Posted on 08/27/2006 12:41:00 AM PDT by Crazieman
Per Fox News
Please excuse any mistakes, as this is my first FR post.
The Church has dealt with the issue of a forced conversion at length with far greater implications. During the Diocletion persecution many Christians were forced to pay homage to false gods. Many others refused and accepted torture or martyrdom. Those tortured and martyred were given a special reverence during the liturgy.
The question of those who did succumb went beyond the individual question to those in holy orders who gave in. That is, were the orders of those ordained by someone who later succumb to Rome valid? The question was so important it ended in a schism of the church between the one holy catholic apostolic church and what is now known as the Coptic church that would later turn to the heresy of Nestorianism. St Augustine was just one defender of the church on this issue.
My point is that this question was very important to the Church Fathers and it was dealt with at great length with all of its implications. It seems strange to deal with it as it applies to FOX journalists without any reference to the copious amount of thought already done.
I am a Christian ok, but if someone was holding a gun to my head and a sword in the other hand, and wanted me to say something good about Allah, I do it and obviously not mean it, then throw up later, but I used psycological skill that God gave me to save myself. esp ifI had a wife and family at home that needed me around.
God is a lot more understanding of human beings than certain christians think.
how do people know that Steve and Olaf were even religious men at all ? i dont get it. this thread is a mass mess
maybe I am just seeing the world from a different perspective than other christians.
I see human beings as human beings, creations of God that are loved no matter what their religion or culture. I think people in this thread are only seeing the world in reguards to religious labels. It doesnt really matter to me if someone is a muslim or an atheist. I will talk to them with basic respect that I do all people. no innoecent man or woman deserves to get their head cut off or shot.
i tend to think that you, I and a few others in this thread are seeing the bigger picture while others are not.
Bookmark!
Like dude, this was a couple of days ago. Why are you posting it as breaking news? Geez, some people really are slow.
Missing a sarcasm tag or something?
You're seeing things from a worldly perspective. And that's the problem.
As WHW points out, this issue has been discussed for thousands of years.
I would say it applies to anything, though, not just religion. How can you publicly profess something that violates the principles you claim to have? My point in another post was that even if these reporters were complete secularists and not Christian, by professing Islam they were accepting sharia and rejecting all of the principles of Western liberalism that they claim to believe (freedom, equality, etc.).
Young Conservative, you seem to think that beliefs have no consequences and no substance, hence it does not matter what you publicly profess. Why don't you give this matter an objective test: look at the results. Islam's ideal is theocracy, so are no functioning Islamic secular states (except for those that are run as police states and are pretty tenuous, such as Turkey), the condition of women in Islam is appalling, and Islam has a history of conquest and violence since its very beginning. Christianity, on the other hand, is not a political system, can operate in any political system that respects human rights, has at its heart the fundamental belief in equality and dignity of all human beings, and has a history of building hospitals and caring for lepers and the outcast. A newly converted Christian will go out and want to join a religious order and spend his days in prayer or tending the sick; a newly converted Muslim hits the internet to look for bomb recipes. There's a difference, and you have to admit that what one believes is important and does make a difference on a scale that goes beyond the merely personal.
Again, this is true in anything, not just religion. You obviously do not believe that truth exists; you believe that it is all the same. It's not, and at some point, we have to decide what is our sticking point; that is, what is the thing we cannot deny without sacrificing our integrity, our freedom and our human dignity. What would it be for you? Would you be willing to say anything to stay alive or even to avoid serious difficulties, such as loss of income or status? Or are there any beliefs and values you would refuse to deny, or some you would refuse to profess because they are so opposed to what you really believe?
You're an American, also - would you renounce your citizenship publicly to save your life?
Whatever anyone thinks of John McCain's politics (I can't stand them), everyone honors him as a hero for not breaking under Vietnamese torture.
Think of the moment in time when the first hand witnesses of the Messiah are organizing their flocks, rather than unity, there is much argument regarding interpretation of His word, hierarchiacal organization and who exactly may become a Christian and how they do so. Remember, Judaism WAS NOT an evangelical religion and most of the early followers of Christ believed it was necessary to be a Jew in order to become a Christian.
So here comes Saul on his ride to Damascus to terrorize the Christian community when he has a temporal lobe seizure, blinding light, auditory hallucination, loss of consciousness into dream state. As a good Jew, his epiphany was not to assist the "church" but how to divide it. He does so by splitting the congregation, tosses out the dietary laws, flip-flops on circumsion, tells the women they must cover their heads.
In other words, Saul doesn't do the early Christians any favors and the churchs grows not because of him, but in spite of him.
Finally, maybe I wasn't there when light was separated from the darkness or cannot swallow the waters as the behemoth but you don't know me or don't know what I have experienced, you certainly don't know from where I speak.
2. "maybe I am just seeing the world from a different perspective than other christians."
3. "I see human beings as human beings, creations of God that are loved no matter what their religion or culture.
...... It doesnt really matter to me if someone is a muslim or an atheist, I will talk to them with basic respect that I do all people.".......
1. Agree. We don't know if they were/are religious, nor does it matter (IMHO). What they did was a normal, healthy reaction to an insane situation - preserving ones own life is a primary mission of life. Only an exception would have done otherwise.
2. I don't think you are seeing this differently from the vast majority of Christians. I don't think the more extreme and unreasonable posts here are representative..
3. Agree with you again. Everyone deserves respect unless they demonstrate otherwise. Unfortunately some use religion to feel superior to others and that's as dangerous as it is wrong.
