Thread: Tophet. Is this what Jesus wants? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027795
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I was cumulatively very disturbed at church yesterday.
During the otherwise excellent liturgy on the vineyard, with minimal comment, the vicar had a powerpoint flash up on the screen saying that he had received a message from a missionary friend in Iraq in IS territory saying that IS were going to Christian homes and commanding all the children to convert to Islam. Those that did not they killed. None apostasized. All were killed. But none of their parents.
If that wasn't bad enough upon bad enough upon bad enough even as unattributed hearsay, what the missionary continued with was yet worse: basically what a great job the parents had done that their children were prepared to be martyred and that the missionary, although terrified, only hoped he could follow their example.
Any one else heard this?
If it's true, why isn't the BBC reporting it or any other source?
And assuming it's true, as these feckless demoniacally evil perverts (... go I) are quite capable of doing this, is the theology true? Does Jesus want us to absolutely passively sacrifice our children to Him? Intrusive thoughts in the former of my raving inner Tourette's says 'NO!' and more besides.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I never understood this thing about apostasy. If someone would put a gun to my head, I'd convert to whatever they want. The same for my hypothetical children.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I never understood this thing about apostasy. If someone would put a gun to my head, I'd convert to whatever they want. The same for my hypothetical children.
In the case of IS, as they claim to represent the only legitimate Islamic caliphate, conversion to Islam also means pledging allegiance to their group and its leader.
I would certainly rather die than be forced into conversion and presumably sold off as a sex slave or wife to one of these lunatics. You can be certain those are the only futures for these children - the boys will be brainwashed into committing acts of violence themselves.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: In the case of IS, as they claim to represent the only legitimate Islamic caliphate, conversion to Islam also means pledging allegiance to their group and its leader.
I would certainly rather die than be forced into conversion and presumably sold off as a sex slave or wife to one of these lunatics. You can be certain those are the only futures for these children - the boys will be brainwashed into committing acts of violence themselves.
Okay, the goalposts have moved a bit here. Being sold off as a sex slave is a different thing. I guess one has to decide for themselves if one prefers death over that. But with a gun to my head, I'd readily pledge allegiance to whomever they want.
And yes, I'd prefer my hypothetical children brainwashed and committing acts of violence rather than them being dead.
[ 06. October 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And, in that culture, what a grand and superb way to create enemies for yourself, for life. Even here in the first world -- you don't even have to kill my children. Threaten them with sufficient credibility, and I will work against you: quietly, legally, politely, but with unrelenting venom.
No, if you are going to kill all the children, you should axe the parents as well. And all their relatives. Probably just nuke the entire region. And at this point you can see why this is a strategy that cannot go on long.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I feel suspicious of this story. I would prefer to see it confirmed by a reputable news agency; it smacks too much of propaganda.
And yes, I would convert to Islam, with a gun to my head.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Okay, the goalposts have moved a bit here. Being sold off as a sex slave is a different thing. I guess one has to decide for themselves if one prefers death over that. But with a gun to my head, I'd readily pledge allegiance to whomever they want.
I didn't mean to move the goalposts, but the fact is that if someone is telling you to convert or face death with a gun to your head, it's unlikely whatever they are asking you to convert to is going to be the laid-back, open-minded version of that religion.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But the question is not only: would you convert with a gun to your head, or your child's head? The question implied is: were these people wrong not to do so?
Of course there may be question marks over the veracity of this particular story. But I bet something like this is happening somewhere. And I'm sure that something like this has happened somewhere, sometime, probably many times, with many religions and nationalities playing the different roles.
It seems bizarre for us to judge the victims here. I guess those early Christian martyrs were likewise misguided idiots, then.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: I didn't mean to move the goalposts, but the fact is that if someone is telling you to convert or face death with a gun to your head, it's unlikely whatever they are asking you to convert to is going to be the laid-back, open-minded version of that religion.
That is undoubtedly true. Still, for this discussion — which is fortunately a very theoretical exercise for us — it makes sense to separate the theological aspects of apostasy (which I take Martin's post to be about) from the practical consequences.
I've had a gun pointed at my head more often than I care for. It's a very disturbing experience; you never get used to it. What I do in this situation is: agree with whatever they want. I guess this is the reason why I'm sitting here right now, typing this post.
The same for my hypothetical children: my first objective would be to keep them alive. Maybe it's parental egoism, whatever. But that would be my priority. The rest comes later.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: The question implied is: were these people wrong not to do so?
Right or wrong, I'm not the one to judge that. The parents aren't responsible for the deaths of their children, the ones who killed them are. The only thing I'm saying is that I'd have acted differently.
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: I guess those early Christian martyrs were likewise misguided idiots, then.
Yes. I never understood the martyr veneration in some parts of the church. It's a big heap of baloney to me.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes. I never understood the martyr veneration in some parts of the church. It's a big heap of baloney to me.
You've never understood it, in a religion founded by a man who died for His beliefs? Incredible.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
I suspect that part of the reason for using these kinds of stories is to create and/or maintain obedience. It might be to the church or to a priest, vicar, pastor, etc. I my days in evo circles it was very common.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: You've never understood it, in a religion founded by a man who died for His beliefs? Incredible.
That wasn't about a choice to convert or die, it was more complicated than that.
When I was in my late teens, I was involved in some kind of Pentecostal house group. This had more to do with a certain brown-eyed girl in this group than with much enthousiasm for Pentecostalism from my side, but there you go.
I remember that they made a big deal of this kind of martyrdom. They often spoke about it: "If you were in the Colosseum and they'd force you to renounce Jesus or be thrown to the lions, what would you do?" They'd draw all kinds of conclusions from this about where your priorities would lie etc. And the martyrs who chose not to apostate were the really brave Christians.
