Of course it was, in the majority's eyes. You're falling into the historian's fallacy - They were innocents, by the standards of our times - but by the standards of their time, they were guilty as sin, and for their sin they shall be punished.
It doesn't justify it, but it does explain a little why it occurred.
I can't even begin to describe the giant sack of batshit loco Beck dropped while speaking at Liberty.
I love how he said that god told the Pilgrims to be "good and righteous people," I guess the Salem Witch Trials could be considered righteous depending on how crazy you are, but good? Really? The murder of innocents is good?
Oh man. That was some high octane crazy. I also chuckled at the implication that Columbus came to America. Hurr durr Glenn Beck, I guess America really does have issues with geography if you can't separate the West Indies and parts of Central/South America from the continental United States.
The man really is an idiot of the highest degree. It's like he was birthed into an industrial glue factory.
I guess the Salem Witch Trials could be considered righteous depending on how crazy you are, but good? Really? The murder of innocents is good?
Wait, the Bible said to do the Salem Witch Trials? Where? The Bible says that witches are evil and stuff, but it doesn't lay out the criteria for what made a witch, so the Salem Witch Trials are not an example of what God told or didn't tell the Pilgrims to do.
Hurr durr Glenn Beck, I guess America really does have issues with geography if you can't separate the West Indies and parts of Central/South America from the continental United States.
Hardly the first time, I recall an Advertisment that only aired back home for a very short time, and African-American rights groups complained, because it featured Black people eating fried chicken.
Of course, they've rather forgotten a few small details, like that it being against American Anti-discrimination laws is irrelevant, as those laws only apply on American soil and similar, and of course, that West Indians are, in fact, not African, American, or any combination of the two - And would most likely be rather offended being called as such.
Because the bible says they're evil. Stop asking questions.Despite the Sarcasm green, that's pretty much the answer, sadly - "Because we say they are!"
But how are witches evil? Do they really have powers?
I dunno. I've never met a witch. The Bible just says that witches are people who draw on Satan's power. I don't really know what exactly that could mean, nor have I ever had the chance to test it out. However, that goes completely against my point. The point is supposed to be that God didn't tell the Pilgrims to hold the Salem Witch Trials. In fact, there's no record of God telling the pilgrims anything. The Pilgrims (for the most part) believed in God, but that doesn't necessarily mean He talked to them. I dunno...Beck is still stupid for bringing up "what God told the Pilgrims," but the Salem Witch Trials really have nothing to do with any God and more with crazy, hysteric people twisting a belief into violence.
Edit: Never mind, just listened to Beck's speech, he says that the diaries of the Pilgrims claim that God talked to them. Still, that doesn't mean God told them to hold the Salem Witch Trials or whatever, since that was much later.
The point is that if God told them to be good and righteous, it looks like they didn't listen to Him properly.
Okay...But why does that reflect on God, or Christians in general? Have you ever met a Christian that burns people at the stake? Li seemed to be criticizing God in his statement, whereas his criticism should've been towards the Pilgrims or Glenn Beck...
Li seemed to be criticizing God in his statement, whereas his criticism should've been towards the Pilgrims or Glenn Beck...
But if humans write books purporting to be the word of god or inspired as such (for example, their diaries where they claim God told them to do something), how do you differentiate the books that were "actually" inspired by God, versus the ones that were written by uninspired humans? How specifically do you differentiate one work, such as the Bible, written by men, as being different from another work, such as the Book of Mormon, also written by men, in terms of whether or not they were inspired by God?
Li seemed to be criticizing God in his statement, whereas his criticism should've been towards the Pilgrims or Glenn Beck...
But if humans write books purporting to be the word of god or inspired as such (for example, their diaries where they claim God told them to do something), how do you differentiate the books that were "actually" inspired by God, versus the ones that were written by uninspired humans? How specifically do you differentiate one work, such as the Bible, written by men, as being different from another work, such as the Book of Mormon, also written by men, in terms of whether or not they were inspired by God?
I choose what makes sense to me. Most things in the Bible follow a general idea. People will argue the Old Testament and New Testament are too radically different, but the Old Testament obviously builds predictions to the New Testament. If something else is suggested, but has teachings that don't fit in with the rest of the books of the Bible, I don't believe it was inspired by God. The Book of Mormon supports Polygamy and the like, which clearly goes against the rest of the Bible which, while mentioning men who had many wives, never tells us that it's okay to have many wives, and implies that a man should marry one woman. Thusly, I personally rule out the Book of Mormon. Anything else can be done the same way. That's my argument. Yes, it is entirely based upon me. But isn't that the point of it being my beliefs? It's what I personally believe? I'm not telling anyone they can't believe that, I'm just making my own judgments. Wouldn't you say that's better than simply following what other people believe like a sheep?
BTW, I don't want to take this religious argument any further because I've learned arguing gets me nowhere, so please Rym, if you have a point to make, or just want to tell me that you hate me and want me to shut up, please do so instead of drawing this out and wasting this topic's space.
The Book of Mormon supports Polygamy and the like, which clearly goes against the rest of the Bible which, while mentioning men who had many wives, never tells us that it's okay to have many wives, and implies that a man should marry one woman.
The Book of Mormon supports Polygamy and the like, which clearly goes against the rest of the Bible which, while mentioning men who had many wives, never tells us that it's okay to have many wives, and implies that a man should marry one woman.
Yes, and definitely not a man.
And what does that accomplish? We all know what the Bible says, is you pointing it out to me supposed to make me feel so bad that I renounce my beliefs or something? Honestly, what do responses like this accomplish other than further flame wars. Why try and bait me? What does that accomplish? And now I've taken the bait anyways, so it doesn't even matter.
No, I haven't. Like I said, I'm sorry I'm misinformed.
Really, because it looked like you were calling them misinformed in that post, I apologize for misinterpreting you. Well, that's about enough of that anyway. Let's all go back to failing and posting about it in this thread.
The Book of Mormon supports Polygamy and the like, which clearly goes against the rest of the Bible which, while mentioning men who had many wives, never tells us that it's okay to have many wives, and implies that a man should marry one woman.
Yes, and definitely not a man.
And what does that accomplish? We all know what the Bible says, is you pointing it out to me supposed to make me feel so bad that I renounce my beliefs or something? Honestly, what do responses like this accomplish other than further flame wars. Why try and bait me? What does that accomplish? And now I've taken the bait anyways, so it doesn't even matter.
Why? I rather disliked your attitude here:
BTW, I don't want to take this religious argument any further because I've learned arguing gets me nowhere, so please Rym, if you have a point to make, or just want to tell me that you hate me and want me to shut up, please do so instead of drawing this out and wasting this topic's space.
This isn't about you, Axel. We're going to have an interesting discussion whether you like it or not. Get over it.
BTW, I don't want to take this religious argument any further because I've learned arguing gets me nowhere, so please Rym, if you have a point to make, or just want to tell me that you hate me and want me to shut up, please do so instead of drawing this out and wasting this topic's space.
This isn't about you, Axel. We're going to have an interesting discussion whether you like it or not. Get over it.
No, I meant Rym's religious argument with me. Pay attention. You guys are allowed to talk about freaking Glenn Beck all you want, I was just saying that I didn't want to take Rym's questioning of my beliefs that he had now done twice any further. He would just keep posing questions to thinly veil his real intent of pointing out his dislike of any answer I could provide to his questions. All of his questions are loaded, he won't accept any answer to his questions because there are no answers that work within his personal belief system.
He won't accept any answer to his questions because there are no answers that workwithin his personal belief system.
Well, no. The answer is simply that you can't differentiate those works. Belief is the only thing that makes one book or another special. Even if you don't believe, whatever. Religious or not, one should feel free to jump in puddles, so long as one doesn't soil the shoes of others.
but the Salem Witch Trials really have nothing to do with any God and more with crazy, hysteric people twisting a belief into violence.
Respectfully, I disagree. The believed the bible is the inerrant word of god, and the bible is quite clear on the point -
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
And it's not just a translation thing - the Hebrew says "M'khashephah lo tichayyah" which means "May a m'khashephah not live" or "You will not keep a m'khashephah in life" with m'khashephah being the feminine form of m'khasheph, with the terms essentially meaning "Witch" or "Sorcerer" respectively.
If you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, as they did, it's pretty black and white, really.
I say nothing against you or your PERSONAL beliefs, but it's quite easy to see where they got the idea that "God told us to kill witches. These people are witches, therefore, we should kill them."
And it's not just a translation thing - the Hebrew says "M'khashephah lo tichayyah" which means "May a m'khashephah not live" or "You will not keep a m'khashephah in life" with m'khashephah being the feminine form of m'khasheph, with the terms essentially meaning "Witch" or "Sorcerer" respectively.
If you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god as they did, it's pretty black and white, really.
The Bible doesn't clearly define who is and is not a witch, though.
Well, not in the translation, but in the earlier hebrew version it does - People who practice magic that doesn't come from The Abrahamic god, for example, k'shaphim, one of the more feared forms of magic at the time. Doesn't quite make it through to the translation, though.
Comments
It doesn't justify it, but it does explain a little why it occurred.
The man really is an idiot of the highest degree. It's like he was birthed into an industrial glue factory.
The Bible says that witches are evil and stuff, but it doesn't lay out the criteria for what made a witch, so the Salem Witch Trials are not an example of what God told or didn't tell the Pilgrims to do.
Of course, they've rather forgotten a few small details, like that it being against American Anti-discrimination laws is irrelevant, as those laws only apply on American soil and similar, and of course, that West Indians are, in fact, not African, American, or any combination of the two - And would most likely be rather offended being called as such.
However, that goes completely against my point. The point is supposed to be that God didn't tell the Pilgrims to hold the Salem Witch Trials. In fact, there's no record of God telling the pilgrims anything. The Pilgrims (for the most part) believed in God, but that doesn't necessarily mean He talked to them. I dunno...Beck is still stupid for bringing up "what God told the Pilgrims," but the Salem Witch Trials really have nothing to do with any God and more with crazy, hysteric people twisting a belief into violence.
Edit: Never mind, just listened to Beck's speech, he says that the diaries of the Pilgrims claim that God talked to them. Still, that doesn't mean God told them to hold the Salem Witch Trials or whatever, since that was much later.
Yes, it is entirely based upon me. But isn't that the point of it being my beliefs? It's what I personally believe? I'm not telling anyone they can't believe that, I'm just making my own judgments. Wouldn't you say that's better than simply following what other people believe like a sheep?
BTW, I don't want to take this religious argument any further because I've learned arguing gets me nowhere, so please Rym, if you have a point to make, or just want to tell me that you hate me and want me to shut up, please do so instead of drawing this out and wasting this topic's space.
If you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, as they did, it's pretty black and white, really.
I say nothing against you or your PERSONAL beliefs, but it's quite easy to see where they got the idea that "God told us to kill witches. These people are witches, therefore, we should kill them."