Posted on 11/09/2001 12:18:53 PM PST by Romulus
At the risk of being accused of treason and sedition - not a novel thing in my family - I admit to having a certain admiration for the young fundamentalist Muslims, with their east London or northern accents, eschewing home comforts to go off to fight for the faith of their fathers. They face the privations of cave-dwelling, the dangers of mortal conflict, and an uncertain welcome if they survive and return to Plaistow, Luton, Crawley, Birmingham or Burnley.
I'm not sure about the other places, but Burnley is no stranger to treason and sedition. My family comes from there. Our home, Towneley Hall (now owned by the Burnley Corporation), was once a centre of that other fundamentalist religion, recusant Catholicism. After the saying of Mass became illegal in 1559, we, too, were viewed with the deepest suspicion for having allegiances that ranked above Queen, country or government.
John Towneley, my ancestor, was heavily fined by Elizabeth I's Inquisition Council, and went to prison several times. Eventually, in order that his 14 children should not have the satisfaction of claiming for their father a martyr's crown, John was released from prison, mortally sick and almost blind, to be confined instead to his Towneley estates. His friend Sir Thomas Fitzherbert, from whom I am descended on my mother's side, was also stubbornly Catholic. He died in the Tower.
Ever since I can remember, therefore, the idea of dying for your faith has been held up as a pretty splendid, if not heroic, thing to do. And Towneley heroes were not confined to the Reformation. Hearing Mass in the tiny oratory built on to the end of our drawing-room at Dyneley - the house in which the Towneley bailiff used to live and where John and his family heard Mass in secret using an altar that could be folded up to look like a wardrobe - my five sisters, my brother and I often found ourselves sitting next to a small and very ancient leather frame enclosing a piece of hair. The legend reads, 'My cousin Frank Towneley's haire, who suffered for his prince August 10th 1746'. His prince was Bonnie Prince Charlie (his brother was the prince's tutor), and Uncle Frank was eventually hanged, drawn and quartered for his part in trying to restore a Catholic monarch to Britain. For many years my family kept Uncle Frank's severed head in a basket and passed it round after dinner.
So when I hear people such as the 22-year-old accountant Mohammed Abdullah from Luton saying, 'Our religious duty comes before everything else', it has a certain resonance. Of course, Mr Abdullah's religious and social history is entirely different from mine. Since Charles Martel's victory at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 - a battle that spared my family and the rest of the people on these islands the prospect of Christian martyrdom in the 8th century - Islam and Christianity have gone their separate ways. Had that battle been lost, as Gibbon tells us, 'the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mohammed'.
In the event it took the crisis precipitated by Henry VIII to set the English the ultimate test. When the Christian schism came, martyrs were, of course, claimed on both sides. Many, for example the Norfolks, cannily swayed with the wind. They were well rewarded. Families such as mine, who stuck willy-nilly to their guns, were derided as misguided fundies, traitors who were quite out of step with the more doctrinally enlightened and modern times in which they were living.
My family remains in many ways defined by its history. So, when I hear adjectives that once would have applied to us being applied now to keen young Muslims, it is impossible not to feel a certain frisson.
Moreover, I have found myself wondering if I, despite the recusant blood running through my veins, would rise, like 26-year-old Abu Yahya from Plaistow, to the challenge of defending my religion if called to do so. Would you? To push this question even further, if we were invaded by an Islamic state, would you, in order to save your life and the lives of your children, bow your head and perform the Salat if told to do so? Is not the fact that Muslims find this question (with appropriate reversals) easier to answer than Christians rather shocking?
It is perfectly true that Christians are specifically forbidden to seek martyrdom, something that caused Sir Thomas More mental agonies when awaiting his inevitable execution. But there is a difference between seeking martyrdom and accepting death. The 11 September hijackers (or the ones who knew the game plan) and the Muslims who are now clamouring to suffer in the service of Allah would not qualify for martyrdom under Christian definitions. Christians believe that seeking martyrdom is a wicked thing since it denotes the sin of pride.