I find this bullshit. It has more to do with the excitement of imagining ourselves being heroes in a situation we'll probably never face, than that it has any real theological value.
Once again, put a gun to my head and I'll convert to fucking Cthulhu.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I suspect that part of the reason for using these kinds of stories is to create and/or maintain obedience. It might be to the church or to a priest, vicar, pastor, etc. I my days in evo circles it was very common.
Yes, it has that kind of hysterical tinge to it, a kind of excitement over violence, which is quite weird.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I never understood this thing about apostasy. If someone would put a gun to my head, I'd convert to whatever they want. T
So would I!
They can't change what is in your heart.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That wasn't about a choice to convert or die, it was more complicated than that.
Sure, but a good part of it was "Toe the institutional religious line and stop all this 'King of the Jews' nonsense and this will all go away."
To address the theological points, we know from Peter that apostasy can be forgiven with repentance.
So what happens if at gun point you convert away from or renounce Christianity - and they kill you on the spot anyway? I haven't come across any strand of Christianity that wouldn't think you'd be in a bit of trouble on the other side as a result.
Or let's say you just say you're converting. But then they force you to do all sorts of sinful and evil things. Can you maintain a relationship with Christ under such circumstances?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Sure, but a good part of it was "Toe the institutional religious line and stop all this 'King of the Jews' nonsense and this will all go away."
He didn't call Himself 'King of the Jews'. To me, the choice Jesus was faced with was either die or abandon the people He cared for: the lepers, the widows, the powerless ... When other people are involved, the equation changes.
quote:
seekingsister: So what happens if at gun point you convert away from or renounce Christianity - and they kill you on the spot anyway? I haven't come across any strand of Christianity that wouldn't think you'd be in a bit of trouble on the other side as a result.
My strand of Christianity would be an example. If God is such that He'd give me trouble over this one, then this isn't a God I'd want to risk my life for.
quote:
seekingsister: Or let's say you just say you're converting. But then they force you to do all sorts of sinful and evil things. Can you maintain a relationship with Christ under such circumstances?
This is a harder question. It depends on what you mean by 'sinful' of course. If they force me to say all kinds of things about Jesus or participate in non-Christian rituals, I don't care about that.
But suppose they force me to kill someone. I don't pretend to know what I'd do in such a case. I like to believe that I'd prefer to die. But there's no way to be sure unless it really happens (and I hope it never will). This would certainly have an effect on my spirituality. But we've already moved away from the question of apostasy here.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
It seems to me that the verb "to convert" would require some clarification here. If I had a gun put to my head I might indeed testify loudly “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.” Or maybe not. However, while this may be the official act of becoming a Muslim, saying this does not necessarily indicate my interior conversion. For example, I just said this out loud in my office, on my own. I meant nothing by it, but for being curious how it actually sounded. I don't think that I have suddenly turned Muslim now, as if by magic.
Classical martyrdom is not really about whether you actually convert, in your heart, mind and spirt. It is about the question whether you can be forced to make a public sign of conversion, however false it may be. Basically, do you value your life more or less than showing your allegiance to your faith? Are you prepared to die not only for remaining in your faith, which nobody can stop you from doing, but also for making this visible to the world? Will you deny the Lord before others in fear of your life, like St Peter did at first, or will you be martyred for your unbending public loyalty, like St Peter did later on?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel suspicious of this story. I would prefer to see it confirmed by a reputable news agency; it smacks too much of propaganda.
And yes, I would convert to Islam, with a gun to my head.
Snopes deems it undetermined [Extremely graphic link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/isis .asp, delete space to make link work] (warning: disturbing images). It would have been better had the speaker framed the stories a bit to reflect that, but there seems to be enough possibility that it's worth raising as a point of prayer.
In terms of martyrdom, I think it's impossible to say what any of us would do under such circumstances. And even what is the "right" thing to do. But I do see the whole story, indeterminate as it may be, as a reminder to pray for the persecuted church-- as well as people around the world who are suffering war and violence in other ways.
[Link broken by host to make doubly sure nobody clicks on it inadvertently]
[ 06. October 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is like the shotgun wedding. Are vows, taken with a gun to your head, valid? Surely any clergyman would refuse to preside over a ceremony with the bride held at gunpoint.
It is not very difficult to believe that God is at least as smart as that.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I suspect that part of the reason for using these kinds of stories is to create and/or maintain obedience. It might be to the church or to a priest, vicar, pastor, etc. I my days in evo circles it was very common.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Sorry - how did that happen - 2 gins with pink tonic probably
What I MEANT to say was ...
With all due respect He was not a mother nor even a parent. And THAT is all the difference.
Signed, Mother of Three
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Galilit: With all due respect He was not a mother nor even a parent. And THAT is all the difference.
I agree. And it makes for an interesting hypothetical situation.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
Like many others here, I'd pledge allegiance to any wacko deity a nut with a gun cared to name, and keep up the pretense until I could get the drop on 'em or escape.
But then, I've always thought that Simon Peter did nothing wrong in the gospel story. No innocents were harmed by his actions. Getting himself martyred would've achieved nothing.
Give my situation ethics and pragmatism over noble yet futile gestures, any day.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Byron: But then, I've always thought that Simon Peter did nothing wrong in the gospel story. No innocents were harmed by his actions. Getting himself martyred would've achieved nothing.
