Death for what you Believe
Comments
-
Hi Debbiejim and i said: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
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
Hondo0 -
Hi laurettaslaurettas said: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!
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.
Hondo0 -
You are right, Debbiejim and i said: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
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.0 -
I'm not surePhillieG said:;-)
"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....
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.....0 -
Hi HondoHondo said:Hi laurettas
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
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).0 -
Ever read a forwarded emaillaurettas said:You are right, Debbie
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.
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.0 -
Blake, I hopeBuckwirth said:Ever read a forwarded email
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.
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.0 -
Original pointBuckwirth said:Ever read a forwarded email
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.
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 ↓0 -
I am the child of historianslaurettas said:Blake, I hope
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.
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.0 -
One commentaryBuckwirth said:I am the child of historians
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.
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.0 -
A challenge:laurettas said:One commentary
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.
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.0 -
Early ChristianityPhillieG said:Original point
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 ↓
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.0 -
Here are aBuckwirth said:A challenge:
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.
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.0 -
Pretty goodlaurettas said:Here are a
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.
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.0 -
CrusadesBuckwirth said:Pretty good
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.
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!0 -
Laurettalaurettas said:Crusades
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!
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!0 -
PhilPhillieG said:Lauretta
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!
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!0 -
I didlaurettas said:Phil
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!
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.
-p0 -
OK, PhilPhillieG said:I did
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
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!!0 -
You knowlaurettas said:OK, Phil
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!!
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
P0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.9K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 398 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 794 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 63 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 540 Sarcoma
- 734 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards