Death for what you Believe

In a country where
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.

PhillieG said:

Brought to you by...
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

Interesting, Phil
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!

laurettas said:

Interesting, Phil
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!

If the Catholic Church write

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 said:

Likewise, interesting read
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?
:-)

Yes, it is a lot more fun!
"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!

Hondo said:

Hi Everyone
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

A question
"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?

laurettas said:

A question
"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?

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

PhillieG said:

Back to my original response
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)

Ummm....
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!

ok I am late but have to weigh in
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