CSN Login
Members Online: 7

Death for what you Believe

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

I found this most interesting what do you all think.

We all post on here about our different beliefs and wonder how one person belief can be so different then the other. I Thank God that we live in a country where we are Free to do just that. If someone wants to be a atheist, agnostic, Christian or what ever he has the right to do just that.

I just wonder how it is to live in a Country where the church runs everything including the Government and tells you what to believe or not believe under the penalty of Death.

PS: I hope no one gets angry at the Muslims people for this, as I know and have worked with many of what I call Christ like Muslim people. This is what will happen to any country where Church and State of any religion comes together.

Hondo

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/222139/20110929/iranian-pastor-sentenced-to-death.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/03/iranian-pastor-has-greater-chance-facing-death-with-new-allegations/

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

I think it's crazy to kill or punish anyone for what they believe. Always was, always will be IMO. Throughout history going against "The Church", no matter which church, was perceived as a threat to the churches' power.

Galileo vs the Catholic Church: The 350 year old debate continues.
In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary - it revolved around the sun - but was this the end of the story??
http://novan.com/galileo.htm

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

Wow that is an eye opener I never new about Galileo vs the Catholic Church. It is sad to say that many good Christ Like people were executed in the dark ages for not wanting to follow what they were told to believe. They like this young Pastor would not compromise there Faith.

PS: It's not worth being Gay in Iran either

Hondo

http://www.psa91.com/islam.htm

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

the Good folks at Catholic.com. I expected nothing less. I tried to be careful to make sure that I didn't use sites that were obviously biased.
I read a few things on their site, quite an interesting take on history

I'm surprised Hondo that you were not aware of Galileo and his battles with the church. Copernicus had them as did DaVinci. You've heard of the Inquisition I hope?  As you know, I'm interested in comparative theology. While doing a little searching on my response to this post, I found many rather disturbing facts but I will keep it short but if you're so inclined, search on "science and the catholic church". It's an eye opener for sure.

The Inquisition helped push Europe into the Dark Ages. Here is a comment by author Helen Ellerbe concerning that period of time in the Church's history. "The losses in science were monumental. In some cases the Christian church's burning of books and repression of intellectual pursuit set humanity back as much as two millennia in its scientific understanding." 

We shouldn't hold them accountable now but by the same token, we shouldn't ignore or forget about it.
Hopefully, people can learn from it.
-p

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

My study of history shows a little different source of the problem. From what I understand there was a power vacuum after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church was the only structure organized enough to maintain some structure in Europe and so reluctantly took on secular powers. The Dark Ages began during this period, in the 500's. Here also is a statement in Wikipedia about the term Dark Ages:

""Dark Ages" is a historical periodization emphasizing the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.[1][2] The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light". The period was characterized by a scarcity of historical and other written records for much of the period, rendering it obscure to historians. The term "Dark Age" itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th century.[3]

Originally, the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[4] This definition is still found in popular usage,[1][2][5] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages since the 19th century has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century).[6][7] However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages."

Many, many sources are biased, particularly secular and Protestant against the Catholic Church, so beware.

To continue my short course in history, the monks in the Catholic church preserved many of the great works in history in their monasteries. These monasteries began what is known today as the university, passing along this knowledge that they had stored. Much of the loss of knowledge came from the invasion of the Muslims into Europe because they further disrupted the fragile infrastructure in Europe after the fall of the Romans. The Inquisition in its purity was an attempt to stop Muslims from masquerading as Christians and entering into the governing of the states in cognito. Yes, it was done in excess as times but nothing like is commonly portrayed and most of the deaths were at the hand of secular authorities, not the Church. The number of deaths, according to Wikipedia during the Spanish Inquisition:

"García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700 — about 2% — the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that the total would be between 3,000 and 5,000 executed."

If we look at the totals of atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung over a much shorter period of time, the comparison is bizarre--over 100,000,000 million people. So, yes, the 3-5,000 killed by Christian countries were wrong but look at what atheism does.

Just an "alternative" view of history for you to think about!

mariam_11_09's picture
mariam_11_09
Posts: 693
Joined: Nov 2009

If the Catholic Church write the history of course it is a different interpretation. It brings out what is really the truth. It turns out that it is often very subjective.

What we know is that there has been religious persecution throughout history, whether it be the Christians on heretics, Christian vs Muslims, Muslims vs animists, Muslims vs Hindus, Protestants vs Catholics, Shi'ites vs Sunnis, Communism vs any religion and so on. The number of who killed who will vary depending on who you talk to BUT people did get killed in the name of God or whatever divine being they workship.

