|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
percivalpecksniff wrote:Jacobusmaximus. The early Christians who were torn to bits by lions had a choice. All they had to do was agree to burn incense to the Emperor. Read up on your history. percivalpecksniff, I was asking specifically about Dreamy's list, but if you can supply the evidence on his behalf feel free.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 987
Points: 1,858
Location: United Kingdom
|
Look it up yourself if you are serious about your faith
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 2,466
Points: 7,414
Location: the city by the bay
|
Ray,
I couldn't agree with you more. There have been people throughout history who enjoy suffering for a cause. Doesn't make it right. Most if not all of the men below went against not only the(ir) Jewish faith as well as the law of the land. They were for the most part helping a man whom others thought was a rebel by keep a rebels thoughts alive in preaching his message.
To some he fulfilled the requirements written on parchment hundreds of years before. Others believed it was another who came before and some are still waiting for 'him' to arrive.
The stories that go along with the deaths are interesting and show that most of these men did spread the word prior to dying.
It is a good thing? I don't know. What I do know is there are men and women right now who believe they will go to heaven as martyrs for their cause.
We just remembered those who died two days ago for someone elses radical belief system. To most of the Jews--Jesus was a radical who was going against his own religion to start a new one.
Is it a good one? I don't know as there have been many innocents who have died for believing with all their hearts in christianity just not 'right' brand of christiainity.
The answers could have been easily looked up as the bible only records one death the rest is by word of mouth.Saint Stephen was stoned and some 2,000 other Christians suffered at the time of Stephen's persecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_StephenJames the Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_ZebedeePhilip the Apostle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_ApostleMatthew the Evangelist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_MatthewMatthias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_MatthiasJames the Just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_JustMark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_EvangelistSaint Andrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_AndrewSaint Peter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_PeterApostle Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_ApostleSaint Jude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_ApostleSaint Bartholomew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_the_ApostleThomas the Apostle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_ApostleLuke the Evangelist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_EvangelistSimon the Zealot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot >>>>> http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/simonz.htmJohn the Evangelist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_EvangelistPlease thank wikipedia.com and all the on their sites for the above information..
I don't agree with this type of scare tactics. I don't see how it can sway one to the fairh. But that is just my opinion
peace out, >^,,^<
The poor object to being governed badly, whilst the rich object to being governed at all. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
percivalpecksniff wrote:Jacobusmaximus. The early Christians who were torn to bits by lions had a choice. All they had to do was agree to burn incense to the Emperor. Read up on your history. A sincere question for you percivalpecksniff. Can you quote me a couple of passages from the NT that speaks about Christians being thrown to the lions please? I have been looking but I can't find any. Even thrown to the 'beasts' would do. I know I can find plenty references in secular literature but I would like to read first about it in the Bible.
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 10/22/2010
Posts: 16
Points: 48
Location: United States
|
jacobusmaximus wrote:A sincere question for you percivalpecksniff. Can you quote me a couple of passages from the NT that speaks about Christians being thrown to the lions please? I have been looking but I can't find any. Even thrown to the 'beasts' would do. I know I can find plenty references in secular literature but I would like to read first about it in the Bible. jacobusmaximus, I've found one verse, 1 Corinthians 15:32, where Paul asks, "What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus?" (English Standard Version). Granted, he may have been speaking metaphorically, but history shows that Christians were sometimes thrown to wild beasts. Paul's point was that unless the dead are resurrected, there's no point to suffering for Christ.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
Phog wrote:jacobusmaximus wrote:A sincere question for you percivalpecksniff. Can you quote me a couple of passages from the NT that speaks about Christians being thrown to the lions please? I have been looking but I can't find any. Even thrown to the 'beasts' would do. I know I can find plenty references in secular literature but I would like to read first about it in the Bible. jacobusmaximus, I've found one verse, 1 Corinthians 15:32, where Paul asks, "What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus?" (English Standard Version). Granted, he may have been speaking metaphorically, but history shows that Christians were sometimes thrown to wild beasts. Paul's point was that unless the dead are resurrected, there's no point to suffering for Christ. Thank you Phog. I had missed that verse. It is New Testament evidence that Christians were 'thrown to the lions'. But it raises some questions. Paul was a Roman citizen and Roman citizens didn't have to face the wild beasts, so the Apostle didn't need to deny his faith to escape the arena. So was he there, or is this 'if' really a 'supposing'? Also, Paul talks about fighting the wild beasts, which is very different to being tied up and 'ripped apart by lions'. Any thoughts on these questions?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 987
Points: 1,858
Location: United Kingdom
|
“Christians refused to . . . sacrifice to the emperor’s genius—roughly equivalent today to refusing to salute the flag or repeat the oath of allegiance. . . . Very few of the Christians recanted, although an altar with a fire burning on it was generally kept in the arena for their convenience. All a prisoner had to do was scatter a pinch of incense on the flame and he was given a Certificate of Sacrifice and turned free. It was also carefully explained to him that he was not worshiping the emperor; merely acknowledging the divine character of the emperor as head of the Roman state. Still, almost no Christians availed themselves of the chance to escape.”—Those About to Die (New York, 1958), D. P. Mannix, pp. 135, 137.
