»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Feeding The Lions
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Feeding The Lions |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity” KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday. The defendant, Abdul Rahman, was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada told the Associated Press in an interview. Such a conversion would violate the country's Islamic laws. Rahman, who is believed to be 41, was charged with rejecting Islam when his trial started last week, the judge said. During the hearing, the defendant allegedly confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago when he was 25 and working as a medical aid worker for Afghan refugees in neighboring Pakistan, Mawlavezada said. Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which states that any Muslim who rejects their religion should be sentenced to death.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188364,00.html Is being openly Christian worth dying for? Would you die for your faith? What do you think of someone who would? As an aside, doesn’t the use of the word “allegedly” carry the tone of crime about it? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Is being openly Christian worth dying for? I don't believe my self a Christian, because I refuse to believe in any man made religion...but, would I die for God or Jesus...depends a whole lot on the circumstance at hand....would I denouce my faith if I knew it would save my life? I can't honestly answer that...I don't know... Would you die for your faith? I'd die for my family...son, grand daughter, mom, etc...or, I would hope I would, so would I die for my faith? My faith is my family What do you think of someone who would? I don't think one way or the other...there have been many men who believed strongly in the North and the South, (Civil War) each with their own prefrence, who died for what they believed in...nothing has changed, our soldiers are dying in Iraq, for the same reasons... I think they are admirable, courageous, and to be recognized as heros, supported, and most of all, upon their return, they should have free health care and be taken care of the rest of their lives...more so then the illegal immigrants of this country. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Don't you think the answer depends upon whether or not Christianity is really true? If (as the New Testament tells us) loyalty to Christ brings eternal glory, and denying him eternal shame, then it would stand to reason that the rewards of being faithful would be greater than the pain of someone else's offense. quote: I hope I would have the grace to be able to, instead of renouncing Christ to save my own skin. He didn't try to save himself when the shoe was on the other foot. But saying that you are willing to suffer for your faith, and actually doing it, are two different things. Now, that doesn't mean that there is no value in unfledged resolve, or pledges of untested devotion ... even if failure proves that most of it was fluff. Sometimes we have to painfully regret our house of cards, before we find a real home. In the Gospel narratives, Peter did this, telling Jesus unflinchingly that he would be willing to die for him. Theory is an easy tune to dance to. But when the unsavory time came, Peter couldn't even stand up to the puerile questioning of a servant girl. However he did obtain something of a more rugged faith, later. Tradition holds that he was crucified upside down for his Christianity, deeming himself unworthy to die in like manner to the one he had denied before. quote: I would thank God for such a fealty, and such devotion ... whether it be for the person of Christ, or for the truth as such. It's easy to disdain someone who is willing to kill for truth, but much harder someone who is willing to merely die for it. I guess that's why Socrates was always one of my favorite Philosophers.  quote: Islamic Law does hold open profession of Christ, to be a punishable crime. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I find the focus on Christianity a little bit beside the point--because, um, Christianity was, once upon a time a cult religion. (Don't even argue with me on that one, just do the research.) (Every religion has suffered persecution.) To answer your questions though: Is being openly Christian worth dying for? --Is being YOURSELF in another guise worth living for? Would you die for your faith? Daily. (I don't know how to live without a faith of some kind. What do you think of someone who would? This question, I believe, assumes the answer to the previous. A better question would be how does one survive life without a faith in something? Whether or not we call it science or God or Allah or Jesus, we do presume a daily expectancy of certain things being so. I like to think we are allowed the individual right to personalize our beliefs as Gods, Goddesses, or even the AA doorknob. Feeding The Lions? I thought that was why football was invented. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Is being openly Christian worth dying for?" Not to me. "Would you die for your faith?" No. "What do you think of someone who would?" I think it is going too far. Life is more important than faith. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Hi Karen. I have done quite a bit of examination of the historical foundations of Christianity. What do you mean by saying it was once a "cult" religion? Do you mean that it was once the minority rather than a world religion? If that's what you mean, then I understand your point ... but size can be irrelevant to truth. I think Christianity comes into focus, since "persecution for righteousness", and the necessity of holding onto a dogmatic loyalty to the person of Christ in the midst of persecutions, is a dominant theme. I'm not aware of it in other "faiths", beyond the common nationalistic encouragement to die for one's countrymen and family, or the reverse admonition to persecute others for the sake of righteousness. I'm not saying that the "martyr" concept has no value outside of Christianity. I'm just saying that it is more prevalent there, historically and doctrinally speaking. quote: individual rights granted ... we have free will. But that doesn't safeguard against being wrong, or irrational. If someone's higher power is a door knob, they are plainly worshipping something less than themselves. All "faiths" are not equal. I think you would concede at least that much? quote: But Essorant, that doesn't take into account the whole of life, which includes invariably physical death. If what Jesus said is true about the nature of life and death, then wouldn't it be wise to place trust and loyalty in him, even in the face of threats? Many feel that honor is more important than life. And if there's more, that's not at all unreasonable. "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose" - Jim Elliot. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Now Stephan, we're really not going to go that round again are we? I was not mocking the AA doorknob. If you believe that with God all things are possible, why would you assume that there is not a spark of divinity even in a doorknob? namaste sweet friend You have found your path. It works very well for you, and I respect you beyond what meager words can express. But please allow others the same respect of belief. If the God of your belief is all that you say, then that God will find everybody, right? It's a dark neck of the woods, and sometimes people have to take different paths to get to the same destination. *peace out* Stephen (you are trying to adjust my radio dials again, and I happen to be jammin' on the signal I've got!  ) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I believe that God will continue to remind worshippers of brass objects, that doorknobs retain the humble function of opening physical doors. There are other "doors" for which common latches prove utterly useless. That's where the "all things possible" part comes in. For me, the spark of divinity comes in, in the symbolic ... to what something like a doorknob may point to. Jesus did say "I am the door". In that sense, I have no problem with granting mundane objects, much more than their typical admiration. I actually believe that divine truth, gives great honor and energy to our mythic imagination. But in the final analysis, created things are simply created things, not worthy of the worship that is due only to God. quote: I can concede this much ... He will certainly find all who will be found. And his merciful ways go ever beyond my comprehension. But his ways involve ultimately turning us from idols, never joining us at the fireside. quote: I do agree. But that's only true of some paths, which are intimately connected and part of a common thoroughfare. Other paths lead to very different destinations. Just ask my wife, how often I've proved this theory whenever I'm driving, and won't stop and ask directions. Sometimes turning around (repentance) is not optional, if you want to get where you were going. I can relate to Bugs on that "Left at Albequerque" syndrome. Nice talking with you again, Karen. And yes, even when we disagree, the respect for each other is always present, and that means a lot. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Respect is easy with you, Stephen.  And since we have danced to this tune before, (many times) I'll just exit with a  and?I'll see ya when we get there. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"What do you mean by saying it was once a "cult" religion? Do you mean that it was once the minority rather than a world religion? If that's what you mean, then I understand your point ... but size can be irrelevant to truth." ~ So, what is labeled as "cult" today, and I have heard those in the majority call them "whacky cults" or "of the devil cults" etc., since they are in the minority, their size can be irrelevant to the truth too? ~ How about those people a few years back, who all gave their lives to catch a ride in the comet up in space in order to meet their God. They died for their religion, was that suicide? "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Death is easy to talk about until you’ve seen it with no angels coming by to take anyone anything anywhere ever. And all you have is a corpse, like a rat, or a dead dog. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP: quote: Yes, of course size can be irrelevant to the truth too. I've never heard anyone call a religious movement a "cult" based upon mere size ... such a label is usually based upon practice and doctrine. quote: Why wouldn't it be suicide? What's the definition of suicide? Didn't they take their own lives, by their own hand? The article in discussion involves someone else doing the killing. True martyrs do not desire death, they only think a loyal death would be better than a faithless life, and so choose not to recant their wedding vows. See the difference? John: quote: You're right, it certainly is. And that's why I always wonder at atheistic confidence about one's dying day. You'll certainly find no boasting on my part, about how willing and able I am to suffer for Christ. I can only take it day by day, and pray that by his grace, I may do well. quote: Living people have seen angels. People who have been rescusitated have reported seeing both angelic scenes, and horrific ones ... giving some validity to the doctrine of life beyond death. Though I'm wary of believing every instance of supernatural experience I hear, I don't cynically think that they are all merely imagined. To do so certainly takes one beyond the pale of science also, and lands one in another kind of "faith" assertion. And the conclusion that you will forever be no better than a dead rat or dog, supplies it's own criticism. It doesn't fit our psychology of hope, nor our habits of self image. Neither does it do justice to the overwhelmingly high percentage of belief that there is some kind of life after death ... other than by calling it a foolish form of wish-fulfillment or denial. (Though It's often overlooked that atheism itself can also be explained in terms of wish fulfillment- ie, not wanting a Judgement day, or any moral contraints beyond the self). Neither does it fit with history, as there is at least one who was reported to be raised from the dead. The history isn't easily explained away, if one takes the time to try and test the alternatives to a corporeal ressurrection of Jesus, in explaining the growth and vitality of the early Christian Church ... which could have all been ended by something as simple as producing a body, on the part of the Romans or the Jews. And as for disciples who had hoped for a political Messiah, would their discouragement and dashed hopes have motivated them to steal away the corpse, and proclaim that he was raised from the dead, if he had really not been? Especially when such a doctrine, would make them enemies of an entire Judaistic culture of which they were part, and even sympathetic to? Of course, there is always room for doubt, even in the face of extreme plausibility. Even Jesus' disciples on the Emmaus road doubted. And to that, I'll give you a couple of authors who have answered well ... "One word, Ma'am ... All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said even so. Supposed we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can, even if there isn't any Narnia." (Puddleglum talks to the Queen of Underland- from "The Silver Chair" by C.S. Lewis) and ... "Something analogous to the difference we have pointed out in the experience of the two and the ten disciples in connection with belief in the resurrection may be found in the ways by which different Christians now are brought to faith. The evidences of Christianity are commonly divided into two great categories--the external and the internal; the one drawn from outward historical facts, the other from the adaptation of the gospel to man's nature and needs. Both sorts of evidence are necessary to a perfect faith, just as both sorts of vision, the outward and the inward, were necessary to make the disciples thorough believers in the fact of the resurrection. But some begin with the one, some with the other. Some are convinced first that the gospel story is true, and then perhaps long after waken up to a sense of the importance and preciousness of the things which it relates. Others, again, are like Cleopas and his companion; so engrossed with their own thoughts as to be incapable of appreciating or seeing facts, requiring first to have the eyes of their understanding enlightened to see the beauty and the worthiness of the truth as it is in Jesus. They may at one time have had a kind of traditional faith in the facts as sufficiently well attested. But they have lost that