One of the reason there was seperation of church and state was to get away from this.

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

I should have been clear when calling it the Dark Ages. I was using the term metaphorically as in the Encyclopedia Britannica "period of intellectual darkness and barbarity" description and in the sense of the clash between the church and science. My error, I apologize.

I did notice where you used Wikipedia as a resource. While it can be a great source for some casual information, it's widely viewed as just a bunch of people writting stuff and editing articles. It's a user generated encyclopedia and not something anyone would put down as a resource on an important article.

And speaking of alternative views on history, I found a bunch of sites that deny that the Holocost happened, some that claim the world is flat, and others that claim man never walked on the moon...Go figure!

While I agree that the monks did an awful lot to write things down (can't pray ALL day I suppose) but don't forget that "History is written by the victors". I'm sure the monks had tough editors too. Their view of history was certainly biassed. I'm disapointed I won't be around to see how history views the years 2000-2008.
The point of my post was to give example(s) of how the church used it's power to silence everyone who disagreed or threatened their power.
Just so there's no confusion, this has nothing to do with God's existence at all.
I do have a hunch that it goes against His whole love and peace message.

One last comment on deaths caused by people's faith...Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all men who had great faith in what they believed. WAY too many people have been murdered based on a person's or group's faith in something.

PS: Isn't this more interesting than talking about colons and bowel movements all of the time?
:-)

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

"The point of my post was to give example(s) of how the church used it's power to silence everyone who disagreed or threatened their power."

But, you see, Phil, I don't think that is the case. For one thing, for a lot of the Catholic Church's existence, it hasn't had any power. Like now. What power does the Church have. Her army is those Swiss guards with the funny outfits for Pete's sake. Don't think they are going to do much. The era after the fall of the Roman Empire was an exception, for sure, and abuses did certainly happen, but they are not the norm. As I said earlier, a few thousand people over the course of hundreds of years were killed. Yes, that is wrong but nothing compared to atheistic regimes. If I have to choose which group is safer to be controlled by, from the statistics, it has to be the Christians.

The Church doesn't fear intellectual challenges such as comes from the Galileo types. The Church has the largest observatory in the world. Many major contributions to science have come from Catholic priests. Christians have engaged "others" from the time of St. Paul when he went to the Greeks. Just had a gathering of representatives of most of the world's religions in Assisi to pray for peace. The Pope is always meeting with members of other faiths, engaging them in dialogue. Don't know if you remember a few years ago when he gave a talk in Germany and mentioned Muslims and quoted something from the past. Some Muslims misinterpreted what he said, got violent and killed a few people, including a nun. The Pope addressed the situation and said that he was sorry they misunderstood him. Loved it--didn't back down from what he said at all!

As far as Christ's love and peace message, one must look at the whole of what He said and did. He got pretty cranky in the Temple with the moneychangers; said He came to bring, not peace, but division, father against son, mother against daughter, etc.; said something about swords also. Part of loving is protecting and defending. If you love your children, you will protect them. On occasion, that might result in someone else being harmed or killed. We have the obligation to defend others if we love them. That goes for intellectual and spiritual protection as well as physical. I'm not a war monger at all, didn't agree with the Iraq invasion--but did you notice, neither did the Pope. He spoke out loudly against doing what the US did in that situation.

Your comments about faith are interesting. If people didn't have faith in SOMETHING, they would crawl into a hole and die! Faith in nothing is despair. I remember when I had no faith in God and, applying that thinking to where I am today, makes me shudder. I am too close to the dying part of life now. I have such comfort in believing that at the end of this life is an eternity with a Father who totally loves me. He has allowed me a glimpse or two of that love over the years. It is not a bad thing at all! I was never so happy as after those small encounters with He who is love. And, you know what, it is those encounters that set me on the path of doing all that I could for others. It made me a better person. When I spend time with God, I am much more tolerant, happy, and giving than when I neglect to give that time. So, you know what, even if it turned out that there is no God and pushing up daisies is my fate when I die, my life is better for having believed that God did exist.

I have to let you know, Phil, that when you talk about the Church, you are talking about my mother. I love my mother, and I will defend her from unjust attacks. I am adult enough to know that mistakes have been made by members in the Church, but I want them understood in the proper context and not distorted and magnified. There is an all out attack on all things Christian, and especially Catholic, because right now the Church is one of the only unified voices of dissent from an agenda that is extremely immoral and destructive.