“The act of emperor worship consisted in sprinkling a few grains of incense or a few drops of wine on an altar which stood before an image of the emperor. Perhaps at our long remove from the situation we see in the act nothing different from . . . lifting the hand in salute to the flag or to some distinguished ruler of state, an expression of courtesy, respect, and patriotism. Possibly a good many people in the first century felt just that way about it but not so the Christians. They viewed the whole matter as one of religious worship, acknowledging the emperor as a deity and therefore being disloyal to God and Christ, and they refused to do it.”—The Beginnings of the Christian Religion (New Haven, Conn.; 1958), M. F. Eller, pp. 208, 209
Revelation 2:13
New International Version (NIV)
13 'I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives'
Around 60 or 61 C.E., when Paul was in Rome awaiting trial, leading Jews said concerning the early Christians: But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: 'for as concering this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:22)
History bears out that Christians were spoken against—but unjustly so. In his book The Rise of Christianity, E. W. Barnes relates: “In its early authoritative documents the Christian movement is represented as essentially moral and law-abiding. Its members desired to be good citizens and loyal subjects. They shunned the failings and vices of paganism. In private life they sought to be peaceful neighbours and trustworthy friends. They were taught to be sober, industrious and clean-living. Amid prevailing corruption and licentiousness they were, if loyal to their principles, honest and truthful. Their sexual standards were high: the marriage tie was respected and family life was pure. With such virtues they could not, one would have thought, have been troublesome citizens. Yet they were for long despised, maligned and hated.”
The throne of Satan” is right there in Pergamum. “And yet,” Jesus continues, “you keep on holding fast my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas, my witness, the faithful one, who was killed by your side, where Satan is dwelling.” (Revelation 2:13b)
Pliny the Younger, personal legate to Emperor Trajan of Rome, wrote Trajan and explained his procedure for handling persons accused of being Christians—a procedure that the emperor approved. Those who denied being Christians were released when, as Pliny said, “they had repeated after me an invocation to the gods, offered incense and wine to your [Trajan’s] image . . . and, in addition, cursed Christ.”
Tacitus, a Roman historian born about 55 C.E., tells of the rumor charging that Nero was the one responsible for burning Rome (64 C.E.), and then says: “Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices [as the Romans viewed matters], whom the crowd styled Christians. . . . First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night.” (The Annals, XV, XLIV) Suetonius, another Roman historian, born toward the end of the first century C.E., relates events that occurred during Nero’s reign, saying: “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”—The Lives of the Caesars (Nero, XVI, 2).
Flavius Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, 64 [iii, 3]), mentions certain events in the life of Jesus, adding: “And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day [about 93 C.E.] not disappeared.” Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in 111 or 112 C.E., faced with the ‘Christian problem,’ wrote to Emperor Trajan, outlining the methods he was using and asking for advice. “I have asked them in person if they are Christians,” wrote Pliny. If they admitted it, they were punished. However, others “denied that they were or ever had been Christians.” Put to the test, not only did these offer up pagan sacrifices but they even “reviled the name of Christ: none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do.” In answering this letter, Trajan commended Pliny on the way he had handled the matter: “You have followed the right course of procedure . . . in your examination of the cases of persons charged with being Christians.”—The Letters of Pliny, X, XCVI, 3, 5; XCVII, 1.
First-century Christianity had no temples, built no altars, used no crucifixes, and sponsored no garbed and betitled ecclesiastics. Early Christians celebrated no state holidays and refused all military service. “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [who ruled 161-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”—The Rise of Christianity, by E. Barnes, 1947, p. 333.