faith, it may be not without regret. They are skeptics, and yet they are sad because they are so, and feel that it was better with them when, like others, they believed. Yet, though they attempt it, they cannot restore their faith by a study of mere external evidences. They read books dealing in such evidences, but they are not much impressed by them. Their eyes are holden, and they know not Christ coming to them in that outward way. But He reveals Himself to them in another manner. By hidden discourse with their spirits He conveys into their minds a powerful sense of the moral grandeur of the Christian faith, making them feel that, true or not, it is at least worthy to be true. Then their hearts begin to burn: they hope that what is so beautiful may turn out to be objectively true; the question of the external evidences assumes a new interest to their minds; they inquire, they read, they look; and, lo, they see Jesus revived, a true historical person for them: risen out of the grave of doubt to live for evermore the sun of their souls, more precious for the temporary loss; coming More moving, delicate, and full of life, into the eye and prospect of their soul," (A.B. Bruce, The Training of The Twelve) Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-22-2006 01:01 AM).] |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Yes, of course size can be irrelevant to the truth too. I've never heard anyone call a religious movement a "cult" based upon mere size ... such a label is usually based upon practice and doctrine." ~ For sure, and during Christ's time, the fledgling religion of Christianity was labeled a cult based upon its practice and doctrine. Jump forward about 2000 years from now, what is considered a cult now, may be as popular and accepted as Christianity today. That is the point I was making. "Why wouldn't it be suicide? What's the definition of suicide? Didn't they take their own lives, by their own hand? The article in discussion involves someone else doing the killing. True martyrs do not desire death, they only think a loyal death would be better than a faithless life, and so choose not to recant their wedding vows. See the difference?" ~ Do you know what those "true martyrs" were thinking upon their deaths? Surely, you can't know if they desired it or not? All those martyrs had to do was denounce their faiths and live... sounds like a form of suicide to me, and I don't see much of a difference or any at all between those martyrs and those people who died to catch the comet in the sky. Those martyrs died for a man who claimed himself to be god. They weren't the only ones to do that. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I think much of past martyrdom was much indicative of the poverties of the lives being sacrificed. There was something in that comment by Kirk Douglas in the role of Spartacus when he said when a free man dies he gives up the pleasures of life while a slave gives up its pains and so is not afraid. It is one thing to give up a life that is highlighted only by respites from misery and suffering and quite another to let go one of comfort and gratification. What is the point of the resurrection of the body except thereby to experience through it the pleasures little or not previously known. As far as seeing angels and such, there's a scientific explaination for that, (read Weird Science by Michael White). |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP: quote: And still ... each example of doctrine and practice, stands or falls upon it's own grammatico-historical validity, philosophical coherency, and moral excellence. If you honestly think that "Heaven's Gate" is really comparable to Christianity in these regards, then it's probably pointless for me to continue talking to you. quote: Um. actually you can to some degree. And no, it's not mind reading. Just follow the clues. Look at their respective ethos, and the worldview that they ascribed to. The Judeo-Christian foundation tells us that God created life, and that it is good. Christians, in general, were not at all averse to life. They considered the present life to be a gift from God. So their religious teaching is one clue. The second clue is that they were singled out by others to be persecuted, or killed, for what they believed in. So the impetus of death came from someone other than themselves. So, Martyrdom doesn't mean that death was a desirable state for them. It merely means that for them apostasy is worse than physical death. But that's not the same thing as despising life, or even desiring to die. Also, I'm pretty sure the "Heaven's Gate" cult, did follow teachings which drew heavily from Gnosticism. And Gnostisicm didn't merely put a second-rate status on the present life ... but said that it was positively evil, a creation of a demiurge. And I have the witness of myself. I personally love life. I love sunshine, and music, and food, and good company ... like everyone else, maybe more. But do I think that a living apostasy and denial of Christ is better than dying? I wouldn't be a real Christian if I thought so. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that my belief in this regard remains untested. But right now, I can't help that. I do hope and pray it remains so. I guess I've always believed that we should hope for the best, and be ready for the worst. But my point is ... If I feel this way, I think it's pretty natural to infer that most Christian martyrs would share the same love for life, even while choosing death over infidelity. It actually gives more value to what they are doing. Who is commended for losing something that they don't really love anyway? John: quote: There's some truth to that I'm sure. If life is burdensome here, the promise of setting things right in the world to come is tantalizing. But you've also got to reckon with those who had material possessions, and then only lost them because of their refusal to deny Christ. Then the most likely answer is that they valued something more than material possessions and temporal happiness, which would explain both the more affluent martyrs AND the impoverished ones. But to say that the martyrs' "devotion" arises out of socio-economic conditions, since having never experienced anything good in life, they all naturally despised their present lot ... only explains the impoverished mindset, not the mindset willing to lose comfort and wellbeing, in order to be faithful. So, if it only adequately explains one, and there is an alternative explanation which explains both, maybe you should consider the possibility. "Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions." (Hebrews 10:32-34 NIV) quote: There's also a Theological explanation for that. Nothing wrong with considering both. And I have no doubt that particular reports, respectively, are subject more to one explanation than the other. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-22-2006 11:09 PM).] |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"And still ... each example of doctrine and practice, stands or falls upon it's own grammatico-historical validity, philosophical coherency, and moral excellence." ~ You just described Buddhism, among countless other religions created by the humankind - cults included. "If you honestly think that "Heaven's Gate" is really comparable to Christianity in these regards, then it's probably pointless for me to continue talking to you." ~ I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth, please. However, I don't know about you, but I know that I could never know if those people of the Heaven's Gate "cult" really were inspired by the true Creator to do what they did. "Um. actually you can to some degree." ~ And just what that degree may be? Do you know of any eyewitnesses? Do you have their own handwritten memoirs available to dissect? Or, do you have their psychiatrists medical recores? "And no, it's not mind reading. Just follow the clues. Look at their respective ethos, and the worldview that they ascribed to." ~ Based upon written diaries of their minds? "The Judeo-Christian foundation tells us that God created life, and that it is good. Christians, in general, were not at all averse to life. They considered the present life to be a gift from God. So their religious teaching is one clue. The second clue is that they were singled out by others to be persecuted, or killed, for what they believed in. So the impetus of death came from someone other than themselves." ~ That doesn't matter to me. To live, all they had to do was denounce their God. After they did that, they could go back home, open up a bottle of wine and celebrate with their families for fooling those stupid officials with a fake recantation. I'm not buying it. They could be considered to be suicidal just like those Heavan Gaters. One could say that the Heaven Gaters were forced to die for their God due to the world treating them as those officials treated the Christian martyrs, albeit on a different degree (I'd say by about 20% less). "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, you would be willing to denounce your wife, your children, your parents, everyone and everything you have ever loved, just to save your own life, Mike? Their honor, your own honor, means nothing to you when faced of personal danger? |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
I don't know if one can compare an unseen God or a man who claimed to be God, but then more than one man has done so, to my family, whom I know are my son & daughter. That is the difference. Besides that argument, what are words anyway? Tell the fools, "Yeah, you are right, he isn't God." Now, you are not going to die and you can go home and laugh at those idiots because you got the best of them. Now, you will continue to proclaim your God. Of course, I would then move to a different city/province and spread the word again. "... Melvin, you overwhelm me." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I notice you didn't answer the question, Mike. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
John, do you assume nobody here has seen death? That it's easy for everyone here to talk about? I don't have a strong personal faith in God, so I wouldn't die for a religious belief I don't have. But I see what Stephen and some of the others are saying. If I were in some sick hypothetical situation where someone had a gun to my head and said, "If you kill that innocent person, I'll let you live; if you don't, I'll kill you," I hope I'd have the courage and morality within me to take the bullet myself. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP: quote: If you really think cults are so great, why did you bring up Heaven's Gate if not to liken Christian Martyrdom to it's disturbing mindset? This in itself shows that you don't really think all beliefs are equal. You play the relativist card way too much, for one who wants a sturdy argument. quote: Why not? You seem pretty sure that what you call "mainstream Christianity" is not inspired by the true Creator. I'm pretty sure you've actually said that, in nearly those very words. You’re not being consistent. quote: Actually there are things written by Martyrs and many other things written about them, (and the communities they were apart of) ... from ancient times right up to the present. I’ll be working on a reading list, if you want to really explore it. And too, since Jesus warned his disciples about future persecutions and suffering, we have a body of teaching and theological consideration about the nature of suffering for the faith. So no, it’s not just a shot in the dark. quote: You're not buying it? Then why did many of them do what they did? In every other sense, they seemed to be quite well-adjusted and loyal citizens (just read such accounts as "The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs"). So your proposal that they were suicidal, is much harder to buy than the commonly held explanation, that they really did so out of devotion. quote: They could be, but that doesn't mean they should be considered suicidal. quote: One could say that too. But aren't you switching tactics now? You were saying that the Christians were suicidal. Now your reversing the argument and saying that HG cult members were "forced" to die for their God, like the Christians were? quote: The Bible says that it is possible to know God in an intimate way ... a way that even supercedes family relations. That is also the testimony of many Christians. If that's the case, why couldn't these situations be comparable? quote: Classic Liar's paradox. How can I believe your argument then? quote: There is much you're not acknowledging here ... 1) The Judeo-Christian teaching has always been that words are very important, and that we should be honest, not break promises, not give false witness etc ... And this is not some dusty ancient concept. In general most people believe this today, sometimes concerning themselves, but always when the shoe is on the other foot. 2) In the Roman persecution of Christians, Emperor worship was the point of contention. "Ceasar is Lord" is what all were required to say, and throw some incense in the fire. Then a certificate was given to verify that the honor had been paid. But to the Christian, this was the "number of the beast". Remember that Jews and Christians believe that God commands that there shall be "no other Gods before me"? in fact it was numero uno, in the big ten! To acquiesce to Cesar is to place someone before God, and to shame God at the same time, respecting an earthly ruler more than the ruler of all things ... even giving the title of Christ to a pagan king. 3) To deny Christ, and then to pretend that it didn't really matter to Christ, is to forget all he told his disciples concerning the persecutions and sufferings to come, and how important it would be to endure to the end, even to the point of death if necessary. In short, it would contradict and trivialize his very explicit teachings, and so make the title "Lord", a joke. 4) Rome basically ruled the world at that time. It's not like you could just pack up and move from Georgia to Florida. It was the Emperor of the vast Roman empire who demanded worship. Why else do you think the book of Revelation described those who take the mark of the beast, as "unable to buy or sell"? Because, there was literally no place to run, realistically speaking. All roads literally led to Rome. 5) A Christian who felt that the desire of Christ was for him to be a faithful witness for him, could not feel that he "got the better" of the Romans, by denying Christ in their presence. In fact anyone who saw and knew this, would instantly know that Christ to the apostate Christian was no more than the countless other "gods" of Rome. You say that you could "proclaim your God", but what would be to proclaim, if Nero was already proclaimed to be Lord? In the Christian's mind, how could anyone be saved by such a privatized, non-confessional, non-commital belief as that? That champagne you mentioned would have gone flat, and the laughter hollow. Hush: quote: Amy, thanks for understanding. From what you've said, in my opinion, you've gone beyond egoism and are understanding something of what Christ is about. Though you may not agree with me that that's what you're doing ... to love him from afar, is no small thing. I did that for a long time. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"So, you would be willing to denounce your wife, your children, your parents, everyone and everything you have ever loved, just to save your own life, Mike? Their honor, your own honor, means nothing to you when faced of personal danger?" ~ I guess I didn't answer the question, but I don't see how I can... How does one "denounce" living human beings? What would the event be where I would have an opportunity to denounce them. Would it be, "Say you don't believe in your wife, now, and I will let you live." I would answer, "I can't help believing in her, she is standing right there. You see her to." "... Melvin, you overwhelm me." |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Stephanos, I read your reply. You go off on so many tangents in so many directions that the original questionings and subject line gets changed and twisted too many times. Have you ever read, Gulliver's Travels? "... Melvin, you overwhelm me." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Those who martyred the early Christians were asking them to recant their loyalty to Christ. It was far more than a mere intellectual belief, else they would never have been persecuted that way. Remember that they were required to say "Cesar is Lord"? In that regard, it would be more like someone demanding you to divorce your wife, or to call her a prostitute, or to strike her ... It's more along those lines. That's how you would "denounce" human beings. You don't have to agree with me, as to what would be the right thing to do. But I think you can at least understand. quote: Is that "related to the original questions" enough for us to discuss? Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Those who martyred the early Christians were asking them to recant their loyalty to Christ. It was far more than a mere intellectual belief, else they would never have been persecuted that way. Remember that they were required to say "Cesar is Lord"?" ~ I was answering Ron's question, but since you replied for him, I'll go ahead and take another "stab" at responding to your reply... I believe we are going in circles. Once again, I will stick to this single issue of - just telling them what they want to hear in order to live and worship your God. That is all these martyrs had to do, unless they were indeed "suicidal" - like those Heaven Gate people who took their own lives out of love and devotion to their God. I don't see much of a difference at all between both groups. Yet, I said this all before. We have come full circle. "In that regard, it would be more like someone demanding you to divorce your wife, or to call her a prostitute, or to strike her ... It's more along those lines. That's how you would "denounce" human beings." ~ That is called the "slippery slope." We are only talking about saying, "I don't believe in my wife." I can't compare being put on the spot to divorce or hit my wife to what the martyrs did. They were only told to say that they didn't believe that Jesus was God. "You don't have to agree with me, as to what would be the right thing to do. But I think you can at least understand." ~ Yes, I understand and I answered you. "Is that "related to the original questions" enough for us to discuss?" ~ With regard to how you reply to my responses, yes, but only in that regard. "... Melvin, you overwhelm me." |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
It seems to me the statement "I don't believe in my wife" can be taken more than one way... not just believing in as in believing something exists, but believing in, as in trusting, respecting, and loving. Say you don't believe in your wife in this sense to get out of a bind, and see how quickly you end up on the couch. Incidentally, remember in 1984 when the main character (Winston?) was being tortured and he yelled for them to do it to his lover (Julia?) instead. Same idea as the sort of denouncing we're talking about, as I see it. He wasn't just telling them what they wanted to hear- he meant it. And she betrayed him in the same way. Their relationship could never be the same again. Perhaps the same with God? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, Absolutely. Taking the Christian teaching in it's fullest context, that is exactly the kind of thing that many martyrs faced. Ever heard the phrase "Bride of Christ"? The relationship that the New Testment emphasizes is nothing so cold as a mere intellectual belief in existence, but one of devotion and loyalty and love. When Nero demanded to be called "Lord", and for the Christians to denounce Christ, it was indeed much more than a naked intellectual assertion of existence that was at stake. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is not martyrdom it is murderdom. People were murdered and still are for religious things. There is no honour or glory in it at all that I see. When one accepts and glorifies such a thing to me it is indirectly accepting and glorifying what brings it about too: murder. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, I never said I glorified what is done on the part of those who murder. I'm only saying that one is to be commended for holding to fidelity and faithfulness in the face of persecution. This attitude does not at all advocate the persecution itself. You're only failing to make the distinction between a wrong, and the reaction to the wrong. That's like saying resilience and bravery among terminally-ill cancer patients, glorifies cancer itself. It just doesn't. Think about it ... it is faulty logic to say that advocating a certain reaction to evil, is the same thing as advocating the evil itself. If that were true, then many things you assume to be right would be suspect too. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes, faithfulness is admirable. But I don't see anything admireable in treating it as if it is something that life should be given up for, and treating oneself's or other's death by murder as a means to salvation. Without life, there is no faith. You need to live in order to have faith and help and save others, even if that means living under conditions that are against that faith, and when you are choosing death, you are no longer choosing any manner of salvation for life itself. Once you choose death, you give up both life and faith, instead of facing the conditions against them. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:I think most Christians would say they're not choosing death, but rather, Life. Remember, Earth's just a pit-stop proving ground. For what it's worth, I can understand the mentality in a manner - I have things that I believe are worth dying for. In my case it's my family, but I don't see how it's all that different for a religious belief, even is less physically tangible. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Again, I prefaced everything with the statement that Martyrdom only makes sense if the Christian worldview is true. If salvation comes through Christ .... if there is life beyond the grave ... if Jesus' teaching is true about perseverance and loyalty being necessary to salvation. If those things are true, then a martyr would not be choosing death, but life on it's own terms. You say "without life there is no faith". But you have to understand the orthodox Christian position, as a reversal of that, "without faith there is no life". A temporary bodily existence of relative safety, at the expense of rejecting God, can hardly be thought desirable or honorable. Only if this life is the only life, and there really is no God or Christ, would your position be reasonable. And remember that Christians are not forbidden any and every non-violent recourse to safety; physical escape, hiding, appeal to authority, etc... All of those things may be used. But when such methods fail, a Christian may not simply dishonor Christ and God, and then imagine that his spiritual life remains intact. Lastly the responsibility of murder lies with those who murder ... period. All a martyr may do is refuse to recant his faith, love and devotion to Christ, in which there is nothing blameworthy as you say. Cowardice should not be passed off as somehow being wise or morally superior. I would say that a person who denies Christ to save his own life is either 1) not a true Christian at all, in the biblical sense. or 2) a Christian whose carnal choices will be genuinely grieved over (like in the case of Peter), and eventually overcome in the future. Now Essorant, you've claimed to be a Christian before. Are you telling me that you claim that a man named Jesus is the son of God, and died himself to save you from your sins, and yet you would feel okay denouncing him, to save your own life? Don't misunderstand me here, my own resolve in this is untried. For all I know, facing persecution I may vascillate and deny my Lord too. I hope not. But I know in my heart that that would be the wrong thing to do. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Again, I prefaced everything with the statement that Martyrdom only makes sense if the Christian worldview is true. If salvation comes through Christ .... if there is life beyond the grave ... if Jesus' teaching is true about perseverance and loyalty being necessary to salvation. If those things are true, then a martyr would not be choosing death, but life on it's own terms. " I didn't forget that Stephanos. I just don't think it takes away from the fact that choosing death in this life is still choosing death in this life, no matter what life may be like hereafter. How does "above and beyond" justify choosing what results in murder and death in this life? "A temporary bodily existence of relative safety, at the expense of rejecting God, can hardly be thought desirable or honorable. " If you truly believe in God you wouldn't truly reject God if you flattered a tyrant with what he wished to hear and believe was your belief, but God would know you still believed in him in your heart and inwardly. If simply saying and convincing a tyrant that you reject your God and accept his god/religion can prevent a murder, save your life, save a tyrant from commiting that crime, allow you to still live among your family and friends, and perhaps also give you some moment to find a way to the means to eventually move out of the tyrants lands into a place of democracy, rally forces to speak morally and act morally against the religious persecution, and perhaps eventually overthrow it, isn't it worth it? I think any one that still at least has a choice may still do something much better for his life and his belief than die for it this life: he can still live for it, even though that may be hard and narrow. When you flee away you you give up and help no one that is left behind in the hard conditions. And for what? Simply because you couldn't lie about your belief or flatter a tyrant to prevent the worst crime, murder? Instead you will flutter away to heaven and leave your family, friends and countrymen with one less helping hand, oppressed under a tyrant? "Only if this life is the only life, and there really is no God or Christ, would your position be reasonable. " I still do not see how it comes down to that. Life is life and this one counts too, whether it is first, worst, best or last. Once you choose and give into death, that is still a choice of death, a choice that accepted instead of prevented murder. "a Christian may not simply dishonor Christ and God, and then imagine that his spiritual life remains intact." How and why should choosing to live instead of die under a hardship be deemed as dishonouring Christ? "Lastly the responsibility of murder lies with those who murder ... period." I agree. But if you choose the end you want, you also choose to accept the means to that end. In this case the means are murder. Instead of preventing it, the martyr gives in to it. That to me is not admirable. "Are you telling me that you claim that a man named Jesus is the son of God, and died himself to save you from your sins, and yet you would feel okay denouncing him, to save your own life?" Absolutely. When life and death are involved my beliefs really don't mean much to me anymore. It is now just a wish to do whatever possible to save or help save the life of anyone and everyone involved (including mine). Why, if I may prevent murder by outwardly rejecting God, would I choose not to prevent it? Is obstinancy and outwardness in religion, more important than saving life? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: "Choosing Death" is a slur of a statement, and it's very misleading. It makes it sound as if Christian Martyrs merely chose death, (as if it were as simple as that), instead of doing the right thing, and dying as a result. And if doing the right thing versus the wrong thing has any effect on life in the "hereafter" then we should logically conclude that it does matter. You may say that it doesn't have any effect on the life to come, or that it would be irresponsible and wasteful not to lie to save your own life in such a situation. But Jesus himself said differently. I can take that on authority, and be safe ... but there are also good reasons why he said so. And I'll get into that in a moment. quote: But Jesus said things like this: "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33) Faith in the biblical sense is not merely inward, but very much connected to outward acts. I know this kind of concept is hard for us to get as Americans who live in postmodern times. We are so influenced by the philosophies which lead to individualism and privatized "truth", that such things jar us when we hear them. But that is what the scripture reveals, concerning God's thoughts on denying Jesus Christ before men. And God can't know that you really believe in your heart, what you are unwilling to say with your mouth in a time of testing. When "believers" are willing to dishonor and deny the truth of Christ, to save themselves, they are really retracting (in action, not just words) the creed that he is the savior of the body, and that the witness for Christ is important, and that there is a rich reward in the life to come. So I myself I believe that for a Christian to retract his profession of faith in such times, proves that his faith is either false, or very immature ... because he is proving that