Hope we can keep talking because we have much to learn from each other!

mariam_11_09's picture
mariam_11_09
Posts: 693
Joined: Nov 2009

And while the Inquisition helped push Europe into the intellectual decline, the Islamic Mandinka empire in West Africa flourished in science, medicine, law, language with the two very well known University towns in Djenne and Timbouktou in Mali. People from all over north Africa and including the Middle East came to study there. The fall was largely due to internal conflict amoungst the sons of the last king after died, then the Bamana of Djenne declared their version of a Holy War and much was sacked and burned.

mariam_11_09's picture
mariam_11_09
Posts: 693
Joined: Nov 2009

In a country where Islamaphobic is promoted of course people, in particular Christians are going to be angry and further vilify Islam. And some of those very same people are the people who support the shooting of doctors who perform abortions, why because of different beliefs.

I don’t agree with murdering anyone because of different beliefs or because they think, feel, live or are culturally different from myself. To add to this I still can’t get my head around the murdering of people because their skin colour is different even though I grew up in South Africa.

But with regards to the Islamic extremist sentencing a pastor to death, you will find most Muslims that not associated with an ‘ism’ will abhor this kind of behavior. I must point out though the US has an agenda when it concerns Iran because in Afghanistan worse things have happened under the Taliban and we hear very little to nothing about it.

mariam_11_09's picture
mariam_11_09
Posts: 693
Joined: Nov 2009

When this kind of violence or any kind of violence is perpetrated we all as humans suffer. It is very sad.

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

I had been very lucky working on ships in West Africa and in the Gulf of Mexico with may good Muslims people who are very sincere about there faith. You are right that there are always extremist in all Religions who want to force upon other there way of believing. How they view this as benign right and pleasing to God I will never know. Look at people who are suicide boomer killing many of innocent Men, Women, and Children and like you said killing a doctor who performs abortions. Why all because they believe all people should live by there religious standards and belief thinking that they are the only ones who are right. In all my studding of the Bible I never once seen Jesus killing any one for believing something different then he did. But I do see the Religious Leaders who he came to save not only plan to kill him but did kill him.

Why can’t all people just learn to live together in peace and be thankful for just having life and good health.

Hondo

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

Sorry but my original comment was only if you would prefer Death rather then to recant of what you believe.

I prefer to read and study the Bible for myself rather then have someone tell me what it is saying or means but if some people are ok and happy with that it’s fine with me. My Belief is No man or religion has the God giving right to condemn any mans faith or have him executed because he believes different. There are many books on people who have been killed for nothing else but because of there belief. The bigger the Church does not mean it is always right. Church or religion is not going to save anyone, to me what will save them is there faith in Jesus forgiving them of there sins and dying there death on the cross for braking Gods law.

Personally if I had to stand for what I believe facing death, I can only pray that I would be like Stephen. The religious leaders of his day condemned him and put him to death all because he believed different then they did.

That is why in this country Church and State must never come together or we would be nothing more then another Iran.

Hondo

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

"Church or religion is not going to save anyone, to me what will save them is there faith in Jesus forgiving them of there sins and dying there death on the cross for braking Gods law"

You are right, Hondo, that an institution will not save one but what if the Church is the Body of Christ?

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

I couldn't find where you answered Hondo's original question.
Do you/did you post an answer?
-p

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

Didn't seem really helpful for me to answer because I don't know! I would have to say, knowing myself right now, I would probably not be able to die for what I believe. Some of those methods of torture are pretty horrendous. However, that is denying the supernatural grace that may give me the courage to do that. So, it's a pretty wimpy answer but I had to be honest!

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

I do not know if God exists. I'd like to think that I would not change that to save my life.

I think it's crazy to kill or punish anyone for what they believe. Always was, always will be IMO. Throughout history going against "The Church", no matter which church, was perceived as a threat to the churches' power.

I agree with so much of what you say. We certainly do not need a "middle man - church/religion" to have a relationship with God.
Church/religions are man made institutions originally designed to control people (in my opinion)

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

But the Bible, that Hondo says he believes in, says that Christ is building the Church--on the Rock who is Peter. And the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church is who wrote and preserved and interpreted the Bible for centuries. I think we get into trouble when we misunderstand the nature of the Church.

The Church is not an institution. It has some characteristics of one but that is not her essence. The Church is in reality a family. We are all God's children and therefore we are all members of a family. The Church's laws and rules are to try to keep the family members from hurting each other until they have the growth in love that they need to be able to put the needs of the other before their own.

Christianity is not a me and Jesus religion. Throughout Scripture, both old and new Testament, it talks about the people gathering to worship God. One of the Ten Commandments addresses that. We are meant to be a communal people because we are all members of one family and families when they are healthy get together and share each other's burdens and rejoice in each others happiness. We support each other at all times. And, believe me, that is a change in thinking for me from when I was a non-believer!