Interesting, I hadn't thought of this. Yes, I agree.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Bunch of random thoughts here. Also, y'all need someone to shoot at, so I'm offering myself up as a target. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
1. I really, really hope this is a bullshit propaganda story, because I don't want to think anybody including ISIS would be so evil. Though I know such things have happened. But hopefully not now.
2. If it IS bullshit, some liar has some serious repenting to do.
3. What would I do? God only knows. The only time I had a knife pulled on me with a "renounce Christ" demand, it was by a rather wacko friend and I couldn't really take seriously that he would knife me in front of City Hall. So my reaction then (which was basically to say "no" and gibber) is worth crap all.
4. I hope I WOULD refuse. I hope my son would refuse.
5. I would never look down on anybody that did convert under such pressure.
6. Now, why 4? because along with most of the world, I suspect, I don't believe you can make a clean separation between what you really believe in your heart and what you say or do on the outside. To a certain extent, maybe, particularly under duress. But there is a reason why terrorists try to force conversions or denunciations, and that is because it creates a mental/spiritual break in the person thus forced. It does real damage.
I'm guessing a lot of you won't agree with me. I live in a culture where at least half the people I work with see nothing wrong about oath-breaking, after all--to them, you do the expedient thing, and if that means breaking your word or signing your name to a lie, you do it. And if you tell them you CAN'T do it, they look at you all squiggle-eyed. "It's only a piece of paper," they say. And I don't know how to communicate to them that it's not "only a piece of paper," it's my name, it's my freaking self.
Historically most human cultures have considered oath-breaking, loyalty-breaking, to be one of the worst of sins. And that was judged not on inner convictions but on outer witnessed actions. Apostasy is at the very least a case of loyalty breaking, and for many of us a case of oath-breaking as well (baptismal vows, anyone? confirmation?)
Right now I'm raising a 13 year old, and I have to choose which culture to follow. Should I follow my old boss's culture ("It's only words," he says. "Everybody plays the game. Just sign your name, it doesn't mean anything.") or the historic majority view, where being foresworn IS a freakin' big deal, and to let down a friend (let alone a lord) is definitely to do something wrong?
I'm raising him in the old style. Don't say it if you don't intend to do it. Don't sign it if you don't agree with it. And if you do break under pressure, seek forgiveness and healing immediately. Because it matters, and the damage done to the self is real damage, regardless of whether someone else forced you to it or not.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: I live in a culture where at least half the people I work with see nothing wrong about oath-breaking, after all
I respect that. But I wonder what an 'oath' is worth if it's made with a knife at your throat.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was cumulatively very disturbed at church yesterday.
During the otherwise excellent liturgy on the vineyard, with minimal comment, the vicar had a powerpoint flash up on the screen saying that he had received a message from a missionary friend in Iraq in IS territory saying that IS were going to Christian homes and commanding all the children to convert to Islam. Those that did not they killed. None apostasized. All were killed. But none of their parents.
If that wasn't bad enough upon bad enough upon bad enough even as unattributed hearsay, what the missionary continued with was yet worse: basically what a great job the parents had done that their children were prepared to be martyred and that the missionary, although terrified, only hoped he could follow their example.
Any one else heard this?
If it's true, why isn't the BBC reporting it or any other source?
And assuming it's true, as these feckless demoniacally evil perverts (... go I) are quite capable of doing this, is the theology true? Does Jesus want us to absolutely passively sacrifice our children to Him? Intrusive thoughts in the former of my raving inner Tourette's says 'NO!' and more besides.
Our meeting for worship sent it out as an urgent prayer request, then retracted it because: they made contact with American Quaker missionaries (who they know irl) who had spoken with refugees from Qaraquosh at Ankawa, and also with the Chaldean bishop of Mosul, who had religious oversight of Qaraquosh. They said this event definitely did not happen. It is also not true that the UN evacuated its staff from Erbil at the time (which was in the message circulated to us.).
Basically, its not being covered by the BBC because its bollocks, evil, designed to worsen an already atrocious situation.
[ 06. October 2014, 18:53: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: I live in a culture where at least half the people I work with see nothing wrong about oath-breaking, after all
I respect that. But I wonder what an 'oath' is worth if it's made with a knife at your throat.
Didn't mean that. I was referring to the previous oath (baptismal vows etc) that would be getting damaged. Not irreparably, but still.
[ 06. October 2014, 18:55: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: Didn't mean that. I was referring to the previous oath (baptismal vows etc) that would be getting damaged. Not irreparably, but still.
I guess we have a difference of views about the validity of words that are said with a knife at your throat. To me, these words have no validity at all. I agree that a person should be truthful and stick to his/her word. But a condition for this is that these words are spoken in freedom. Whatever I say under force is just pretense. Hence, in my view the baptismal vows (or in my case the vows of my Public Confession) aren't damaged at all.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I think praising them for their martyrdom is easy to do when living in the UK in 2014. We have no idea.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Certainly. That's what point 1 and 2 were about in my first post.
It's just that no matter how bogus the kickoff event for a thread is, you can't get Shippies to shut up. Like me. Sorry!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
I immediately suspected it. I have heard tons of stuff like this over the years, often involving horrific violence, and rather hysterically or melodramatically phrased, and couched in a sort of martyred way. Usually bullshit, and quite tacky.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
I think it happened.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
I think it happened.
Did you read the evidence I cited ?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
Give it time. It probably just hasn't occurred to ISIS yet. It will I'm sure.
Then we can all get some nice RAF planes to drop a few more useless bombs and when people point out they are useless we can start bleating about possible 'mission creep'.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Thanks Doublethink. They've done worse before. So did Musharraf. But that's not the point. It's the armchair revelling in martyrdom, Munchhausen's by proxy style. That this is what Jesus would be offended by if we DIDN'T.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
I think it happened.
