Forced Conversion

[Akivah]

Well I get the impression that as Christianity spread, the unbelieving Jews tried to teach the newly converted Christians how to be more Jewish. (There are even accounts in the bible that it was a common thing) So the Christians learned to stone people in the streets and crucify people for transgressing the laws.

They didn't learn these acts from us Jews. We never stoned people in the streets. Stoning was a court-mandated death sentence after a trial that consisted of the executioner dropping a large stone upon the convicted at the bottom of a cliff. Crucifying was NEVER done by Jewish authorities. It was a roman method of punishment.

But Jesus and the Apostles were not doing those things or instructing anyone to do those things.

So how useful is your man-god since everyone ignores his alleged teachings?

 

[Akivah]

Correct, they had the Romans do it for them.

Sure the nearly enslaved Jews obviously dictated to their roman masters and their armies, how to do things.

 

[Akivah]

Those that adhere to the Bible and interpret it accurately.

Name two sects that do this.

 

[Akivah]

After the Jews had Jesus crucified by the Romans all sorts of things happened.

The romans CONQUERED the Jews. On what planet do you think that the conquered get to dictate terms to the conquerors?

 

[Kemosloby]

Way to move the goal posts. You first claimed that no one was ever forcibly converted by Christians. Now you're saying the Christians who did weren't "real" Christians.

Correct, they were more like the unbelieving Jew

They didn't learn these acts from us Jews. We never stoned people in the streets. Stoning was a court-mandated death sentence after a trial that consisted of the executioner dropping a large stone upon the convicted at the bottom of a cliff. Crucifying was NEVER done by Jewish authorities. It was a roman method of punishment.


So how useful is your man-god since everyone ignores his alleged teachings?

The Jews had the Romans Crucify themin the twisted reasoning believing it kept their hands clean.

Jesus the Son of man / Son of God is very useful. Resurrecting the dead on the last day.

 

[Akivah]

It's true, Jesus and the Apostles never taught forced conversion, therefore it is not a part of Christianity. It is a deviation from Christianity by people claiming to be Christians.

That deviation seems to be almost 100% of Christians (i.e. people that worship the man-god) at the least.

 

[Akivah]

The Jews had the Romans Crucify themin the twisted reasoning believing it kept their hands clean.

Hmmm...talking about twisted reasoning...

 

[Kemosloby]

Sure the nearly enslaved Jews obviously dictated to their roman masters and their armies, how to do things.

Sure the Jews were colonized, the Romans allowed them keep their culture, what did they care which Jews they crucified, as long as the taxes got paid.

 

[Kemosloby]

That deviation seems to be almost 100% of Christians (i.e. people that worship the man-god) at the least.

!00% at least huh. You have the all seeing eye right in your head then?

 

[pearl]

Sure the nearly enslaved Jews obviously dictated to their roman masters and their armies, how to do things.

There was a mutual dependence between Pilate and Caiaphas.
Pilate is charged with keeping the peace in Jerusalem during Passover. The high priest is appointed by Pilate who could easily replace him. When it comes to the arrest and trial of Jesus the Gospels do not agree.

 

[Ponder This]

Forced conversion has historical precedents from Abrahamic faiths all the way to Hinduism.

If an authority arrived today and made it mandatory that you convert to a faith that has been branded the only legal religion and forbade you to continue your current religious practices and beliefs, what actions would you take? Would you abandon your current religious beliefs to remain within the confines of the law? Would you defy the authority and continue you current practices? Would you follow the only legal faith publicly but continue to practice your current faith in private? Why?

If it is my own personal religion, then it cannot be infringed no matter what anyone else does.

If it's my religion, then everyone around me is oppressed and we will rise up together and end that tyranny. Nothing will be able to stop us.

In the first instance, it's all about me; in the second instance, it's not about me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those that adhere to the Bible and interpret it accurately.

No; I mean what are the names of those specific sects?

 

[Vouthon]

When discussing coercion in matters religious, people tend to focus upon "force" employed by one religious group upon another, quite understandably.

But there is also a different kind of coercion: the force utilized within religions upon their own members, to keep them in line.

The Medieval Inquisition of the Catholic Church is an infamous example, of course, along with the Islamic Mihna during the Abbasid Caliphate.

My country, Scotland, sadly invented an altogether singular and barbaric means of social control, however: namely one of "disciplining" unruly women who disobeyed their husbands or the stringent moralism of the Kirk, unfortunate individuals condemned as "common scold's" in the Kirk sessions (ecclesiastical registers of the Presbyterian Church). I remember observing this "instrument" once in a museum and a shiver literally ran down my spine. It's chilling to see it in real life and to think what these women must have endured.