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

"The Church is who wrote and preserved and interpreted the Bible for centuries. I think we get into trouble when we misunderstand the nature of the Church."
I think the Church gets into trouble when WE understand the nature of the Church.
That could be why having a translated copy of the bible was punishable by death for a long time....

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

but I think you are baiting me, Phil!! People were punished for owning copies of the Bible for mainly two reasons. Either the translations were faulty or they were keeping the Bibles to themselves and denying others access to the Scriptures. It was not like today with printing presses where everyone could have a copy of the Bible. The copies took a long time for the monks to copy by hand and the Church wanted them left in the churches so that everyone could come and read them when they wanted.

When you understand the nature of the Church, you would hope to have the strength to die for her as she is the Body of Christ our Lord.....

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

It is true that we should not forsake the gathering of the brethren because we get strength from each other. My take is that is does not save anyone, we are saved by faith in Jesus not church or religion. They are both great things and help us in our growth as Christians but our focus should always be on Jesus not man.

I am afraid that we are really getting off the topic and starting to get into Church doctrine and CSN is not a place to debate that. I just want to know if a person would stand for what they believe if it came to the point of death, like this young man is doing. And I for one am keeping him in my prayers even those he does not have the same religious beliefs that I have. He is a man of faith standing for what he hold as truth and is not letting someone else force what they believe is truth on him.

Phil: I would like to know if someone who is an agnostic or even atheist if under pressure of a death sentence would hold to their belief in there is no God.

Hope we can get back on to the topic.
Hondo

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

First, being agnostic I do not know if here is, or is not God. I would want to say "how would I know?"
Second, if push came to shove, I hope I would stand my ground. I tend to do that ;-)

Killing or fighting over this is absurd to me. It's like fighting over which color in the rainbow is best (in my opinion).

jim and i's picture
jim and i
Posts: 1599
Joined: May 2011

I believe that if I was tortured or threatened with death that God would give me what I need to stand firm in professing Christ as my Savior. On the other hand, If I was tortured and threatened with death for believing in my theology about denominations, abortions, homosexuality, etc. I would say no I probably would not stand firm because our belief on these things does not determine our salvation.

As for gathering as a church, I would say that almost all religions gather for support, encouragement, knowledge and accountability, much as we do here at this site. For us who believe in Christ Jesus instructed to not give up the gathering together for mutual support, fellowship, instruction and uplifting.

As for translations of the Bible. There are no orgianl Bibles, it started as stories handed down through generations. We as who are Christ followers read and study the Bible (what ever translation that may be) with open hearts and minds and the guiding of the Holy Spirit in order to let it speak to us personally. We are then instructed to share this "Good News" with others.

There is a difference between religion and Christianity which often gets confused and that is what leads to all the fighting and unGodly behavior. The difference is a relationship. I have a "Personal" relationship with Christ and I will die defending that.

God Bless you all.

Debbie

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

Very well said, I too hope I never have to stand for what I believe but like you I know that if I do Jesus will give me the strength I need to be faithful to him.

Thanks
Hondo

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

The Bible was stories passed down from one person to another orally and then letters written from the apostles to the people to whom they had spread the Gospel. Then all of these things were gathered together and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church gathered in the 300's for a council and they decided which of the writings were inspired and which were not. There were many other writings at the time from various people but the Church determined which ones were truly inspired by God.

Buckwirth's picture
Buckwirth
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

supposedly by George Carlin, or Bill Cosby? Only to find out through Scopes.com that it is not authored by either? The thing about The Council of Nicea is that it was tasked with determining which of the many books were original authorship, and which parts of those books to keep. It was typical in the centuries after Christ to pen a book, then sign it as one of the apostles in order to give it authority. (I mention the internet, since the printing press had the effect of limiting the frequency of this kind of dishonesty over the last few centuries. With the advent of the web, it has returned with a vengeance).

And then Constantine got to decide which of the Council's recommendations he would incorporate into the new church (you know, the ones that did not challenge his power).

The King James version of the English bible is not much different, though it was done with a bit more scholarly integrity. Anything which would have been seen as a threat to the power of the English monarchy was excised from the translations.