Did you read the evidence I cited ?
To be fair, what we have on both sides at this point is anecdotal. I think my Snopes link above comes closer when it simply says "undetermined." At this point we don't know.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I never understood this thing about apostasy. If someone would put a gun to my head, I'd convert to whatever they want. The same for my hypothetical children.
I'm with Seeking Sister on this one. I would encourage my daughters to refuse to convert , better dead than the sex/domestic slave of some thug.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Evangeline: I'm with Seeking Sister on this one. I would encourage my daughters to refuse to convert , better dead than the sex/domestic slave of some thug.
Interesting, the different views of this. I'm also thinking about the times of slavery, either in the US or here in Brazil. Slaves had children. I'm not sure if many of them killed them to spare them their fate. I guess some of them have, I don't know. But many didn't. (I'm not making some kind of judgement here at the moment.)
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Children born of rape is a very tricky one.
Ask the women of Pakistan, or what used to be Yugoslavia, or anywhere (or any-when) there has been a war and men/soldiers.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Interesting, the different views of this. I'm also thinking about the times of slavery, either in the US or here in Brazil. Slaves had children. I'm not sure if many of them killed them to spare them their fate. I guess some of them have, I don't know. But many didn't. (I'm not making some kind of judgement here at the moment.)
Killing your own children is a huge leap from thinking that if your children faced a death or conversion-to-a-crazy-violent-sect choice, that death would be a preferable outcome.
These stories of young Yazidi women kidnapped by ISIS show what happens in such a situation. When they refused to convert, ISIS tried to starve the baby by not bringing milk. When they did "convert", they got selected off to be wives/concubines to local men, who beat and starved them.
In their own words
quote:
“We would try to make ourselves look ugly. Some women would cry or scream or fight, but it made no difference. They were always taken anyway,” Sara said. “One girl hung herself. Another tried, but the ISIS guards stopped her and beat her very badly. No one else tried after that.”
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I never understood this thing about apostasy. If someone would put a gun to my head, I'd convert to whatever they want. T
So would I!
They can't change what is in your heart.
Sure they can, if they can be bothered. I find 1984 (not my favourite book) convincing on this.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
ISIS will burn itself out (in a lot of blood) unless it is sponsored by people on other countries - Saudi etc - to advance various political goals.
Pol Pot was allowed to recycle plastic shopping bags, and Gods Army in Uganda was allowed to kidnap and train child soldiers for decades with very little international effort beyond hand wringing and no military intervention.
The main differences here are that it's closer to home and there is oil and everyone is worried about middle eastern stability. Meanwhile, ISIS is achieving one of its primary goals in that the US and UK are seen to be interventionist (but ineffective and cowardly) in the middle east.
I sometimes wonder if arms dealers deliberately pour a little more petrol on the flames in the middle east just to keep up a steady trade. And how much the cold war (or something similar) is still being fought by proxy. The whole iran-iraq-afghanistan business can be traced back to empire biilding, oil and cold war politics. Has anything changed?
takes off cynical hat, carries on with the day
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To be fair, what we have on both sides at this point is anecdotal.
I'm more inclined to believe claims made by people who are actually in the areas concerned, especially where no reputable news sources have mentioned it at all.
My greatest interest is in why people are so determined to believe that shit like this is happening. Is it the vicarious pride of hearing that some other Christians are so dedicated to their faith that they'd rather die than renounce it? Is it the extra validation such claims give to their "muslims are evil monsters" prejudice? Is it the fact that having a set of evil monsters as external enemies creates far greater group cohesion within their communities, even if said monsters aren't real? Is it the fact that the sort of visceral hatred engendered by stories and images such as these stimulates the same parts of the brain as cocaine, giving the hater what could be described as a "high"?
Is it a combination of all of the above?
For the leaders who are making these claims, it's easier to understand - they can preach about how brave these martyrs are, and how their flocks should take inspiration from them and never ever question or doubt their teachings no matter what challenges come. I can almost hear the "if you change your mind on [insert controversial teaching here] then you're betraying their noble sacrifice" sermon already...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good post, Marvin. I see a lot of having cake and eating it here - that is one gets to relish a lurid story of gore and horror, while at the same time, condemning it. It's almost salacious.
I suppose there's also projection - the darkness is over there.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
yes - that is a good point
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So what happens if at gun point you convert away from or renounce Christianity - and they kill you on the spot anyway? I haven't come across any strand of Christianity that wouldn't think you'd be in a bit of trouble on the other side as a result.
I don't think God is that nasty.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Killing your own children is a huge leap from thinking that if your children faced a death or conversion-to-a-crazy-violent-sect choice, that death would be a preferable outcome.
Maybe you're right. Yeah, I guess there's a difference between killing your children and allowing others to kill them. Although when push comes to shove, this difference may not be that big in practice.
Like I said, my priority in any case would be to keep my children alive. Once again, I'm not making a moral judgement here, just commenting that I find it interesting that such a difference exists.
If anything, historically your position seems to be the minority one. Throughout history there have been myriads of people who have seen their children grow up in brutal slavery. Allowing their children to die doesn't seem to have been the preferential option for them.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: My greatest interest is in why people are so determined to believe that shit like this is happening.
Fred Clark (the Slacktivist) did a series of posts on what he calls 'martyr envy'. The search function on his blog isn't very good, but I found this post. He seems to have two explanations for it:- Being a premillennial Evangelical Christian can be rather boring. You basically just sit there, in most situations rather comfortably, waiting for Jesus to return and bring on the rapture. Imagining yourself as a martyr gives a feeling of excitement.