BTW, nice to see someone with his head screwed on right...
As it is, Olaf's father is Reverend... I'm not sure about his exact denomination. However, he's full of liberal sh*t: when the news broke that his son has been abducted, he immediately accused Israel for that...
This kind of worldview is of course shared by Olaf's wife, Anita McNaught (a broadcaster with the BBC World, and assiduous Leftist in her journalistic endeavours).
I can fully imagine the guy opportunistically to keep his new status of a Muslim: with all the publicity, it would make his work in the Islamic world much easier... and Lefties are anyway Musli-lovers, so what's the problem for him?
Consider also the bonus of having another 3 wives (not to speak about 72 concubines in the afterlife)...
Anita also could welcome the some relief in... er, home duties?
I would say it applies to anything, though, not just religion. How can you publicly profess something that violates the principles you claim to have? My point in another post was that even if these reporters were complete secularists and not Christian, by professing Islam they were accepting sharia and rejecting all of the principles of Western liberalism that they claim to believe (freedom, equality, etc.).
Young Conservative, you seem to think that beliefs have no consequences and no substance, hence it does not matter what you publicly profess. Why don't you give this matter an objective test: look at the results. Islam's ideal is theocracy, so are no functioning Islamic secular states (except for those that are run as police states and are pretty tenuous, such as Turkey), the condition of women in Islam is appalling, and Islam has a history of conquest and violence since its very beginning. Christianity, on the other hand, is not a political system, can operate in any political system that respects human rights, has at its heart the fundamental belief in equality and dignity of all human beings, and has a history of building hospitals and caring for lepers and the outcast. A newly converted Christian will go out and want to join a religious order and spend his days in prayer or tending the sick; a newly converted Muslim hits the internet to look for bomb recipes. There's a difference, and you have to admit that what one believes is important and does make a difference on a scale that goes beyond the merely personal.
Again, this is true in anything, not just religion. You obviously do not believe that truth exists; you believe that it is all the same. It's not, and at some point, we have to decide what is our sticking point; that is, what is the thing we cannot deny without sacrificing our integrity, our freedom and our human dignity. What would it be for you? Would you be willing to say anything to stay alive or even to avoid serious difficulties, such as loss of income or status? Or are there any beliefs and values you would refuse to deny, or some you would refuse to profess because they are so opposed to what you really believe?
Then why can't a Roman Catholic become king/queen of England?
Actually most of the problem lay within the root causes of the Protestant Reformation. Thumbnail sketch time ...
Henry VIII, sort of wanted a divorce but he also saw the wealth of the Church which he had no way to get his greedy, little paws on. Resolution, start a new church with monarchy as the head. More money for the crown.
Martin Luther, disgruntled employee, goes "whistleblower" on the Church, forces a diet of worms down the Teutonic gullet. Princes and low monarchy see the opportunity to get their grubby little paws on the Church's property and wealth, convert, make their vassals convert. Resolution, Martin Luther marries a trampy nun, Princes get loot, Germany gets new religion.
Swiss Canton's Taliban won't let John Calvin join. Calvin says, "Screw this!" you can be as good as you want, fate says only 120,000 of all humanity of all time get into Heaven. Resolution, people say, "If my behavior doesn't dictate my getting a cloud and harp, I'll do what I want."
Just remember this and here's the dirly, little secret your Evangelical friends won't tell you, Catholics believe themselves to be Christians but the Protestants don't think that!
I don't think the opinions of Protestants on Catholics are particularly relevant to this case. Christianity is not political at its foundation, but only when various secular forces try to use it in that way; Islam, on the other hand, sees itself as a legal and political system.
The only relevance of what you have posted is that both Catholics and Protestants at various times refused to deny what they believed (even though in many cases the differences were pretty trivial, by today's understanding). In other words, they had certain things that they would not assent to, because their integrity as human beings forbade them to give even the appearance of denial of their principles. We no longer seem to think this matters.
I still strongly disagree.
I think the record is quite clear enough. God confirmed Paul's ministry very abundantly.
The position described seems to think God was foolish and schlocky about watching over the early beginnings of His Church.
Not remotely my construction on reality.
Come on now
That scenario is also not remotely my construction on reality.
Nor is it the Biblical one.
I don't think the NT makes any kind of pecking order remotely clear. There will likely be one in Heaven . . . but it probably won't matter there, either--even less than it matters here.
Paul contributed immeasureably to the early Church. Good things. Of course, his training and purifying experiences in the wilderness were no doubt crucial.
And, he continued to endure hardships most of us would terminally cringe at imagining.
But hey, throwing rocks at Paul must tickle God's heart greatly. /sar
I thought that one was really obvious. There was a big friendly smile on my face as I wrote it. FReepRegards
I put my family higher than country. If I have a family that needs me, say a wife, children, even a little nephew that I am like a father figure too. whatever family that needs me. I am going to pray and do whatever I can to survive for them.
when Jesus was on the cross, he was human, he in the heat of the moment said "father why I have you forsaken me". God understands the emotion of human beings and the way we think. Jesus was a lot stronger than a lot of us, and we will never live up to his image. thank God that Jesus understands. thank God he knows what our pain is. Jesus was the messiah, but a regular guy will never be that way, Jesus carried that burden when he died on the cross for us. There is nothing wrong with trying to survive in a situation like that. they didnt ask them to deny or curse at christ, they asked them to convert to Islam. Steve and Olaf did NOT convert to Islam or deny Christ in their hearts, they just acted to survive.
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.