The earliest recorded use of the practice took place in Scotland in 1567, and the first recorded victim was Bessie Tailiefeir, who allegedly slandered a powerful local called Baillie Hunter regarding his use of false measurements in a land dispute. She was sentenced to be "brankit" and fixed to a cross for one hour.

This is what "brankit" referred to:

Scold's bridle - Wikipedia

A scold's bridle, sometimes called a witch's bridle, a brank's bridle, or simply branks, was an instrument of punishment, as a form of torture and public humiliation.[1] The device was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head. A bridle-bit (or curb-plate), about 2 inches long and 1 inch broad, projected into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue.

First recorded in Scotland in 1567, the branks were also used in England, where it may not have been formally legalized as a punishment. The kirk-sessions and barony courts in Scotland inflicted the contraption mostly on female transgressors and women considered to be rude or nags or common scolds.[3][4]

Branking (in Scotland and the North of England)[5][6] was designed as a mirror punishment for shrews or scolds; women of the lower classes whose speech was deemed "riotous" or "troublesome";[7] — often women suspected of witchcraft — by preventing such "gossips or scolds" from speaking. This also gives it its other name 'The Gossip's Bridle'

It was also used as corporal punishment for other offences, notably on female workhouse inmates. The person to be punished was placed in a public place for additional humiliation and sometimes beaten.[8] The Lanark Burgh Records record a typical example of the punishment being used, " Iff evir the said Elizabeth salbe fund scolding or railling… scho salbe sett upone the trone in the brankis and be bani**** the toun thaireftir" (1653 Lanark B. Rec. 151).

When the branks was placed on the "gossiper's" head, they could be led through town to show that they had committed an offence or scolded too often. This was intended to humiliate them into "repenting" their "riotous" actions. A spike inside the gag prevented any talking since any movement of the mouth could cause a severe piercing of the tongue.[5] When wearing the device, it was impossible for the person either to eat or speak.[9] Other branks included an adjustable gag with a sharp edge, causing any movement of the mouth to result in laceration of the tongue.

In Scotland, branks could also be permanently displayed in public by attaching them, for example, to the town cross, tron or tolbooth. Then, the ritual humiliation would take place, with the miscreant on public show. Displaying the branks in public was intended to remind the populace of the consequences of any rash action or slander. Whether the person was paraded or simply taken to the point of punishment, the process of humiliation and expected repentance was the same. Time spent in the bridle was normally allocated by the kirk session, in Scotland, or a local magistrate.[9]

Quaker women were sometimes punished with the branks for preaching their doctrine in public places.[10]​

Sometimes, the "common scold" was also forced to sit in a contraption called the "the cucking stool" which became used throughout the British Isles and North America:

Cucking stool - Wikipedia

Cucking stools or ducking stools were chairs formerly used for punishment of disorderly women, scolds, and dishonest tradesmen in England, Scotland,[1]and elsewhere.

The stools were technical devices which formed part of the wider method of law enforcement through social humiliation.

The ducking-stool was a strongly made wooden armchair (the surviving specimens are of oak) in which the offender was seated, an iron band being placed around her so that she should not fall out during her immersion. The earliest record of the use of such is towards the beginning of the 17th century,[6] with the term being first attested in English in 1597. It was used both in Europe and in the English colonies of North America.[7]

Usually the chair was fastened to a long wooden beam fixed as a seesaw on the edge of a pond or river. Sometimes, however, the ducking-stool was not a fixture but was mounted on a pair of wooden wheels so that it could be wheeled through the streets, and at the river-edge was hung by a chain from the end of a beam. In sentencing a woman the magistrates ordered the number of duckings she should have. Yet another type of ducking-stool was called a tumbrel. It was a chair on two wheels with two long shafts fixed to the axles. This was pushed into the pond and then the shafts released, thus tipping the chair up backwards. Sometimes the punishment proved fatal and the victim died.[6]

A ballad, dating from about 1615, called "The Cucking of a Scold", illustrates the punishment inflicted to women whose behaviour made them be identified as "a Scold":

Then was the Scold herself,
In a wheelbarrow brought,
Stripped naked to the smock,
As in that case she ought:
Neats tongues about her neck
Were hung in open show;
And thus unto the cucking stool
This famous scold did go.[5]

The last recorded cases are those of a Mrs. Ganble at Plymouth (1808); Jenny Pipes, a "notorious scold" (1809), and Sarah Leeke (1817), both of Leominster. In the last case, the water in the pond was so low that the offender was merely wheeled round the town in the chair.[6] The common law offence of common scold was extant in New Jersey until struck down in 1972 by Circuit Judge McCann who found it had been subsumed in the provisions of the Disorderly Conduct Act of 1898, was bad for vagueness and offended the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for sex discrimination​

 

[Ingledsva]

We can see forced conversion in North Korea, forced to become Atheists or at least keep any thing else hidden.