- Thinking about what you would do in a situation where faced with such a choice makes you look like kind of a hero. Even if it's only an imaginary situation, this can give quite a big ego boost.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Like I said, my priority in any case would be to keep my children alive. Once again, I'm not making a moral judgement here, just commenting that I find it interesting that such a difference exists.
In the abstract this makes sense. In specific situations, less so. Those Yazidi girls I quoted a few posts above thought death preferable to the life of rape and abuse they were being forced into, to the point that their ISIS captors had to use violence to PREVENT them from killing themselves.
There are many types of "life" simply not worth living, and one that follows a violent forced conversion is likely in my opinion to fall into that category.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Those Yazidi girls I quoted a few posts above thought death preferable to the life of rape and abuse they were being forced into, to the point that their ISIS captors had to use violence to PREVENT them from killing themselves.
I do think it makes a difference whether the person in question is yourself or one of your children. I might choose to die myself if I were in such a situation. But I'd still prefer my children to live. Maybe this isn't logical, but parental instinct can be pretty strong.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
As IngoB has wisely said, I don't think the point is that one is oath-breaking, or that you have genuinely changed religion. Issues of genuine consent, gunpoint weddings etc, IMHO thats not the point. The point is that you would be publically denying Jesus out of fear.
Personally, I think the story of Peter makes what we should be doing very very clear. When Peter denied Jesus, he obviously didn't do so in his heart. And he went on to have a great life. But he still sinned (greatly) by doing so. It is the low point. "Jesus looked directly at him, and he went out and wept" etc. And later on, he does go on to stand up and declare Jesus and die, even though he could have doubtless carried on doing good works if he hadn't. As did Paul, etc.
And by the way we know that Peter had a wife so even the "staying alive to look after the family" argument is apparently not acceptable.
We are not expected to rationalise, to say things like "If I lie, cross my fingers, I can keep living and do good things". From the Gospel, that is clearly not what Jesus wants (even though he is obviously very merciful to people who do deny him).
In this situation, according to the archtypal story of Peter, we are expected to declare Jesus, and die for it.
By the way, I am aware that if I was in this situation, I might piss myself and agree to anything. A question of should rather than will.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
LeRoc wrote:
Fred Clark (the Slacktivist) did a series of posts on what he calls 'martyr envy'. The search function on his blog isn't very good, but I found this post. He seems to have two explanations for it:
Being a premillennial Evangelical Christian can be rather boring. You basically just sit there, in most situations rather comfortably, waiting for Jesus to return and bring on the rapture. Imagining yourself as a martyr gives a feeling of excitement.
Thinking about what you would do in a situation where faced with such a choice makes you look like kind of a hero. Even if it's only an imaginary situation, this can give quite a big ego boost.
Fred has a pretty good nose for this kind thing. Maybe not just martyr envy, but martyr porn, and terror porn. I suppose it is exciting for some people, and invites identification with the heroic martyr.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone care that event in the OP didn't happen ?
How do we know it didn't happen?
(And yes, if it didn't happen, then of course I would care. I don't appreciate being misled by horror stories.)
I realise that stories like this are very difficult to substantiate. To put it mildly. But just because the BBC and other media aren't reporting something ... doesn't mean it's not happening.
Back in the 1930s people refused to believe what was happening to the Jews too. It was too awful. It is extremely difficult to believe that humans really can do such horrible things. But they do. They have. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
If any of you have ever read up on the 1937-8 massacre in Nanking, with horrible atrocities committed against women and children, it makes for very difficult reading, just because it's so incredibly horrible. And, again, at a distance of many decades, somewhat difficult to verify. But there is testimony out there. Easy to Google.
You see the problem here. But any atrocity is difficult to believe, isn't it? Millions of children were murdered in the Holocaust, along with their families. There were the horrendous gang rapes of the Balkan Wars in the early '90s. The Rwandan genocide of 20 years ago. Why is it so hard to believe that IS really could be capable of doing this, of murdering children in cold blood? I think they ARE capable of it, to be honest. And if that's the case, then all our horror and revulsion should be directed at THEM, not at the parents given such an appalling choice. Assuming it would be a choice, which I also doubt.
As for this 'martyr porn' y'all are talking about, I've been in con-evo circles for decades and I think it's rare. Most Christians I know have the same reaction to me to the prospect of being tortured/murdered for our faith. Which is this: "Yeah, I know exactly how long I'd last under torture. Five minutes, probably." ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Maybe not just martyr envy, but martyr porn
Some of Fred's commenters coined the term 'martyrbation', which I find rather good.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
In this situation, according to the archtypal story of Peter, we are expected to declare Jesus, and die for it.
You are joking aren't you?
There is nothing in this story which tells me I can't lie and live!
I would be more than happy to lie to nutters and crazies to get out of an impossible situation, then live and do some good in the world.
What use on Earth are a load of dead folk and smiling psychopaths?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Maybe not just martyr envy, but martyr porn
Some of Fred's commenters coined the term 'martyrbation', which I find rather good.
I think there is a minor literature on the links between pain and sexuality in Christian art, for example, the various paintings of St Sebastian. In some of them, he's quite a hunk.
Also, some fine examples in the poetry of Richard Crashaw, such voluptuous pain.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To be fair, what we have on both sides at this point is anecdotal.
I'm more inclined to believe claims made by people who are actually in the areas concerned, especially where no reputable news sources have mentioned it at all.
