Talk:Burning at the stake

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I beg to differ

Ok, this just doesn't sound right. Where in scripture do you specifically see God commanding his followers to burn to death those who disagree with them ideologically? Of course, capital punishment was commanded, but that was for specific sins (murder, adultery, defiance against parents, etc.), and usually that was stoning, not burning. So, let's take a look at the scriptures you referenced.

  • Numbers 16: This is God dealing with a revolt. Moses didn't burn Korah, Dathan and Abiram at the stake. The only thing God told his people to do was "Get away from the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." Then, at God's command, "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up." This is not Moses saying that they are heretics for voicing a disagreement, and setting them on fire--not even close.
  • Deuteronomy 7: The Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites were pagan, wicked nations which God specifically condemned for their great sin. They, as a whole, were to be warred against and destroyed. Again, this is not a matter of someone saying something the church disagreed with (like, saying that in order to be forgiven, one does not need to buy indulgences from the Catholic aristocracy) and then God saying to burn them to death. This is blatant, unrepentant sin of a very high order.
  • Deuteronomy 12:1-3: "You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their [b]wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place." This is about destroying the places of pagan worship, not burning at the stake those who dare to cut into your profit margin or your other rackets.
  • Matthew 13:24-30: This isn't anything about burning at the stake...this is about God allowing unbelievers to live with believers, and then sorting them out in the final judgement, where the tares (unbelievers) are burned (in hell) and the wheat is gathered into His barn (heaven). He says this right at the beginning, when he specifies that "the kingdom of heaven is like..." This is heaven, not earth.
  • Titus 3:10-11: "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." That has nothing to do with brutal murder of someone just because their faith doesn't match your own. Even in your catholic bible, which is not generally accurate to the historical texts, it is clear that his is unrelated: "after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him".

I don't have time to go through each scripture you mentioned right now, but this is more that an argument from silence. The entire gospel message is to proclaim the good news of salvation, not to kill people who disagree. Burning at the stake is more like what Muslims do (although they typically use a tire filled with gasoline) because the devil has deceived them into doing it.

Deuteronomy 32:32-35:

"But their vine is from the vine of Sodom

and from the fields of Gomorrah.

Their grapes are poisonous;

their clusters are bitter.

33Their wine is the venom of serpents,

the deadly poison of cobras.

34“Have I not stored up these things,

sealed up within My vaults?

35Vengeance is Mine; I will repay.

In due time their foot will slip;

for their day of disaster is near,

and their doom is coming quickly.”

God says that he will judge for unbelief (and the sinful behavior which comes with it), but that is not our job. Our job is to spread the word. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:44, 30 January 2020 (EST)

Bingo. DavidB4 nails it. The author fails to distinguish between a gospel of grace and gospel of works. Again, the author fails to understand the difference between Mosaic law and salvation through Christ. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:54, 30 January 2020 (EST)
I had a little more time to check a few more random references provided on this page, and continue to see the same misapplication.
  • 1 Peter 2:13-14: This is capital punishment for crimes from the second table of the law.
  • 2 Timothy 2:11-19: How does this even relate to burning at the stake?? I would love to know... "For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself." I hope you are not trying to attribute additional meaning to "he also will deny us;" in the context of the rest of scripture, we know that this means denying us as his children at the judgement.
  • Proverbs 28:9-14: Once again, this is speaking of God's judgement. "...he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity." It doesn't say that he who hardens his heart must be executed.
  • 2 Peter 2:1: "...even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." Again, this is God's judgement, not man's.
  • Sirach 10:12-20: Although a book from the apocrypha (which should not be considered inspired and authoritative), this is again speaking of God's judgement, not man's. This should be fairly obvious, since it keeps saying "The Lord has..."
Now enough about what we don't see in scripture, what do we see in scripture? How about 2 Timothy 4:14-15? Paul says "Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. (15) You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words." Paul didn't say to kill him, just to beware of him, and that the Lord will replay.
Capital punishment is intended to deal with transgressions of the second table of the law--sins against man. There were times in the old testament where God, by direct revelation, told his people to attack certain nations, or kill certain people for their wickedness. This typically involved the worship of false gods, and other prevalent immorality. (False gods were a common excuse to be immoral.) --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:02, 30 January 2020 (EST)
We should discuss how to proceed. The author hasn't responded here on Talk yet. I suggest 24 hours, than proceed to discussing it as a speedy deletion candidate, as I don't intend to follow this page with a pooper-scooper or attempt rehab. If another volunteer doesn't step forward, we should discuss putting it up for a vote to Delete of Keep.
Renaming with a modification of the Intro is another option, but don't ask me for input. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:31, 31 January 2020 (EST)
Ok, I gave it my best shot at rehab. But we still need to discuss if the page should survive 'as is'. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:58, 31 January 2020 (EST)
The article as written was basically (a) an attack on the authority of scripture, and (b) an attack on the Grace of God. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:39, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Leviticus 10:1-2 and Numbers 16:35

