behavior. Conversion is a state of mind, a choice of thought. The most devout-looking Catholic on earth can be not Catholic at all.

Forcing the Eucharist down someone’s throat won’t make them anything. Might make the one doing the forcing a future resident of hades, however.
 
fakename said:
I know that it’s bad but let me give an argument:

The will is always free (unless something so scary utterly dominates it and makes it shrink back into instinct).

Now most people aren’t completely terrified (scarred enough to be unable to exercise use of their mind) of anything. So threats and force can be used to make people (to some degree) freely convert.

And another question. Is it good to convert people though enticements (rewards, incentives)?

After all, the better the reward, the more voluntarily a person tends to it. Unless the reward is so overpoweringly good that you lose all your senses, but again, that rarely happens.
Click to expand...
Because we are called to love God. Love is not forced and cannot be forced. Its one thing to belong to a religious affiliation, its another to actually love God. This is what the Evangelical and non-Denominational circles are saying, and to a certain degree they are right. What they are wrong about is they make it as if its an “either-or” situation, you either love God or belong to the Church. It should actually be both. So if you force someone, they do mentally and intellectually belong to a Church or religious group, but their spirits and hearts are not there.
 
Actually it turns out that forced conversion is wrong because it corrupts a good-faith conscience (even if said conscience is wrong).

However, I once read from Cardinal Mercier that it is wrong to make someone do what he thinks is wrong by counsel. But what does this mean,since any persuasion is done only by counsel, that is, when someone counsels you correctly, don’t you implicitly act against your previous conscience because you now know the correct answer? Perhaps the cardinal meant that you are wrong if you counsel someone to go against their conscience per se?

And also, I know this is beating a dead horse, and I hope it doesn’t arouse the ire of the mods, but the cardinal also wrote something curious about the suppression of heretics.
He wrote that the heretic is not to be killed unless society is threatened by heresy. But this is not the reason given by Aquinas, which reason still seems to hold some weight with clergymen (that heresy endangers the soul). The cardinal seems to reconcile these points of view by saying that Aquinas basically meant what he meant. How can this be? Is it right to say, that heresy should be tolerated until it becomes wide-spread thereby threatening society by threatening the souls that the Church are supposed to guide?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top