Nobody was ever forced to convert to Christianity, only to Catholicism. If forced to convert to Catholicism or Atheism I would do the only honorable thing and hang myself.

Ummm!

You think all that fighting and murder was one sided?

Also, there was a Protestant Inquisition after the Reform. Protestants also silenced dissenting views. Tens of thousands of non-Anglicans were killed in England. In America, the Puritans (Protestants) also had Inquisition where people were burned at the stake.

The Salem witch burnings in the US where by Protestants, as were witch burnings in Scotland, England, most of Germany

So called "witches" were burned by Protestants in the 1580 - 1700 A.D.

The early reformers were not into "freedom of religion".

Martin Luther said:

"There are others who teach in opposition to some recognized article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master - namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]." (Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)

*

 

[Kemosloby]

Ummm!

You think all that fighting and murder was one sided?

Also, there was a Protestant Inquisition after the Reform. Protestants also silenced dissenting views. Tens of thousands of non-Anglicans were killed in England. In America, the Puritans (Protestants) also had Inquisition where people were burned at the stake.

The Salem witch burnings in the US where by Protestants, as were witch burnings in Scotland, England, most of Germany

So called "witches" were burned by Protestants in the 1580 - 1700 A.D.

The early reformers were not into "freedom of religion".

Martin Luther said:

"There are others who teach in opposition to some recognized article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master - namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]." (Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)

*

Martin Luther wasn't going by the book either then. Who knows what those people are into. I'll give him credit for making the bible available to everybody though.

 

[Ingledsva]

The preachers were out killing indians? That's about like blaming the existence of bars in America on Christianity. Where do you draw the line on separation of church and state? Everything bad on church and everything good on state?

Actually the first census records show the colonies were not very religious.

After the preachers started arriving, people were kicked out of communities for not being Christian, and they started systematic conversion, and murder of the Indigenous people.

There was actually a law which had a person tied head to feet overnight (torture) and then labor for the church for missing ONE church service, and eventual death for missing several.

ALL of the Abrahamic religions were horrible when it came to spreading their religion!

*

 

[Kemosloby]

Actually the first census records show the colonies were not very religious.

After the preachers started arriving, people were kicked out of communities for not being Christian, and they started systematic conversion, and murder of the Indigenous people.

There was actually a law which had a person tied head to feet overnight (torture) and then labor for the church for missing ONE Sunday service, and eventual death for missing several.

ALL of the Abrahamic religions were horrible when it came to spreading their religion!

*

Not all of them, just the ones with authority and power. Like that old saying power corrupts absolutely. Jesus said the greatest on Earth would be the least in Heaven, and it seems like for a very good reason.

 

[Ingledsva]

Who did that?

Indigenous people's children were often grabbed by the government authorities (Christians) and forced into government schools, where they were given Christian names and beaten and abused if they used their own names. They were forced to attend Christian Church - and beaten and abused if they tried to practice their own faith. They were taught English and beaten and abused if they spoke in their own languages. Thus many native languages are almost lost.

One of those schools was still standing here, just a couple of years ago. The native group went out and held a healing ceremony, and cried over the abuses they, and their parents, and grandparents, went through. Then the building was demolished, to the ground.

*

 

[Kemosloby]

Indigenous people's children were often grabbed by the government authorities (Christians) and forced into government schools, where they were given Christian names and beaten and abused if they used their own names. They were forced to attend Christian Church - and beaten and abused if they tried to practice their own faith. They were taught English and beaten and abused if they spoke in their own languages. Thus many native languages are almost lost.

One of those schools was still standing here, just a couple of years ago. The native group went out and held a healing ceremony, and cried over the abuses they, and their parents, and grandparents, went through. Then the building was demolished, to the ground.

*

Yeah right. Whatever, that sounds like Catholic institutions. Regular old Christian churches have no governmental authority. So Im getting a bit tired of your BS.

 

[Ingledsva]

The notion of "forced conversion" doesn't make sense it me, as it would obviously be an insincere facade. One can't just simply change what they genuinely believe on a whim.

Actually it is forced over time.

Think about it. You are told by the new authority, to convert or else, you have a family, children, need work and food ( think the recent Christian no cake for Gay people, or them wanting the right to not hire certain people) <--- that in the extreme. No work, no food, etc. Most people will lie and say they changed - to survive.

What next? You practice hidden. But your children are forced into conversion by indoctrination in all aspects of their lives. The result is that your religion fades over time, with each new generation, - leaving only the nasty forcing religion.

*