The article states clearly that the scripture cited was used as a pretext by the advocates of burning at the stake which they saw as a clear command of God. The "twisting of scripture" is theirs, historically; it is not the position of this article. The advocates of that position are the ones who say "It's their own fault".

I added the following quotations to the illustrative texts that were historically used as a pretext for burning. "Even God burned those who defied him"—at least that was their rationale for doing the same.

Leviticus 10
Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and offered unholy fire before the LORD such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Leviticus 10:1-2
Numbers 16
And fire came forth from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense.
Numbers 16:35

I also specified that it was the judges of the Inquisition who found individuals to be "incorrigible" when they handed them over to the secular arm of the government. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2020 (EST)

I just now found Genesis 38:24. Will now add it to the Old Testament citations of burning. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Fine. You just need to clarify that those biblical verses apply to people who reject the gospel of grace and salvation. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:37, 3 February 2020 (EST)
The gospel of grace existed from everlasting to everlasting; the law was given because of sin, because men rejected God, did not believe God (i,e, did not have faith). Again, you are preaching a God of wrath and judgment, not salvation and grace. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:44, 3 February 2020 (EST)

A note on collaborative writing

Please, when asked a question, answer directly on the appropriate thread. Do not create new subheadings to avoid answering legitimate inquiries. Answer directly. Do not spam the page. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:47, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Secondly, articles should have a balanced presentation of various sides of an argument, which you do admirably in several of your articles. Keep in mind however, both article mainspaces and talk pages should not be cluttered up in a nuclear arms race with information both pro and con. Address specific words and sentences. Do not spam with redundant links over and over again. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:09, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Ok. The original author has refused to engage. IMO, the page 'as is' qualifies as "sarcastic mockery" in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments and should be deleted. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:55, 4 February 2020 (EST)


  • The Book of Sirach is one of the books of the Bible accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers (more than two-thirds) in the United States and throughout the world. See article Biblical Canon</ref> RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:08, 4 February 2020 (EST)

This, too.