The anecdotal reports we're hearing-- both pro and con the story-- are both supposedly coming from people in the area. If you'll read the Snopes link, some news sources have mentioned it. But the sourcing is sketchy, so again, at this point the most reputable news agencies are calling it "unconfirmed". I think that's the best approach to take at this point. As others have noted, we don't want to be the ones who are looking the other way (as we have done in the past) while horrific atrocities occur. otoh, we don't want to pour gasoline on the fire or be part of a lynch mob by chasing false rumors. This is a time to be careful and responsible in what we say and how we say it. And it is a time to pray.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Who is the missionary? What is his phone number? Where was he? When?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who is the missionary? What is his phone number? Where was he? When?
I'm unclear who you are asking. Or is the question rhetorical?
Be aware that most missionaries working in Iraq don't give out phone numbers. I receive an email update from a missionary working in the middle east which begins with the stern admonition not to forward the email.
All of which, again, neither confirms nor denies the allegations. Which is exactly where we are right now.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No we're not cliffdweller. Even if it's true, which it isn't, it's a lie.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No we're not cliffdweller. Even if it's true, which it isn't, it's a lie.
You don't know that. What proof do you have? Why are you so dogmatic, so certain, that it's nothing more than a lie?
Like I said earlier: people who sneaked out stories of historical atrocities were sometimes treated as non-credible sources. Not everything can always be verified. Unfortunately. Just like the Internet, Twitter, etc. can be deeply unreliable sources.
Canon Andrew White, the Vicar of Baghdad, has also reported similar atrocities committed by IS against children. Again, we only have his word for it - it's what his friends in Iraq told him, and he was reporting back. In tears. But he is someone of substance, with knowledge and experience of that area (and he talks to terrorists as well as Muslim clerics). He certainly has a better idea of what's happening out there right now than me. (And, IMO, you.)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No we're not cliffdweller. Even if it's true, which it isn't, it's a lie.
You don't know that. What proof do you have? Why are you so dogmatic, so certain, that it's nothing more than a lie?
Like I said earlier: people who sneaked out stories of historical atrocities were sometimes treated as non-credible sources.
The problem in this case is that every bit of pictorial evidence that has been advanced along with such claims has been proven to be from some other situation entirely.
There are journalists from various news agencies still operating in the area - and whilst they have filed reports on the hangings, beheadings, etc. They haven't reported at all on the particular sectarian crimes that parts of the Christian press have been reporting.
This quotation springs to mind:
"Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
chris stiles: This quotation springs to mind:
"Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils."
It also reminds me a bit of what Fred Clark calls "good Jackie / bad Jackie".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
This article is somewhat pertinent to the discussion as well.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's a great quote from 'Pulp Fiction', where Travolta says of his vandalized car, '"Boy, I wish I could've caught him doing it. I'd have given anything to catch that asshole doing it. It'd been worth him doing it, just so I could've caught him doing it."
In other words, I wish the awful story is true, then I get to have my rush of energy and excitment, and revenge feelings, and also feel virtuous.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
Another contribution to the discussion on whether or not the story is true.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Drifting Star: Another contribution to the discussion on whether or not the story is true.
This is an Anglican vicar? I personally know a number of Anglican clergy in the Middle East. He doesn't sound anything like them.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
The article says "White, 50, is an Anglican vicar from London and president of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, an aid and advocacy group that works for peace between different religious groups in the Middle East."
He is a former Canon of Coventry Cathedral. This is him. (Wikipedia link)
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Andrew White is often interviewed on the BBC.
Sometimes the monstrous things are only in our heads and sometimes they're real. I wish many recorded atrocities weren't real, and hadn't happened, and I would be immensely relieved to know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that IS really aren't beheading children. The doubt, however, remains.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Drifting Star: He is a former Canon of Coventry Cathedral. This is him. (Wikipedia link)
Thank you, I've found him. I'm not so much commenting on what he says about the possibly beheaded children. It's that what he says in the artcle doesn't sound very reconciliatory. I know, we probably shouldn't reconciliate with ISIS, but he says general stuff about Muslims and Sunni's too that are rather fanning the flames instead of trying to put them out. Maybe my stereotypes are showing here, but what he says doesn't sound very Anglican.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
He's a well known member of the Anglican clergy. He's also been out in Iraq for absolutely ages and has the respect of all so called 'sides out there.
At times such as these stories fly around.
Who knows if they are true? All that we Do known is that the people who are living through these day deserve nothing more than our prayers.
We can't even begin to imagine what it is like for them.
God knows
And no doubt in the fullness of time we Might know some stuff, until then...enough that we pray.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
White I believe. Which makes it truer. From untrue that's progress. Both accounts are causally connected: there's no such thing as coincidence. But the truth is diminished, distorted by the lie.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I hope I WOULD refuse. I hope my son would refuse.
Amen. Me too.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What, you hope you'd passively watch as they murdered your five year old?
Why?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Are some people saying that they'd rather see their children slaughtered than become Muslim? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Utterly baffling, if that is the case.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's how I'm reading a surprising number of people here and the 'missionary' who sent the text in the first place that Doublethink and I picked up on and that Andrew White DOES seem to confirm; both the insane account and that it's what Jesus wants.
Here on my comfy English village sofa, where our yew trees block my view of the church, I'd love to die an heroic Christian death, blessing my persecutors with 'Father forgive ...', but THAT part of the equation is missing in all of this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Martin - I would love to die a peaceful cowardly death. But there you are, we are lived by the great liver, so cut down on the Scotch.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sorry mate, I was stone cold sober. What is it about a culture that it is willing to sacrifice its children for Jesus and live? Yet wants military intervention on its behalf?
That's WJWD?
That's emulating Jesus?
