Posted on 08/27/2006 12:41:00 AM PDT by Crazieman
Per Fox News
Who knows what went on there...neither you nor I can say how we would behave, what we would do under those circumstances.
I don't fault them for wanting to live and see their families again.
G
I'm just pondering where the line is drawn for taking the mark of the beast. Revelation didn't list all the times that it would be ok. Surely if there times that it was ok, we would have been told. Why didn't they write that it was ok to take the mark since God would know that we didn't mean it?
Something like that, sort of.
What in the world are you talking about? The kidnappers didn't gain anything in the propoganda war. If anything, two lives have been spared, and radical muslim terrorists are still rotting in Gitmo. This was a win for our side, regardless of the fact you think two journalists are whimps.
They are journalists not soldiers...You wanna die... go ahead
that's so passé.. /sarc
He watches too much Star Trek.
Let us know if you need help getting off your high horse.
Mighty BIG of ya!
I have to disagree with you. These guy's just wanted to come home to their families and to utter some words they did not believe anyway was worth the price. We have all seen the beheading videos and that was their fate if they didn't comply. Would you have been so brave? What real purpose would have been achieved after you're head is sawed off? They may still be in danger but they are indeed alive. I would like to consider myself brave too, but under those circumstances, c'mon.
The list you wrote sounds right. God help us in that situation, because in our normal mind, we would not be able to choose God, because it's just not natural. It is only through His grace and strength that we could make the right decision. As an earlier post stated, we should use this situation to reflect on ourselves. May we allow this experience to work good in our lives and in the lives of Steve and Olaf.
I'm curious why you did not capitalize "Bible", but *did*
capitalize "Koran"--I feel it is disrespectful to not capitalize Bible when I'm speaking about the Holy Word of God--YMMV.
I am horrified that these two men were put into this situation by unGodly terrorists, and forced to speak these things against their will while guns were pointed at them. I don't think, however, that if they are Christians, that God will now turn His back on them for choosing to save their lives instead of becoming martyrs. Who knows what future God has for these men? Perhaps they will become great speakers in favor of Christianity in the media or something wild like that? But I don't think they've been condemned for all time because they spoke words that were basically put into their mouths.
Saul's other name is Paul.
If you didn't see it, I did. Submitting to anything is GOOD to do if it saves your life. And that's how they will beat us.
When I was an adolescent girl, I had a pinup of Bobby Sherman on my bedroom wall. Palestianian girls have pinups of shaheeds. Parents want their little boys to be martyrs. They think we have more to fear from their toddlers then they have to fear from our grown men. Episodes like this confirm their thinking. They don't care that the conversion wasn't real. The only important thing to them is that they could force adult Western men to SUBMIT and declare something they didn't believe, and that's definitely what they have in mind for the rest of us. Islam does mean submission
I think this question is going to come to many of us, Christian or not, before too long, when Islam makes its all-out assault or when we find ourselves living in a country that has become Muslim by demographics.
Yes, and it's becoming obvious that when push comes to shove, most are going to choose to submit.
I'd like to thank you for your posts on this thread; my husband and I have both admired them.
The Crusades were "launched" to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims and free the Christian captives. Conversion of any kind was really not one of their objectives.
The SPanish Inquisition was initially to purify the Spanish Church, which because of the long Muslim domination had had many sees with no bishops and no teaching. In addition to the invasion of Lutheranism in the north, as well as the resurgence of some other heresies and the large masses of poorly instructed Jewish converts, clergy who were married to avoid detection by the Muslims, etc., Spain was in sad shape.
The Inquisition initially focused on clergy and was restricted to Catholics only. Practicing Jews were not affected by the Inquisition. Conversos were, but Jewish converts had simply not been properly instructed, and in many cases were reprimanded and reinstructed. However, there were some who had "converted" simply to be able to marry into the local rich family, and they were generally exiled.
What happened, however, was that the Inquisition became very political very rapidly, because the Church did not punish on the secular level and relied on the state to order and perform punishments. But such great power can never go unabused, and it was.
Relatively speaking, it was a much fairer judicial process than secular trials (the Inquisition forbade anonymous complaints, for example), and that is why we have so many records of it. But it was heavily manipulated by a combination of the rising Spanish middle class and petty nobility (both very jealous of the Jews, who had done very well in Spain at a time when Northern European countries had long ago expelled their Jewish populations) and some power-crazed clergy such as Savonarola who took advantage of the fact that Rome was relatively far away and Spain was in administrative disorder after its long Islamic captivity. Subsequent popes tried several times to stop the Inquisition, btw, but it had taken on a life of its own in Spain, thanks to its usefulness to the political powers.
In any case, my point in 25 words or less, is that it is not the same. You're comparing apples and - well, grapefruit.
Your failure to surpass the Muslims in understanding, get over the Crusades already, and stick to beefs about Christianity in recent history, do.
But then you're not posting to please me.
:D
I personally believe that Blashphemy agains the Holy Spirit means not accepting Christ...remember the context in which Jesus said this. They were accusing him of doing his miracles by the power of satan. They were denying his divinity.
Sorry, seg! Back to topic, but couldn't resist.
If one accepts the conversion in his heart and fully, truly renounces his Christian faith within his own mind (which can be known only to God), then that person is in trouble.
If a person simply pays lip service to a bunch of whackos so they'll let him leave, while still speaking to God with a true heart, I think that person is still okay with God.
Peter denied Christ three times and came out of it okay.
Lord, if I am ever faced with this, please give me the courage to accept martydom for Your name's sake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.