Foxe's 'Book of Martyrs' speaks of early christians being torn to death by dogs. It is well known that lions were used by the Romans to kill criminals but i am still lookijg for references to that animal. Christians who denied the Emporer by refusing to burn incense were 'criminals.'
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
percivalpecksniff wrote:“Christians refused to . . . sacrifice to the emperor’s genius—roughly equivalent today to refusing to salute the flag or repeat the oath of allegiance. . . . Very few of the Christians recanted, although an altar with a fire burning on it was generally kept in the arena for their convenience. All a prisoner had to do was scatter a pinch of incense on the flame and he was given a Certificate of Sacrifice and turned free. It was also carefully explained to him that he was not worshiping the emperor; merely acknowledging the divine character of the emperor as head of the Roman state. Still, almost no Christians availed themselves of the chance to escape.”—Those About to Die (New York, 1958), D. P. Mannix, pp. 135, 137.
“The act of emperor worship consisted in sprinkling a few grains of incense or a few drops of wine on an altar which stood before an image of the emperor. Perhaps at our long remove from the situation we see in the act nothing different from . . . lifting the hand in salute to the flag or to some distinguished ruler of state, an expression of courtesy, respect, and patriotism. Possibly a good many people in the first century felt just that way about it but not so the Christians. They viewed the whole matter as one of religious worship, acknowledging the emperor as a deity and therefore being disloyal to God and Christ, and they refused to do it.”—The Beginnings of the Christian Religion (New Haven, Conn.; 1958), M. F. Eller, pp. 208, 209
Revelation 2:13
New International Version (NIV)
13 'I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives'
Around 60 or 61 C.E., when Paul was in Rome awaiting trial, leading Jews said concerning the early Christians: But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: 'for as concering this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:22)
History bears out that Christians were spoken against—but unjustly so. In his book The Rise of Christianity, E. W. Barnes relates: “In its early authoritative documents the Christian movement is represented as essentially moral and law-abiding. Its members desired to be good citizens and loyal subjects. They shunned the failings and vices of paganism. In private life they sought to be peaceful neighbours and trustworthy friends. They were taught to be sober, industrious and clean-living. Amid prevailing corruption and licentiousness they were, if loyal to their principles, honest and truthful. Their sexual standards were high: the marriage tie was respected and family life was pure. With such virtues they could not, one would have thought, have been troublesome citizens. Yet they were for long despised, maligned and hated.”
The throne of Satan” is right there in Pergamum. “And yet,” Jesus continues, “you keep on holding fast my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas, my witness, the faithful one, who was killed by your side, where Satan is dwelling.” (Revelation 2:13b)
Pliny the Younger, personal legate to Emperor Trajan of Rome, wrote Trajan and explained his procedure for handling persons accused of being Christians—a procedure that the emperor approved. Those who denied being Christians were released when, as Pliny said, “they had repeated after me an invocation to the gods, offered incense and wine to your [Trajan’s] image . . . and, in addition, cursed Christ.”
Tacitus, a Roman historian born about 55 C.E., tells of the rumor charging that Nero was the one responsible for burning Rome (64 C.E.), and then says: “Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices [as the Romans viewed matters], whom the crowd styled Christians. . . . First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night.” (The Annals, XV, XLIV) Suetonius, another Roman historian, born toward the end of the first century C.E., relates events that occurred during Nero’s reign, saying: “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”—The Lives of the Caesars (Nero, XVI, 2).
Flavius Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, 64 [iii, 3]), mentions certain events in the life of Jesus, adding: “And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day [about 93 C.E.] not disappeared.” Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in 111 or 112 C.E., faced with the ‘Christian problem,’ wrote to Emperor Trajan, outlining the methods he was using and asking for advice. “I have asked them in person if they are Christians,” wrote Pliny. If they admitted it, they were punished. However, others “denied that they were or ever had been Christians.” Put to the test, not only did these offer up pagan sacrifices but they even “reviled the name of Christ: none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do.” In answering this letter, Trajan commended Pliny on the way he had handled the matter: “You have followed the right course of procedure . . . in your examination of the cases of persons charged with being Christians.”—The Letters of Pliny, X, XCVI, 3, 5; XCVII, 1.
First-century Christianity had no temples, built no altars, used no crucifixes, and sponsored no garbed and betitled ecclesiastics. Early Christians celebrated no state holidays and refused all military service. “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [who ruled 161-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”—The Rise of Christianity, by E. Barnes, 1947, p. 333.