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sorry mate, I was stone cold sober. What is it about a culture that it is willing to sacrifice its children for Jesus and live? Yet wants military intervention on its behalf?
That's WJWD?
That's emulating Jesus?
Wow.
So someone comes to forcibly convert you. You won't do it, so they kill your children. You wish that someone powerful from outside would come and help you.
Conclusion - apparently - you are one sick bunny, from a sick culture! How dare you wish for someone to help you! Why couldn't you just have converted, like the nice gentlemen wanted you to?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: So someone comes to forcibly convert you. You won't do it, so they kill your children. You wish that someone powerful from outside would come and help you.
Conclusion - apparently - you are one sick bunny, from a sick culture! How dare you wish for someone to help you! Why couldn't you just have converted, like the nice gentlemen wanted you to?
Are you being sarcastic here? I really don't get it.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Martin implies that there must be something wrong with a culture in which people refuse to convert under threat of death to their families, yet also desire military intervention on their behalf.
As I said before I find this "blame the victim" stance bizarre.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: Martin implies that there must be something wrong with a culture in which people refuse to convert under threat of death to their families
I say there is something wrong with a culture in which people refuse to convert under threat of death to their children, period.
They're your children for crying out loud. Keeping them alive should be a parents' priority.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In fact, that sounds like a mirror image of Islamism - refusing to let your children convert, I mean. It's a kind of absolutism.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I can understand that most of us would try to save our children. I think I most likely would too. But I can't understand this condemnation of those who think sticking by their faith is even more important.
In fact - to reverse Martin's argument - shouldn't a pacifist be able to sympathise with them? If the only way to save your children were to kill their attackers, as a pacifist one should refuse to do so, surely? And would you condemn such a pacifist for sticking to their principles?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I can understand that most of us would try to save our children. I think I most likely would too. But I can't understand this condemnation of those who think sticking by their faith is even more important.
In fact - to reverse Martin's argument - shouldn't a pacifist be able to sympathise with them? If the only way to save your children were to kill their attackers, as a pacifist one should refuse to do so, surely? And would you condemn such a pacifist for sticking to their principles?
I have become wary of people who put their faith above everything else, especially human life. Of course, it's all too human, yet also anti-human.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: But I can't understand this condemnation of those who think sticking by their faith is even more important.
They made a decision. They knew that as a consequence of this decision, their children would die. Yet they allowed this to happen.
If sticking to your faith is more important than the lives of your children, then this faith is monstrous.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The Middle East is being wrecked by people who think that their faith is paramount. Well, they appear to think that, perhaps this is a cover for something else.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Not a sausage of sympathy?
You seem to have hardened your previous "right or wrong, I'm not one to judge that" considerably.
Perhaps they should have converted long ago. Then things would never have come to this pass in the first place.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: Not a sausage of sympathy?
I have. They live in a difficult situation and they had to make a decision under very tough circumstances. They deserve our support.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: You seem to have hardened your previous "right or wrong, I'm not one to judge that" considerably.
This is because you've changed the discussion.
Previously, this thread was about parents who would advice their children on whether they'd publicly abandon their faith or die. You've made the discussion about whether the parents would publicly abandon their faith or their children would die. That's a different moral beast.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: Not a sausage of sympathy?
I have. They live in a difficult situation and they had to make a decision under very tough circumstances. They deserve our support.
Fair enough. Thank you. You are right in your second post - the situations are indeed different.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, you hope you'd passively watch as they murdered your five year old?
Why?
Um... I was saying "me too" to "I hope I WOULD refuse. I hope my son would refuse."
That's not passively watching. That's hoping that I, and any hypothetical children I might have, would stand together against someone trying to force us to deny Christ.
And who says that that would need to be passive, rather than dying in the attempt to save the children and others? For that matter who says one could not be trying (failing or otherwise, but at least going down fighting) to escape? There are worse ways to die.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ChastMastr: For that matter who says one could not be trying (failing or otherwise, but at least going down fighting) to escape? There are worse ways to die.
Oh, I would definitely try to escape. But part of my escape plan would be saying I convert into whatever he wants to the one who's got his gun pointed at me.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Oh, I would definitely try to escape. But part of my escape plan would be saying I convert into whatever he wants to the one who's got his gun pointed at me.
Ah. Yeah, I don't believe I am allowed to do that. I don't believe we were supposed to do that in ancient Rome, and I don't believe it now. Heck, the early Church had to decide whether to let people back in who were being threatened not just with a quick death but some of the most excruciating deaths by torture the human race had devised up to that time. Wasn't that what the whole debate with the Donatists was about? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ChastMastr: Ah. Yeah, I don't believe I am allowed to do that.
Publicly denying Jesus I mean? I don't understand why you make such a fuss about that. If Jesus is such that He will punish us for publicly denying him to save our lives, then He's not worth affirming.
Worse when it comes to our children. Suppose someone threatens to kill my child unless I publicly deny Jesus. And suppose for a moment that I will go to Hell if I publicly deny him. I don't believe that bullshit, but for argument's sake.
I'd go to Hell to save the life of my child.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Publicly denying Jesus I mean? I don't understand why you make such a fuss about that.
Um... you don't?? Because in the Gospels Jesus specifically tells us not to?
quote:
If Jesus is such that He will punish us for publicly denying him to save our lives, then He's not worth affirming.
And indeed the Donatist position, that one could not be forgiven or let back into the faith after denying Him, was determined to be a heresy. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to forgive. Jesus forgave Peter. But, again, there was something to forgive.