The modern Protestant bible added no books to the Catholic bible, but it remove a couple (the Apocrypha, removed by Luther). The "Church" was an arm of government, and remained so right up until modern times. Lauretta's claimed the Catholic church took this role on reluctantly, but fails to mention things line the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or the many wars fought on behalf of the Church by Catholic monarchs against countries that had strayed to the new protestant beliefs. The Inquisition was only one of the many crimes the Church committed in name of God. Up until the twentieth century, if a country was Catholic, the Pope's word was more important than the monarch's, despite the belief in the Divine Right of kings.

Any threat to the Church's power was met with deadly, overwhelming force. It was only when a Church detractor like Galileo had powerful friends within the Church that they were not just summarily tortured and executed.

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

The main point of the post was "Would you be willing to die for your beliefs?"
It got way off tract...

As I was saying ↓

Buckwirth's picture
Buckwirth
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

was glued together by martyrdom, almost all of the early saints were also martyrs. Even today, you hear tones of martyrdom in the responses of certain Christian leaders (many Christians dream of martyrdom).

Hondo posts this, and it is in a Christian light, but Muslims die for their beliefs (the Serbs killed 3,000 of them at one detention camp in 1992), as do Hindus, Buddhists and those of almost any religion (Waco anyone?).

The issue of martyrdom brings the history of religious persecution into play, and that brings up all the atrocities done in the name of God (or, alternately, in the denial of his existence).

Besides history, I am also a student of cultural anthropology (big fan of Marvin Harris). The concept of the other is pretty universal, as is the ridding of society of his poisonous influence. The exceptions in history are not the killing or imprisonment of someone for thinking differently, rather they are the times where the other was tolerated, and occasionally, celebrated.

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

that you are checking both sides of the stories before deciding that you know the facts. There are as many distortions written about history as there are false stories circulating on the internet.

I am no historian, but this is what I remember about the period of Constantine. The Church had been persecuted severely for three hundred years. Hundreds, thousands of people martyred in the most horrendous ways for what they believed. Then, after Divine assistance during a conflict, Constantine converted to Christianity, making it the state religion. This made it possible for the persecuted Christians to finally come above ground and live their faith openly, and they flourished. There were negatives, however. Being a state religion could attract those who wanted to be PC and not just those who actually believed in Jesus Christ. This brought in ways of thinking by individuals into the Church which was in conflict with what the Church taught and believed. Problems of course ensued. One major problem was with Arianism. It was tearing the kingdom apart, Christian fighting against Christian over the nature of Christ. Constantine wanted the conflict resolved so he called a council. Exactly how much he personally had to do with the council I don't know. My understanding was that he didn't care much what was decided but he wanted a decision in order to stop the conflict. We know that during one of those councils, the canon of the New Testament was decided upon and has been accepted for over a millennium by Christians.

In two thousand years, yes, there are going to be mistakes made. Especially when you have this uneasy alliance of secular heads and the Church that began with Constantine. This lasted for over a millennium itself and I believe it was in the 1900's before the Church gave up all its papal states. Secular governing and the Church need to exist in parallel with each other but one should not have undue influence over the other. It is bad both ways.

Much of what you hear about the terrible things the Church did do not stand up under scrutiny, however. A current one would be the issue of Pope Pius XII and whether or not he helped the Jews during the Holocaust. If you read current secular scholarship, one would think that the Pope aided and abetted Hitler in killing the Jews. If you research, however you will see that the Jews were singing the praises of the Pope immediately after WWII. One rabbi in Rome converted to Catholicism after the war. Why would they do that if the Pope and the Church had contributed to their terror?

If you look at somewhat reliable sources, you will see that even with all of the mistakes that the Church made, the death count from Christianity is miniscule compared to what three atheists accomplished in less than 100 years.

Buckwirth's picture
Buckwirth
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

Read the entire Story of Civilization (Will and Arial Durant) on my own (not a "class assignment) and pretty much anything else that happens to catch my fancy.

Are you saying that there is another side to the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre? The French Catholics, with the blessing of the Pope, did not rise up and murder the Huguenot's as they slept?

There are Catholic apologists who tend to deny (or justify) any of the horrors, but they fit right alongside those who think the Jews made up the holocaust and that Jim Crow was all that stood between civilization and anarchy in the US.

I think I will side with Phil on the whole holocaust denial thing...

For the record, the Protestants are not any better, they are just more splintered and harder to pin down to a centralized authority (as an example, the Salem Witch Trials).

The Hindu's have also committed atrocities, and the Muslim's, and the Jew's, and you need not look at current atheists to name their atrocities, look to the French Revolution and Robespierre, the Committee of Public Safety and the Reign of Terror. Population increase, along with technological improvements in killing, make more current numbers meaningless. Read back to Soccerfreaks post. Anytime someone who believes that they are COMPLETELY right gains power (or is just trying to maintain it), terrible things happen to follow.