Foxe's 'Book of Martyrs' speaks of early christians being torn to death by dogs. It is well known that lions were used by the Romans to kill criminals but i am still lookijg for references to that animal. Christians who denied the Emporer by refusing to burn incense were 'criminals.' Your post, percival, has a 'Watchtower' ring to it - completely one-sided and largely hagiographic. You want to show that the first-century Christians had it right but the established Church since then has got it wrong and only you know how to put it right. You tell me to read up on my history. You should take your own advice instead of Copying and Pasting selected bits from the Internet. You put forward opinions (other peoples') that early Christians in some parts of the Roman Empire would choose to be 'thrown to the lions' rather than pay lip service to the Emperor by a meaningless,token act and then walking free to get on with their lives under God. And you quote the Book of Revelation in support of these magazine articles. You should know that 'Revelation' was written just at the time the Emperor Domitian was turning the screws on any and all peoples who did not bow the knee to him as God. He actually regarded himself as God and pressed his claims to Divinity more seriously than any Emperor before him. His preferred title was 'Dominus et Deus Noster' - Our Lord and God. There were Shrines to him all over Roman Asia, attended by 'enthusiastic' priests. Among recent finds by archeologists in Ephesus are Roman columns bearing the inscription ‘ Caesar is God and the Saviour of everyone’. So contemporary Christians were not simply being forced, through unbearable torture or in the face of needless death to deny Christ, obtain their freedom and then get on with being 'invisible' Christians. What was demanded of them was a change of lifestyle which would demonstrate that they belonged to the God Domitian. This included sexual immorality, faithlessness in marriage, riotous living and the kind of behaviour that would be nothing short of the unforgiveable sin acted out in the community. It was nothing less than Satanic. Of course no genuine Christian could agree to that, then or now. I certainly wouldn't. I wowuld rather die.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 987
Points: 1,858
Location: United Kingdom
|
The quotations I used are not from the Watchtower as you suggest, I do not read the Watchtower, nor am I a Jehovah's Witness... you were given references. That is a strawman argument anyway. You have been found out and you have not the guts to come clean... adieu
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 987
Points: 1,858
Location: United Kingdom
|
You said Jacobmaximus: You tell me to read up on my history. You should take your own advice instead of Copying and Pasting selected bits from the Internet.
For your info jacobusmaximus and contrary to your false charge. I have in my personal
library the following:
The Works of Joshephus, by William Whiston,A.M. Published by John Tallis, and Company, London & New
York. ( Leather bound.)
Six volumes of Barnes Notes (11 books in six tomes-leather bound in black with tooling.) With a foreword
dated August 25th 1832.
Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Revised, with notes and an appendix by the Rev. William Bramley-Moore.
All the above I quoted, and added to which I have personal knowledge of the other publications quoted
all of which I have read complete or in part at some stage in my life. Even so the fact that the
quotation may in some cases be lifted from a quotation in a book on the net does not invalidate it at
all.
Perhaps you should apologise.... you are out of your depth... and study to build some backbone, then
maybe then you would not be so ready to deny Jesus and call God a bastard.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
percivalpecksniff wrote:You said Jacobmaximus: You tell me to read up on my history. You should take your own advice instead of Copying and Pasting selected bits from the Internet.
For your info jacobusmaximus and contrary to your false charge. I have in my personal
library the following:
The Works of Joshephus, by William Whiston,A.M. Published by John Tallis, and Company, London & New
York. ( Leather bound.)
Six volumes of Barnes Notes (11 books in six tomes-leather bound in black with tooling.) With a foreword
dated August 25th 1832.
Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Revised, with notes and an appendix by the Rev. William Bramley-Moore.
All the above I quoted, and added to which I have personal knowledge of the other publications quoted
all of which I have read complete or in part at some stage in my life. Even so the fact that the
quotation may in some cases be lifted from a quotation in a book on the net does not invalidate it at
all.
Perhaps you should apologise.... you are out of your depth... and study to build some backbone, then
maybe then you would not be so ready to deny Jesus and call God a bastard. So you didn't mean it then when you said 'adieu'?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 987
Points: 1,858
Location: United Kingdom
|
Being a smart-alec will not cover your duplicity.