temporal life is more important to him than Christ, even to the point of lying. quote: From a biblical perspective, you certainly haven't "saved" a tyrant from anything substantial, by denying Christ in front of him. One thing, and one thing only will you confirm in his mind ... that all that stuff about love, loyalty, salvation, resurrection, and eternal life (the very essence of the Christian Faith) is a bunch of hooey. At least with martyrdom, there is a memory in the persecutor's mind (which he will never shake) of a passion and purity that may someday succeed in converting him. One of the Roman soldiers said of Jesus at the crucifixion "Surely this was the son of God". Saul of Tarsus never forgot the stoning of Saint Stephen ... and I have no doubt that it was instrumental in his ultimate conversion to Christianity. And there are doubtless untold stories about men of authority being deeply shaken by seeing stalwart faith remain intact under the knife, and seeing love shine above the worst of human fear. Seeing another flimsy confession wither away won't do them any good, spiritually speaking. And that bit about finding a democracy (Um Rome WAS the closest thing to a democracy at that time), and eventually rallying a moral cause and overcoming the tyrant ... Your confusing biblical mandates with worldy approaches. That's what this nation is doing right now with the war on Terrorism. (And I have no qualms about the nations of the world defending themselves with the sword, which is to be expected). But mark my words, Terrorism will not be overcome with such methods as ours. And regardless of what one thinks will "work" the best ... For a Christian, the goal is not first to overthrow tyrants. It is to be a witness for Christ and of the Kingdom of God. such honesty and devotion is required of Christians by the words of Christ himself. quote: I agree. But aren't there limits to what you would do to live? If forced to would you rape someone in order to live? Probably not, I know you well enough to think not. To you, retracting your Christian profession is nothing more than words. But to Christ (as revealed in scripture) it is much more than that. It is bringing shame upon him and trivializing much of what he taught. So we both have limits. Don't make "life" (in a vague sense) the determining factor. Even you analyze the conditions of that life, as to whether it is preferable to death. You have reasons for your limits ... But you at least ought to be able to understand the Christian position on this, from being aquainted with those kinds of reasons. Where you differ, is not really in saying that bodily life is always the uppermost concern, but in disagreeing with the value of Christ, and Christian confession. You say that you don't disvalue Christian confession. And I have no doubt that's true. But it is not the same valuation that is given in scripture. To call an idea "Christian", is to have some standard or criteria, beyond one's own thoughts, or even (excuse the blasphemy here) vaguely moral democratic ideals. And I can't think of anything more appropriate for that, than the words of Jesus himself. quote: Firstly, dying as martyr after exhausting every legitimate means of escape, and every appeal, is not "fleeing away". Rather, it is facing what one must face, if he is to keep any integrity. I already discussed how it would not be good for the tyrant, and the believer to lie and dishonor Christ. Now what about the surviving Church? I think historically, if you look at the writings of the early Christians, you'll find that martyrdom actually turned out to strengthen the Church. Getting killed in the army may deter some from joining ... but it emboldens others, and steels their courage. That's a worldly example. But the principle is the same. There are many testimonies of people being converted because of the fact that some Christian martyrs stood strong and did not waver. There were, of course, caricatures and an over-glorifying of martyrdom in some ways ... But have you ever heard the phrase "The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church"? The times of Roman persecution saw an explosion of growth in the Christian Church. That's verifiable history. So to your "one less" argument, I will respond "three more". And all this can be acknowledged without even hinting the love of death, or justifying murder. quote: As I said before. "Choosing life is always the thing to do" cannot be your argument, if you yourself have limits to this concept. We're merely disagreeing about what the limits are. So why do you keep saying that life unconditionally rules? Trust me, I work in an ICU where dying people are often put on life support. That just isn't true. quote: That's easy. ... if one must dishonor Christ in order to live, then he is dishonoring Christ. quote: The end that is chosen is not death, but rather to glorify Christ and remain faithful to him. The Christian surely would prevent it if he could do so legitimately. Your means of prevention would not be admirable to God, according to the words of Christ. Again your valuation of Christian profession, and the Bible's valuation are not the same. You too are using the "ends to justify the means". Your means to the end of "life at all costs" would be to deny Christ yourself, making yourself guilty of trivializing his claims and his sacrificial death for you. At least with the martyr, the means of "murder" does not belong to him. The martyr would not be responsible for the murder, and when you say that he is doing wrong by not denying Christ, and lying, in order to save his own skin ... you are erroneously attributing the guilt of the murderer onto the innocent. quote: Again, in the Christian view of things, life is far more than physical life now. And though life here and now is very important, if you would be jeopardizing someone's eternal salvation by denying Christ, then no, you shouldn't reject God outwardly in order to save yourself. Now having said all of that ... I still concede the possiblity of genuine faith hidden in timid people. Nicodemus, in scripture was a man in religious authority, who believed in Christ almost secretly. There were many others mentioned who were like this. But they too seemed to have their moments of standing up for him, is some way or another. And so, faith may be tested, and fail, and be tested again. But Peter's denial was grevious to him, as he wept bitterly about it. And so will a denial of Christ be grievous to all true Christians. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