But it is not fear of the sin of pride that would stop the British being martyrs now; it is the sin of indifference. Moreover, I have a suspicion that, faced with the threat 'convert or die', the instincts of even Catholic and Anglican bishops would be to compromise.
Since Vatican II, Catholics could certainly do so. Indeed, some commentators, such as the French academician Jean Guitton, appear to believe that Catholicism has no specific doctrine to advance; it should merely assist in deepening individual perceptions of God. The days of exclusivity are gone. What all contemporary Christians should be working towards is a relativist interpretation of religion in which the form of your worship matters less than the depth of your spiritual experience. In times in which, according to the Vatican II Decree on Missions, Ad Gentes, 'nova exsurgit humanitatis conditio', Christians should play down uniqueness.
I think it was this new emphasis on syncretism that inspired Cardinal Lustiger, then Archbishop of Paris, to declare in 1981, 'I am a Jew. For me the two religions are one.' He was, naturally, immediately contradicted by the Chief Rabbi, but you cannot say that the cardinal was not trying. Who knows what Monsignor Georges Darboy, one of his predecessors in the archiepiscopal chair would have thought? It is little more than a century since his martyrdom in the Paris commune.
And where does this kind of thinking leave me and my fundamentalist sympathies? Out of kilter, it seems, with the Christian world. For, while I have no wish to be martyred or to engage in religious wars, it seems an enviable thing to have something beyond worldly considerations for which you would be prepared to lay down your life.
Of course, some of those young men rushing off to Afghanistan are full of nonsense. Of course, some are using Islam as a peg on which to hang rather less noble ambitions than to die for Allah's sake. But Islam has retained something that Christianity has lost: an ability to summon people to its support and not have them ask, 'What on earth for?'
Some people may feel that what I deem a loss is actually Christianity's gain; that indifference is better than fundamentalism. But, as I watch the Abduls and Aftabs go to meet their fates, I think about John Towneley and Uncle Frank. It is probably a treasonable thought, but it may be that, although I disagree with the causes that would-be Muslim martyrs are espousing, in the fibre of my being I have more in common with them than with many of my apparently more sophisticated friends and neighbours.
I am a son of David by adoption..:>)
Where in the scriptures does the phrase "self washed persons" occur? Just trying to understand where this phrase comes from.
Does this mean that since God wills that not any should perish, none will perish?
Just because God's will is that certain things should happen doesn't mean that they will happen. God will never override a person's free agency to choose evil over good if it is that person's choice. If a person chooses to not be saved, God is not going to force that person into heaven. You may be one of the elect, but you can always choose to become un-elect.
Otherwise there'd be no point in God exhorting us to "endure to the end".
Thanks for your response. I'll put you down as a "no".
I would die for my G-d. I consider that similar, but different.
Shalom.
But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire."Simply read a few verses further. The sow had washed herself; she was self washed. This is why people appear to be saved when they are not. They were never regenerated by the washing of the Holy Spirit. There was no fundamental change with this self washing that gives them the ability to endure to the end.
No way. If we deny Christ before men, He will deny us before His Father in heaven.
...
But it is not fear of the sin of pride that would stop the British being martyrs now; it is the sin of indifference. Moreover, I have a suspicion that, faced with the threat 'convert or die', the instincts of even Catholic and Anglican bishops would be to compromise.
A lot of Baptists, Methodists, Presbies; too, I think.
It may yet come down to finding out who are sheep, and who are goats.
Read the context of the verse and understand just exactly who it is that the us are:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise [to us], as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us] should perish, but that all [of us] should come to repentance.Just because God's will is that certain things should happen doesn't mean that they will happen. God will never override a person's free agency to choose evil over good if it is that person's choice. If a person chooses to not be saved, God is not going to force that person into heaven. You may be one of the elect, but you can always choose to become un-elect.
No, the scripture explicitly says that His will be done. No purpose of man will ever thwart even the pleasure of God:
Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, `My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,'And you do not understand man's freewill choice between good and evil. Man alway's freely chooses evil over good:
As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They have all gone from the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." "Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit." "The poison of asps is under their lips," "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes."And you do not understand how election is determined:
No man can come to Me unless the Father who hath sent Me draw him; and I will raise him up at the Last Day.Otherwise there'd be no point in God exhorting us to "endure to the end".All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.