PS: It appears you know more of French than integrity.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
So there was this young English girl - a medical missionary based in north east Pakistan. One day she was kidnapped by fanatical Islamic terrorists. They told her that if she didn't deny Christ they would rape her. She stood firm on her faith. So they raped her. But she wouldn't deny Christ. So they raped her again. After being raped five times and sodomised twice she trembled when the eighth man approached her from behind. Tearfully she denied Christ and they threw her into the boot of a car and drove her to an isolated spot where they dumped her, laughing and spitting in her face. Broken in body, mind and spirit she lay helpless and died some hours later, all alone in the world.
Question 1. Having denied Christ would God have forsaken her like some people would?
Question 2. If God was not going to forsake her, should she have denied Christ before she was raped, or after?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 891
Points: 2,588
Location: Australia
|
to quote jacobusmaximus;
Question 1. Having denied Christ would God have forsaken her like some people would?
Question 2. If God was not going to forsake her, should she have denied Christ before she was raped, or after?
Before I answer your questions I ask you;
(1) Where was the god whom this young English girl had placed her faith with?
(2) Why did not a 'loving heavenly Father' reach out to protect his innocent, trusting daughter?
(3) Having denied Christ, after enduring such an horrific ordeal, would she still be acceptable into her gods kingdom?
************************************************************************************************************
To me, her god did forsake her, he let some 'male excuses for men' rape and sodomise her.
Interestingly you acknowledge that some people would have forsaken her, which means that there are some of us 'mere humans' who would have gone to her aid!!!
If she was my daughter, and I was there, [as was her god, as he supposedly sees all] then those fanatical Islamic terrorists[presumed], would certainly have been aware of MY presence, no matter how futile my efforts.
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 5,441
Points: 15,821
Location: United Kingdom
|
jacobusmaximus wrote:So there was this young English girl - a medical missionary based in north east Pakistan. One day she was kidnapped by fanatical Islamic terrorists. They told her that if she didn't deny Christ they would rape her. She stood firm on her faith. So they raped her. But she wouldn't deny Christ. So they raped her again. After being raped five times and sodomised twice she trembled when the eighth man approached her from behind. Tearfully she denied Christ and they threw her into the boot of a car and drove her to an isolated spot where they dumped her, laughing and spitting in her face. Broken in body, mind and spirit she lay helpless and died some hours later, all alone in the world.
Question 1. Having denied Christ would God have forsaken her like some people would?
Question 2. If God was not going to forsake her, should she have denied Christ before she was raped, or after? Sorry, but I cannot help posting this quote again (it used to be my signature) "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong" Bertrand Russell I wonder at what point does someone's faith reach the state that they are prepared to abandon their reason? What is the difference between your example and someone indoctrinated to the extent that they are prepared to crash an aeroplane full of passengers into a heavily populated building for their 'beliefs'? Re your two questions, even if you are a believer I would think it presumptuous to answer no.1 Re no.2 perhaps she just made a poor choice.
"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
pedro says ...I wonder at what point does someone's faith reach the state that they are prepared to abandon their reason? What is the difference between your example and someone indoctrinated to the extent that they are prepared to crash an aeroplane full of passengers into a heavily populated building for their 'beliefs'?
Re your two questions, even if you are a believer I would think it presumptuous to answer no.1 Re no.2 perhaps she just made a poor choice.
The difference is this - the murdered girl wasn't taking innocent lives with her when she stood firm in her faith. And I don't think she abandoned reason. In fact, it appears that she reasoned that she wasn't going to survive another assault and that her death was not going to serve any purpose. I believe she reasoned that her witness for Christ to her torturers was like casting her pearls before swine. Question 1 needs an honest answer. Would God hear her cry and convict her of forsaking him? Would he later that night send her soul to Hell for denying him? Or would he translate her cry into the words of his son - "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
Ray41 wrote:to quote jacobusmaximus;
Question 1. Having denied Christ would God have forsaken her like some people would?
Question 2. If God was not going to forsake her, should she have denied Christ before she was raped, or after?
Before I answer your questions I ask you;
(1) Where was the god whom this young English girl had placed her faith with?
(2) Why did not a 'loving heavenly Father' reach out to protect his innocent, trusting daughter?
(3) Having denied Christ, after enduring such an horrific ordeal, would she still be acceptable into her gods kingdom?
************************************************************************************************************
To me, her god did forsake her, he let some 'male excuses for men' rape and sodomise her.
Interestingly you acknowledge that some people would have forsaken her, which means that there are some of us 'mere humans' who would have gone to her aid!!!