" 'Choosing Death' is a slur of a statement, and it's very misleading. It makes it sound as if Christian Martyrs merely chose death, (as if it were as simple as that), instead of doing the right thing, and dying as a result." I don't think it is Stephanos. We are talking about only two options: deny one's God or die. Its no different if someone came up to someone on the street with a gun and said it directly: "deny your God or die" Are you saying that the victim, and especially if he/she is Christian, should answer him otherwise than what the person demands and incite his threat into coming into action for the sake of not outwardly denying God? How can inciting or provoking a death threat into coming into action by not denying God, be the right thing for anyone? "there are also good reasons why he said so. And I'll get into that in a moment." What reason is more important than life (including the present life) itself? "But Jesus said things like this: "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33) Faith in the biblical sense is not merely inward, but very much connected to outward acts. I know this kind of concept is hard for us to get as Americans who live in postmodern times. We are so influenced by the philosophies which lead to individualism and privatized "truth", that such things jar us when we hear them. But that is what the scripture reveals, concerning God's thoughts on denying Jesus Christ before men. " I agree. But stating that one should not deny God, is not the same as saying that one should not suspend one's belief's behavior at all to save his own life. Suspending an outward expression, or hiding it as a defense, and expressing something else, to save one's life, I believe is justified by the righteousness of saving life, and therefore I also believe it is righteous in the eyes of a true and living God. "And God can't know..." An Omniscient God "can't know"? "When "believers" are willing to dishonor and deny the truth of Christ, to save themselves, they are really retracting (in action, not just words) the creed that he is the savior of the body, and that the witness for Christ is important, and that there is a rich reward in the life to come. " If they are denying Christ in word and outward show, I still don't think they are denying him by choosing to save their life, for the truth of Christ IS life, and I believe that include this life too. If they do not show and hide their belief in Christ with a lie to save their life, they still confirm their belief in Christ thro the very deed of choosing what preserves their life, by saving life. I believe choosing what brings one life is God's will, not what brings death. "So I myself I believe that for a Christian to retract his profession of faith in such times, proves that his faith is either false, or very immature ... because he is proving that temporal life is more important to him than Christ, even to the point of lying. " If the truth of Christ is Life including this "temporal" life, I think choosing to die retracts it far worse than choosing to lie. Not only does God give us an after life as a gift, he gives us an before-life as a gift. Both are gifts, that is, are given to us to keep, not to abandon. "From a biblical perspective, you certainly haven't "saved" a tyrant from anything substantial, by denying Christ in front of him. One thing, and one thing only will you confirm in his mind ... that all that stuff about love, loyalty, salvation, resurrection, and eternal life (the very essence of the Christian Faith) is a bunch of hooey. " If that is true, that would suggest that Christ's death is really what taught stubborn people all the truth. That his death on earth was really the "teaching" virtue. I don't think you believe that Stephanos. Didn't Christ teach thro life? Doesn't he still? Since when did he teach people that death or choosing what results in death was the way to try to teach anyone? "But aren't there limits to what you would do to live? " I will do anything that may minimize or stop a deadly threat against life, unless that involves striving against the life and honour of a person and doing something that is far more than just trying to stop the threat, and becomes threatening or degrading to the person's life that is threatening or degrading me or someone else. Life and honour deserve to be defended at all times. There is no right for me to strive against a person's life because he strives against mine. But I believe I have a right to strive to stop someone from doing his evil deed. And I will do that to the utmost of means that are within the safety of his/her life. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"According to stricter definitions of suicide, to be considered suicide, the death of the person who commits suicide must be the central component and only intention of the act, not just a certain consequence; hence, suicide bombing is considered a kind of bombing rather than a kind of suicide, and martyrdom usually escapes religious or legal proscription." From Wikipedia's article on Suicide. Just thought it was interesting. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: You're right. There is no difference. And that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not limiting Christian persecution to 2nd Century Rome. quote: Christ is the giver and author of life, setting it's proper boudaries in life as well as death. Temporal life, as it stands, is not to be mistaken for Christ himself. And by his own words, commitment to God's truth is more important than temporal life. You are equating Christ with your own human life ... but again, that's not the historical Christ of the Bible. Your view of Christ is more akin to the Greek Philosopher's impersonal logos, or many flavors of metaphysical monism, it seems. quote: Again, you are making "the righteousness of saving your own life", the point of justification. But there are many instances where even most non-Christians believe that saving one's own life would not be righteous. Therefore, you're only begging the question here. quote: Maybe it would be better to say that God will not know some things, because they aren't true. For example, does he know someone is a Christian if they really aren't? quote: Usually we would refer to the expressions of a person, when saying something about that person, rather than just resorting to our own ideas. What did Christ say himself concerning these things? Have you personally studied them or read them? quote: No, not to carelessly abandon. But certainly not to keep at the awful price of verbal apostasy. With Jesus, there is definitely no egalitarianism concerning temporal life, and the life to come. There is a qualitative and quantitative difference. He compared this life to a seed, which must fall into the ground and die, before the stalk of corn can come up. Of course not every time is the time for seeds to die ... But according to Jesus, if life can only be retained through such a dishonoring way, then that would be such a time. This doesn't diminish this present life's value, but rather increases it's significance. quote: Actually I do believe that. Biblically, Christ's death is central to the Christian doctrine of salvation, as well as an example of faithfulness under persecution ... "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, 'If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?' So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good." (1 Peter 4:12-19) quote: Certainly he does. Death in it's proper bounds, certainly does not contradict his teachings about life. Why either/ or? quote: Are you seriously proposing that he didn't teach that it is proper at times to suffer for "righteousness", even to the point of death? In my next reply, I'll give you some of the many scriptures which address this issue, to show you that he did teach such a thing. quote: Of course, I do too. But we don't have a right to disown Christ before men, and to blaspheme him. We're never forbidden the efforts and desire to live. It's usually that way ... There are many trees in the garden which are quite legitimate as means to our ends, with usually just one or two off limits. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-04-2006 12:52 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