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

Here is one commentary on the massacre:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13333b.htm

I'll leave it to you to make it clickable. :-)

I would guess to respond to your summary statement, I would have to qualify it. I don't think that ANY person who thinks they are COMPLETELY right about ANYTHING will end up committing atrocities. In many instances yes, but not all.

As a Christian, I look to Christ as my example. He knew he was COMPLETELY right because he is the son of God but yet he didn't commit any atrocities. I think if you believe that you are completely right about God being love, properly understood, and that he loves each and every person passionately and unconditionally, I don't think you will commit atrocities.

Buckwirth's picture
Buckwirth
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

Show a point in history where a fanatic gained power, where horrors did not ensue.

Btw, please try to find a historian that is not a Catholic apologist (the Catholic Encyclopedia as an unbiased source? Really?). It does, however, have a bit of honesty:

On 8 September a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome, and the pope, in a prayer after mass, thanked God for having "granted the Catholic people a glorious triumph over a perfidious race" 

Acknowledging that murdering the "other" is an acceptable and godly act.

Note, I am not aiming my remarks at any particular religion, and willingly include those with faith that their is no deity. I am aiming them at the points in history where the powerful were also true believers. Doubters tend to allow for differing opinions, and as a result, don't murder the other in his sleep.

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

Here are a few:

http://historymedren.about.com/od/lwho/a/bio_louis_ix.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/wenceslas-medieval-in-encyclopedia
http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/elizabethsth.html

I don't know if these fit your definition of fanatic or not. I would prefer to refer to them as devout, those who took their belief in God as the most important thing in their lives.

Also, I don't know how to find an unbiased source when researching these things. There is bias in a negative way from both secular and Protestant sources and biases in a positive way from Catholic sources. I don't think the lack of bias is as necessary as looking at both sides. I did the best I could, however, doing a quick google search. There are many more but I need to take the time to remember them. Will try to give more examples later.

Buckwirth's picture
Buckwirth
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

You get one out of three, Duke Wenceslas was probably an enlightened ruler, though he was a Christian convert in a land that was dominated by pagans, so his life might have been shorter if he had attempted to convert by the sword.

Louis the IX was a Crusader, and I do think the Muslims have some opinions on whether or not that was an atrocity, so he is disqualified. (No protestants so slaughter in France, so he traveled all the way to Arabia to kill infidels).

Elizabeth held no power, she was Queen only while her husband Landgrafin was King, so she is disqualified.

As to fanatic, they all seem to fit that definition, and all three of your choices are true believers. Wenceslas had the opportunity to put the infidel to the sword (turned out the other way around for him), so I give him to you.

To avoid bias, avoid any religious site or so called Christian historian of any bent. The secular historians (though I am sure there is the occasional exception) really do not care which side was more brutal, they are only going by what the record states. In a colloquial sense, they have no dog in the fight.

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

So, Blake, if you had relatives in another country who were being brutalized and begged you to come and help them, you would not do it if you had the power?

That is exactly what happened in the Crusades. The Middle East had been Christian for centuries, not by force, but by conversion. Then Mohammad decided he was a big shot and formed this group that decided they were going to take over the world by force. If your faith is important to you, being allowed to express it will be something you strive to maintain. I don't think that self-defense is wrong and that is what the Crusades were about. Yes, some who went were just in it for the fighting and the looting but many were not. Louis IX was not. He went there to protect those who were being brutalized.

Spend a little time researching the life of Christians in predominantly Muslim countries now. It is not pretty. In Saudi Arabia one cannot have any Christian jewelry let alone a church building--while in this country it is being debated if a mosque can be built on the site that some Muslims destroyed in the first place.

I think it is naive to believe that secular historians do not have a bias. Look at the history of the US. I learned that the Mayflower was the big European arrival in this country. It was only recently that I learned that Catholic missionaries had been in this country decades before and had started communities, etc. How much do you read about the persecution of Catholics in this country for centuries--the Irish in particular? I knew about Indians, blacks, Chinese, but had never heard about what was done to the Irish and other Catholics. The history of the Crusades and the Inquisition are another area. The numbers were so inflated and the reason behind them so obscured that one would never know the actual situation. I already mentioned the distortions about WWII that secular historians are attempting to distort concerning the Pope of the time. If you are going to read one biased explanation, you may as well read another from the other side.

One last thing, if you don't think a queen has power with her husband, you have missed some interesting history. Many times it has been the "little woman" in the corner who has influenced the decisions of very powerful rulers!