And this is the Father's will who hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the Last Day.
So you say! You need to get out of your mormon box of thought and begin to not only read, but also understand the Word of God.
:>) Luke 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
No I do not play well with others GWB,If I was getting a FR report card..there are lots of folks that would be very glad to give me an F
Being loved by the world can not be my passion I desire to serve him..the cost of that is far less than it's value!.......I just love my Lord and His word...He is my hearts desire....
Revelation 13:18, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six" - 666. Bible prophecy has told us the Antichrist beast has a man at its head. That man is the one who speaks for it - the Pope. The Bible says his number is 666. The Latin alphabet is used by the Church and Rome. Roman letters have numerical value. Every person's name also had a number because of the Roman alphabet having numerical value. God is simply telling us it is the number of a man, and his number adds up to 666.
In the official Roman Catholic weekly magazine, OUR SUNDAY VISITOR, April 18, 1915, this question was asked in the question and answer column: "What are the letters inscribed in the Pope's crown, and what do they signify if anything." Here's the answer given according to the Catholic magazine itself: "The letters inscribed in the Pope's miter are these: VICARIUS FILII DEI which is the Latin for Vicar of the Son of God."
VICARIUS FILII DEI is one of the most exalted titles of the Roman pontiff and is the official name of the Pope. Computing the value of the Roman Numerals, we discover an amazing fact:
V = 5 I = 1 C = 100 A = no value R = no value I = 1 U = 5 S = no value ---------------
112
F = no value I = 1 L = 50 I = 1 I = 1 --------------
53 D = 500 E = no value I = 1 -------------
501
If you add up the numerical value, you'll find out Vicarius = 112, Filii = 53, Dei = 501 - and it equals the number 666. He has four more names in Latin - official titles given in Catholic literature - every one of them adds up to 666; he has three names in Greek, two names in Hebrew, all adding up to 666.
Here in Greek and Hebrew transliterations are other names or titles of the Pope.
LATEINOS in Greek means Latin man or Church.
L = 30 lambda A = 1 alpha T = 300 tau
E = 5 epsilon I = 10 iota N = 50 nu O = 70 omicron S = 200 sigma ------------ 666 ROMIITH in Hebrew means Roman Kingdom.
R = 200 resh O = 6 waw (vav) M = 40 mem I = 10 yod I = 10 yod TH = 400 taw -------------- 666
The Greek HE LATINE BASILEIA, means the Latin Kingdom.
H = 0 (transliterated) E = 8 eta L = 30 lambda A = 1 alpha T = 300 tau I = 10 iota N = 50 nu E = 8 eta B = 2 beta A = 1 alpha S = 200 sigma I = 10 iota L = 30 lambda E = 5 epsilon I = 10 iota A = 1 alpha ------------ 666 Here is the Papal Church in Greek with its numeral values. ITALIKA EKKLESIA, which means Italian Church.
I = 10 iota T = 300 tau A = 1 alpha L = 30 lambda I = 10 iota K = 20 kappa A = 1 alpha E = 5 epsilon K = 20 kappa K = 20 kappa L = 30 lambda E = 8 eta S = 200 sigma I = 10 iota A = 1 alpha ------------- 666 One of the early names for the Pope was PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. This in Latin means Supreme Pontifex. The Pope has had a number of titles down through the centuries. Here are two in Latin with their meanings:
DUX CLERI - Captain of the Clergy.
LUDO VICUS - Chief Vicar of the Court of Rome.Here are the titles of the Pope with numerical values for the Roman numerals:
D = 500 U = 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E = no value R = no value I = 1 --------------------
666
L = 50 U = 5 D = 500 O = no value V = 5 I = 1 C = 100 U = 5 S = no value --------------------
666
Pointless question usually asked when there is a totally inanity to follow...
This I do know, I would rather die for my faith rather than kiss the Koran like the pope did.
Christianity: The old fella gets it.
...though sometimes not till post #96.
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.