It is obvious, these cites are cut n pasted from Wikipedia (See access date). It is not your work. It is plagiarized. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Dataclarifier response
At 00:55, 4 February 2020 (EST) I was elsewhere, and then later went to bed. When I returned to respond in good faith at 10:55, 4 February 2020 (CST), the block prevented any response I could have given. You are the one who arranged for a lack of response when I was ready to respond.
Firstly, I've read your material and it seems to me that you are fully capable of a re-write yourself. You did several edits already on this article without engaging me to respond. You have competently done the same with other articles. In this case, you were and are quite capable of doing the re-write of the ref material to make it acceptable, since the other works cited regarding Catholic and Orthodox figures are originally independent of Wikipedia as their source.
Secondly, the articles from and were obtained by me independently of Wikipedia by my doing an online search for Catholic and Orthodox statistics—I did not get them from Wikipedia, notice they have no "access date"—yet you state that they are plagiarized from Wikipedia. Only the info summarized by me from the independently published Orthodox sources cited in Wikipedia regarding numbers of religious adherents is relevant, and the summarizing text I wrote was not plagiarized. I only used the listing of sources in Wikipedia in order to save the time and effort that would have been necessary in restructuring the form of the citations for this article. As you say, they could be re-written as direct sources not originating as being from Wikipedia. You could have easily done this yourself—no problem, I would not have objected. I would have thanked you.
Thirdly, statements of known statistics are universal, without copyright, as in the current census of the statistical demographics of the United States, and a simple summary statement citing statistical facts established and accepted by researchers and used by me in the ref note is not an act of plagiarism. I did not quote any of the writers of those articles, I cited their figures.
Fourthly, the article was written about how the Bible has been used as a pretext for burning people at the stake. That is the source of the first objection. Whatever abuse of scripture this represents was done by them, as an historical fact. I included the stated attitude of those who believed they had done right. That is the source of the second objection. It is their attitude—which I clearly stated as theirs—that comes across so evidently as "sarcastic mockery", and it is this that apparently prompted your reaction that the page 'as is' qualifies as "sarcastic mockery".
Fifthly, you inserted into the article a heading Non-canonical, as asserting (without qualification) that Sirach is absolutely not a book of the Bible, when in fact, not everyone believes that it is non-canonical, and in fact most Christians (you included yourself as an informed Catholic in dissent) accept that it is canonical. Only Protestants constituting less than one-third of Christian believers reject it as non-canonical. The point of the deleted reference was exactly that, and you removed it. It seems like an explicit example of doctrinal censorship in violation of balanced treatment, a violation which Conservapedia principles oppose.
Finally—When I attempted to restore the references re Catholic and Orthodox statistics (which you yourself could have easily edited and re-written), you charged me with edit-warring, and I was only attempting to restore a balance you opposed. You rejected the facts of the article re the pretexts used by the Medieval authorities, not me, to support burning at the stake, as an abuse of scripture. And you characterized the whole article as sarcastic mockery, when in fact I was only reporting the facts.
I said nothing to the proposed speedy deletion of the article because I do not regard its existence on Conservapedia as a vital source of information, which readers who wish to know the facts can obtain for themselves online, and I would have said nothing in response to your urgently proposed speedy deletion if it had been granted. I do see, however, that to date it still has not been deleted as actually being in fact a violation of Conservapedia principles and guidelines. Apparently not everyone here agrees with your assessment. I submit all this as a good faith response to your objections, and a clear explanation of my actions re the topic as an attempt to inform.
Sincerely, --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Due to ongoing physical stress, I will not be continuing with Conservapedia much beyond spring of this year, due to age and health. Peace be with you all. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2020 (EST)
TLDR, you're spamming again. Howabout just saying "What's wrong?" RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:21, 4 February 2020 (EST)
I did.
apart from that— I just added the following edits in the following order (see View history):
(cur | prev) 15:28, 4 February 2020‎ Dataclarifier (Talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (9,435 bytes) (+135)‎ . . (moved "conclusion line" re attitude of supporters of burning at the stake to end of article, with heading "Pretext used" - also revised phrase "stake burning" to "burning at the stake") (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:30, 4 February 2020‎ Dataclarifier (Talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (9,452 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (revised "and their civil authority" to "and the civil authority of the State") (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:32, 4 February 2020‎ Dataclarifier (Talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (9,461 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (→‎Non-canonical: added "See also" to link Sirach 10:12-20) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:34, 4 February 2020‎ Dataclarifier (Talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (9,476 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (→‎See also: added Eisegesis) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:37, 4 February 2020‎ Dataclarifier (Talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (9,490 bytes) (+14)‎ . .
(→‎Pretext used: revised "hold themselves blameless of any sin" to "hold themselves blameless of any sin in the matter") (undo)
--Dataclarifier (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2020 (EST)
I see RobSmith has removed page subheading Dataclarifier response from this page, so the link I provided elsewhere can't access it. So I added this note to those pages where I posted the link for direct access, pointing this out and saying "Go to Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it and scroll down to my now untitled response." --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The following is a re-write of the ref notes originally attached to Sirach 10:
Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2020 (EST)