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

You are SO off the topic that was posted. Can you please give it a rest.
We all know your stand on Christianity.
Do you REALLY want to get in to who was/is meaner, Christians or Muslims?
Give thanks...
Happy Thanksgiving!

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

You might want to go back to the original post that got us off topic.:-)
I am only responding to distortions to the truth of the faith that I love. Which is in a way on topic. Hondo wanted to know if we would die for what we believe. That includes defending what we believe at whatever level is necessary.

I have as much right to state my Catholic beliefs as you do your agnostic beliefs and Hondo his fundamentalist beliefs, etc. etc. Just because Catholicism is the one belief that no one wants to allow to be defended does not mean that the right to defend it does not exist.

Many on here have stated what they believe to be a religion/faith conflict. I see none. Why is one OK to talk about and not what I, and a billion other Catholics, believe?

If you don't want these sorts of conversations to take place then they need to be heavily censored. Your comment about Galileo was out of place in regard to the discussion and an implicit attack on the beliefs of one billion people. These sorts of things are done all the time toward my faith and I, for one, am not opposed to confronting them--I am not PC in any way. If you don't want me defending, don't attack!

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

I responded I would stand for my beliefs. Then I brought up an example of it at another point in history that as it turned out, Hondo wasn't aware of. I am not questioning your (or anyone else's) right to post at all but I have not seen any posts answering Hondo's question in a very long time. He even asked that the questioning of church doctrine stop.
Maybe start a new thread to state your point of view, it might be more appropriate and the discussion can continue.
-p

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

I went back and reread the posts.

In the first post Hondo was commenting on the fact stated here:

"In a ruling from the Iranian Supreme Court obtained by FoxNews.com, Nadarkhani was sentenced to execution by hanging for breaking Islamic law by conducting Christian worship and baptizing himself and others.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/03/iranian-pastor-has-greater-chance-facing-death-with-new-allegations/#ixzz1eN8i1B9p"

that a Christian pastor was going to be executed for basically being a Christian. Hondo then commented that this is what happens when the government and religion are combined. There was no question about whether or not one would be willing to die for one's beliefs in this post.

You put up a link which, according to the title given it, sounded like one of many slams against the Catholic Church. Upon reading the link just now, however, it was quite conciliatory toward the Church and actually stated that both Galileo and the Church may be right.

I, in reaction to the title of the link, posted a link giving another position on the Galileo affair, which I thought was quite thorough and balanced using examples from non-Catholic sources to support its position.

You then challenged my link as being biased in favor of the Catholic church. I have a difficult time understanding this position since I don't think you would apply it in other areas. If you want to know something that happened in Greece, you would look to the Greek historians of the day to provide the information. If you wanted to know something about a scientific development you would look to the scientists who were conducting the study. Makes sense to me but I guess you would have to look to a non-scientist to find out about a scientific development because scientists would be biased.

We then discussed faith vs religion/church, etc.

What many are not understanding is that the statements about having faith but not needing churches, following only the Bible, etc. are doctrinal statements. Since we are discussing doctrines, I have as much right as anyone to state my doctrine and explain it.

Blake then began posting and we went off on our tangents, sparring about our positions. I thought we were having a good time and you even said this was better than discussing colons all of the time! You are right, we probably shouldn't have taken over Hondo's thread but it happens all of the time so I didn't think about it too much. The alternative therapy gurus are famous for hijacking threads, it seems to me. So, I will make this my last post on here and get back to cleaning my house which is what I am supposed to be doing!!

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

Given the right torture, I'd confess or convert to anything to make it stop.
Didn't read your comment, I'm done beating a dead horse.
Enjoy the holidays
P

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

I am not in for arguing or getting into doctrines issues about what anyone’s religion or believe is. A lot of the stuff you were posting about Peter and him being the head of the Church that is Church doctrines that you believe and that is fine with me, a lot of other religions don’t believe it. I would love to debate it with you but not here on CSN, it is just not the proper place for debating our personal believes.

I made some statements about the Bible and that being the only book I use. That is not doctrines I was make a statment, sorry if you took that the wrong way.

All I was trying to do with this post was to open everyone’s eyes that stuff like this still happens in our world today and asked if it was you standing for what you believed what would you do!

Please do not stop posting as this is a place for everyone from all different perspectives and angles and religions. That is what makes this site so good to me; we don’t have to agree with each other, we are free to post what we think or believe about a subject. Just as long as there is no auguring over who is right or who is wrong.