If she was my daughter, and I was there, [as was her god, as he supposedly sees all] then those fanatical Islamic terrorists[presumed], would certainly have been aware of MY presence, no matter how futile my efforts. I think I know where you are coming from Ray. If God sees all - if he is omniscient and omnipotent - why does he not intervene for the sake of goodness? I have asked the same question of myself many times, and of others when the opportunity seemed right. The answer I have been given several times, and from several different sources, is that all time is present for God. There is no past and no future. For God, all time is now - this moment. If he should choose to act against evil by say, striking down all wrong-doers, who could survive as we are all sinners when seen against the perfection of Christ? Claiming that 'for God all time is now', may sound like a cop-out, but I believe it is true and that it explains what might otherwise remain a mystery. In the same way the victim in this story would be aware of God's presence as she looked for a way out of her suffering and through persistent and urgent prayer she would know God's will for her in her situation. That will sound to many like a cop-out too, but it happens to be true. Those who walk with God will also talk with God and he will speak to them in their time of need. One day these evil men will look across the great gulf that separates Heaven from Hell and they will see their victim rejoicing in the presence of Jesus while they suffer eternal destruction - the action of being destroyed continuously forever - in the kingdom of the Devil. You mess with God's people at your peril.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 5,441
Points: 15,821
Location: United Kingdom
|
jacobusmaximus wrote:
The difference is this - the murdered girl wasn't taking innocent lives with her when she stood firm in her faith. And I don't think she abandoned reason. In fact, it appears that she reasoned that she wasn't going to survive another assault and that her death was not going to serve any purpose. I believe she reasoned that her witness for Christ to her torturers was like casting her pearls before swine. Question 1 needs an honest answer. Would God hear her cry and convict her of forsaking him? Would he later that night send her soul to Hell for denying him? Or would he translate her cry into the words of his son - "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
If she had a chance to escape by renouncing her irrational faith then she did take an innocent life- namely her own. If she wasn't going to survive in any case then the example doesn't prove anything. My point re question 1 was that even if you are a believer it is presumptuous to pretend to know the workings of an all knowing absolute infinite being so the question is pointless.
"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 891
Points: 2,588
Location: Australia
|
Jacobusmaximus, "may sound like a cop out"??? It is a cop out, but, it is what you choose to believe, and, you are entitled to your belief. If that young girl was 'your daughter' you may think twice about about the whole situation? God, the way He is portrayed in the Old Testament was a very demanding God, and according to that same book, an all powerful God. If good is to prevail, evil needs to be eliminated, and to allow innocent people, whether they are are Jewish, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or any other faith, to suffer and die, without His great powers intervening, does lead me to believe that He is not all that He is made out to be.  To quote you; One day these evil men will look across the great gulf that separates Heaven from Hell and they will see their victim rejoicing in the presence of Jesus while they suffer eternal destruction - of the action being destroyed continuously forever - in the kingdom of the Devil. You mess with God's people at your peril. You are presuming that there is a Heaven. I cannot visualise any form of life after death, let alone one where(if you are good?) you get to look across at those who have perpetrated horrific acts on their fellow man 'suffering eternal destruction-of the action being destroyed continuously forever', what ever than imply? I was of the opinion that destruction was 'complete and final'. The only hell I see is like that which happened to that young girl, and, it is right here on Earth, as is the tragedy that is taking place in drought stricken and war torn countries such as Somalia. If I had the supposed powers of God, these devastating events would not happen as, being a humanitarian, I could not look down and do nothing. As an aside! You also said; There is no past and no future. For God, all time is now - this moment.Does this mean that what I did yesterday is forgotten? Did God, when he supposedly created the Earth, get to Thursday and find what he had created had gone? Doesn't work for me, there is a past, a present, and a future, even God cannot change that.
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 938
Points: 2,667
Location: United Kingdom
|
ray41 says '...As an aside! You also said; There is no past and no future. For God, all time is now - this moment.
Does this mean that what I did yesterday is forgotten? Did God, when he supposedly created the Earth, get to Thursday and find what he had created had gone? Doesn't work for me, there is a past, a present, and a future, even God cannot change that.'
God does not change that for you. You, and I, of course have a past, a present and a future. God, however, is so great that he sees everything all the time, no matter when it happened or will happen. I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else that they must believe that. I am just saying that's what I believe about God. It means that our sins are always in front of God (unless they are covered by Christ), and if God was to eliminate all who sin few would have the chance to repent and surrender their lives to Christ. God did that once and said he would never do it again.
|
|
|
Guest |