I just now attached a boldface title (non-heading) to my original "engaged" response Dataclarifier response. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Thank you. I made some additional clarifications and will insert into the mainspace. If you have objections to my edits, please return here and we will discuss. Again, thank you. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:34, 5 February 2020 (EST)
I found nothing objectionable. I did add the following verifiable statistic from documented research sources:
Over the last century, the Orthodox Christian population around the world has more than doubled and now stands at nearly 260 million.
I also replaced the Wikipedia list of martyrs you removed, with the World Heritage Encyclopedia list of martyrs which is virtually identical (probably the original source, though "Ickypedia" does not acknowledge it).
On another note: I will now have to restrict my involvement in all other projects needing historical clarification and corrections of historical "revisionism", as I will of necessity have to withdraw soon from Conservapedia. I hope to be able to finish what I've already been extensively and exhaustively involved with by the end of spring.
Sincere regards to all. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2020 (EST)
Well thank you. This is how collaborative writing is done - an exchange of ideas resulting in the Best of the Public.
There is one point that I know I'm a stickler on - the fact that Protestants are actually catholics in the original, biblical, sense of the word. Convincing Protestants of this scriptural fact and truth would go a long way to alleviating anti-Catholic bigotry.
Another more minor point to clarify for Roman Catholic readers is that the Orthodox church is not a monolith like the Roman Church. Given Roman Catholic believers tenet of faith in the authority of the Pope, this can be confusing. 'Orthodox' is not single church, and it is the Roman Church that is the breakaway sect from orthodoxy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:11, 5 February 2020 (EST)
You used the standard designate "the Orthodox Church is" (singular, "monolithic", form of expression). You did not say "the Orthodox Churches are". --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2020 (EST)
Amen to that. I don't have the time to go through every occurance of the term, "Orthodox Church" in Conservapedia. The main point is what the term "orthodox" means and that the monolithic Roman Church is a dissident sect from Christian Orthodoxy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:13, 5 February 2020 (EST)
No, the designate singular, "Orthodox Church", is in fact proper. So don't bother going through Conservapedia to change every occurrence of it! It designates the one, shared, common, inherited traditional, unified doctrine of the one orthodox catholic Christian faith of the Church in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and temple of the Holy Spirit of God, the Church he purchased with his own blood as his own body, secured by the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to be with us and in us forever and to lead us into all truth by the certainty of apostolic succession with the command to "obey your leaders, who watch for your souls" whom God has appointed in the Church with God-established authority to shepherd and guard the flock of the Lord, the body of Christ the head, who remains with us always to the end of time, from whom many dissented, disobeyed, went out and taught a different doctrine from what they had been taught, twisting the scriptures and drawing many after them.
The monolithic element of Orthodoxy as a Church of all the Orthodox, not churches, is the whole faith of the Church and its tradition of prayer and worship and practice as the assembly of the Lord who dwells in the midst, not restricted as being solely identified only with the jurisdictional authority of the several individual heads of the autocephalous orthodox jurisdictions of the pentarchy under one Shepherd.
Catholicism maintains the unity of the faith guarded by the collegiality of the shepherding bishops unified under the one presidency of the Bishop of Rome, "first in dignity" before the Patriarch of Constantinople "second in dignity and prerogatives", and finally defined as a dogma in the doctrine of Petrine Primacy as already fully implicit in scripture and tradition as evident from the undeniable outworking of the witness of historical development as an unfolding visible testimony of the truth of it.
This is one point that I am a stickler on, as a Bible apologist, historian, and researcher, and former fundamental Baptist believer in the Bible as the word of God to man and testimony that led me to embrace Catholicism as the truth of the Full Gospel. "Whoever wants to do his will, shall know of the doctrine, whether the Church is speaking from God or whether she is speaking on human authority. Whoever asks receives, whoever seeks finds, and to whomever knocks it shall be opened." That has been my experience. What else should I say? That's my testimony, and I know that I speak the truth. This is my defense to anyone who asks me to account for the hope that is in me in the Catholic Church, always I hope with calmness and gentle firmness and reverence for God and the dignity of every individual man and woman, attempting to keep my conscience clear of hypocrisy and compromise, so anyone who asks will know where I stand.
May peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (EST)
'catholic' means gentile. Period. It can also be inclusive of Messianic churches which do not self-segregate. Period. The Roman Catholic Church is a dissident sect of Christian orthodoxy centered in Rome. Period. It is descended from the Roman church, which originally was 'catholic' or 'universal', i.e., made up of Jewish and non-Jewish congregants. Period.
Doctrinal differences is an entirely different discussion. For now, right here, we are concerned about the definition and meaning of words. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:47, 14 March 2020 (EDT)

The word of God is living and active

There was no "biblical pretext" for Christians to burn people at the stake for heresy hundreds of years ago, and there is no biblical pretext for Christians to burn heretics at the stake today. To suggest there is, IMO, is a Satanic doctrine. RobSLive Free or Die 20:36, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Keep as-is, rewrite, or delete?

This page still has a delete tag on from a while ago, when this whole mess started. The page still needs some work, if it is to be kept. What do you folks think we should do with it? My vote is for a partial re-write, but I've had so little time to edit lately, I probably can't do it myself. --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:32, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

I did my part, as best I could under the circumstances. But I can help out, too, if we are to keep it. RobSFree Kyle! 19:48, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
What's almost comical at this point, for whatever reason Dataclarifier felt the need to create this page, it may end up looking like an anti-Catholic screed (which is something I feared back then when this mess started). RobSFree Kyle! 19:50, 12 October 2020 (EDT)