I like everyone here even Joe soccerfreaks, he says something’s about me now and then, but I know that is just the type of person he is. I don’t know why but I like the guy and respect his opinion. I believe that is the key to what makes this site so good. Not trying to prove a point or that only your opinion is correct but respecting everyone else’s opinion even if you disagree with it.

I hope and pray by the grace of God that if the day should come that I am put on trial for what I believe I will stand strong for my Faith.

Take care
Hondo

soccerfreaks's picture
soccerfreaks
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sep 2006

How did my name come up here? There I was resisting temptation...geez.

Take care,

Joe

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

I was wondering why you never posted something by now. I wanted to show Laurettas that we all have different opinions and no one has more differences of opinion then you and I. But yet we can still all respect what each person believes and move on to other things. I find a lot of things very helpful and others not so helpful on this and all other sites here on CSN, just hope it can stay that way.

Hondo

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

I did think that is what we were doing--debating our beliefs, particularly faith vs no faith. But I guess not everyone took it that way.

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

Thanks for understanding; I hope you have a very very happy thanksgiving with all your family and friends.

God bless and keep posting
Hondo

mariam_11_09's picture
mariam_11_09
Posts: 693
Joined: Nov 2009

Laurettas, can you please stick to the facts when it concerns other religions, for example

" Then Mohammad decided he was a big shot and formed this group that decided they were going to take over the world by force"

is not factual but rather disrespectful. I have not encountered anyone on this board that has said something derogatory about Jesus, God and the Virgin Mary. There may have been comments about Catholicism, Christianity, Islam or other religions in general or things that people who practice religion have done, questions about the origin of the bible but it has stopped there. I won't deny the so called 'Jihads' or 'Suicide' bombings done in the name of Islam but the statement you made was not at all fair.

laurettas
Posts: 372
Joined: May 2011

I am sorry that I offended you. Yes, my comment was disrespectful and I am sorry. I must let you know that many offensive and untrue things have been said about the Catholic Church on this thread and when you harm the Church you harm Christ--as said to Saul/Paul "Why are you persecuting me?"

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

I have notices that there are no more up-dates anywhere on this Pastor, not even the internet; Last good report was Nov 15, 2011. Just wondering if there are any fears about this sparking some kind of holy war between radical Christian and radical Muslims that it is being played down

Hondo

mariam_11_09's picture
mariam_11_09
Posts: 693
Joined: Nov 2009

Hondo, Christians or people of other faiths have been persecuted in Iran for quite some time now. We had neighbours, a family from Iran who were Zoarasterians who left because they were heavily discriminated against despite their ancestory in Iran and their religion which predates Islam. Unfortunately they found discrimination here because they were Iranian. Go figure! Anway, the point I am making is that Islamists in Iran have not been tolerant of other religions in Iran for a long time. The days of Rumi and Hafiz are over in Persia. What we are hearing about is not new. What is new is that we are hearing more about it.

It is unfortunate because this is not what Islam is about (persecuting others because of their beliefs) nor trying to control people. The five pillars of Islam were meant help people live a life of integrity and be an example of Islam (amoungst other things) so people would want to convert. However there are always a few that need to control.

I have witnessed (and have on camera) the radical Christians in this country trying to 'bring on' the second coming or end times and have gone out of their way to spark conflict. I know not all Christians are like this. And certainly Iran is feeding into this conflict at this time and more so with us 'hearing' more about these things.

However I did read from article dated 11/15 -
'Some sources indicate a ruling could come the second half of December. One said some Iranian Christians believe that, in the face of international outrage over the case, the government would announce a verdict near the Christmas holidays so that it would receive less notice. On Nov. 10, the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) reported that a verdict on Nadarkhani’s case was expected in mid-December, regardless of whether there is a ruling by Khamenei.'

http://www.christianpost.com/news/iranian-pastor-on-death-row-under-pressure-61949/

Maybe we just need to wait or create more outrage. And in saying that I am reminded of the 'Serenity Prayer'

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Hondo's picture
Hondo
Posts: 5734
Joined: Apr 2009

Throughout the ages of time you will find that when one group of people gets into power you have persecution. Why would anyone want to force what they believe on someone else, to me it just does not make sense. To me God is a God of love he does not want force worship he want people to love him and worship Him of their own free will.

You are right in that they are good people of all faiths just as much as there are evil or extremist in all faiths. People who think everyone should believe like they believe or they should be killed. Many of the Muslim men that I have had the pleasure of working with have all been very good and nice people. So like you said it is not the norm it is the radical extremist of all religions that are the problem.

Hondo

Subscribe with RSS
About Cancer Society

The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2014 © Cancer Survivors Network