Good Lord, if lying in general is a sin, how much more so is lying about one of the things we've been specifically told in Jesus' own words to uphold and tell the truth about?
quote:
Worse when it comes to our children. Suppose someone threatens to kill my child unless I publicly deny Jesus. And suppose for a moment that I will go to Hell if I publicly deny him. I don't believe that bullshit, but for argument's sake.
I'd go to Hell to save the life of my child.
I understand the notion, and it underscores the sheer evil of the people trying to use things like that to force people to deny their faith. But I don't believe we're allowed to do that. Not for anything or anyone on this Earth. And I would not want my offspring or anyone else to do that to save me, either.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ChastMastr: Because in the Gospels Jesus specifically tells us not to?
Don't literally believe everything the Gospels tell us.
quote:
ChastMastr: And indeed the Donatist position, that one could not be forgiven or let back into the faith after denying Him, was determined to be a heresy.
I go further than that. I don't believe there's anything to be forgiven.
quote:
ChastMastr: But I don't believe we're allowed to do that. Not for anything or anyone on this Earth. And I would not want my offspring or anyone else to do that to save me, either.
Let me be more clear here. I don't care if we're allowed to do this or not. If Jesus doesn't allow us to publicly deny Him to save the lives of our children, then He's the one sinning here. In this case, He is monster that deserves to be fought with everything we have in us.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I... guess we'll just have to disagree.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Jesus specifically tells us, you and me, the poor Christians of Iraq and their young children to do what in the good newses?
And the poor, poor Christians in a vile civil war are not paradoxically being passive in the face of their children being butchered in front of them AND demanding military action, it's a Roman Catholic bishop demanding the latter I believe. Is this like Paul demanding his rights as a Roman citizen?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Publicly denying Jesus I mean? I don't understand why you make such a fuss about that. If Jesus is such that He will punish us for publicly denying him to save our lives, then He's not worth affirming.
"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it."
Who are these words attributed to?
[ 13. October 2014, 08:13: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ChastMastr: I... guess we'll just have to disagree.
I hope (and trust) you'll never be in the situation to find out.
quote:
seekingsister: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it."
Who are these words attributed to?
Firstly, I don't care who they are attributed to. I don't read the Bible like this. Even if Jesus did say this, I wouldn't obey Him blindly. Secondly, I don't think this is about publicly denying Him. Thirdly, this is about giving up our life, not the one of our children.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
LeRoc you are more than entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is, frankly.
The documents which claim to have recorded Jesus' words (that is, the Gospels) have many statements which directly contradict your position, which seems to be that it's A-OK with God if you deny your faith in His son in order to avoid death or pain. I believe in a forgiving and understanding God who I would hope has mercy on people who in times of serious distress make mistakes. Nonetheless traditional Christian teaching has always been that it is a serious mistake to deny faith in Christ for any reason.
I don't see how the fact that it's to save children is relevant as the OP (if that story is even true) was about the children choosing to die rather than to convert. Not the parents choosing for them.
[ 13. October 2014, 10:05: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The thread has drifted away a bit from the OP, that's what threads on the Ship normally do. The question it has moved to is this:
Suppose someone puts a gun to your child's head and says to you: "Deny Jesus or your child dies." What would you do?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The thread has drifted away a bit from the OP, that's what threads on the Ship normally do. The question it has moved to is this:
Suppose someone puts a gun to your child's head and says to you: "Deny Jesus or your child dies." What would you do?
Call me cynical but that sounds like a bad faith promise. Why would the person with a gun to my child's head not wait for me to deny Jesus and then kill the child anyway? That is not a sane or rational person you are dealing with.
I'd rather not deny Jesus in such a circumstance because death would be an almost inevitable outcome in that situation - with a gun-wielding anti-Christian lunatic somehow in control over me and my family. But of course this is what I say I'd like to do. In the moment who knows.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: I'd rather not deny Jesus in such a circumstance because death would be an almost inevitable outcome in that situation - with a gun-wielding anti-Christian lunatic somehow in control over me and my family.
You're weaseling out of it.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I'm not weaselling out of anything.
It's at best naïve to come up with a scenario in which someone will kill you unless you deny Christ, but then after the denial will set you free and/or sustain you in some sort of enjoyable life afterwards.
If you trust the promise of a gun-wielding maniac more than the promises of God in regards to staying faithful to Him, then it's not much of a faith to begin with.
[ 13. October 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Sigh. These are the kind of moral dilemmas where you just have to go with the premise. Suppose you have some way of being sure that your child will live if you deny Jesus.
quote:
seekingsister: If you trust the promise of a gun-wielding maniac more than the promises of God in regards to staying faithful to Him, then it's not much of a faith to begin with.
Even if I wouldn't trust this maniac, I would still deny Jesus.
Denying Jesus: There is a chance that my child will live. Even if the gunman does shoot him, it won't be because of my decision.
Not denying Jesus: My child will surely die. And it would be because of my decision.
I wouldn't hesitate about my decision.
(BTW, the promise of God is just the pie in the sky here.)
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sigh. These are the kind of moral dilemmas where you just have to go with the premise. Suppose you have some way of being sure that your child will live if you deny Jesus.
Ideally - I'd not deny Jesus and pray for a miracle.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Ideally - I'd not deny Jesus and pray for a miracle.
You'd bet the life of your child on a miracle?
BTW I don't believe that this is what you'd really do if push came to shove.
[ 13. October 2014, 11:29: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
BTW I don't believe that this is what you'd really do if push came to shove.
There are plenty of people whose faith in God is so unshakeable that they would indeed refuse to deny Him even if it cost the lives of their entire family. If they are 100% sure that their family will immediately be reunited in heaven then it's not as difficult a decision for them as it would be for you or I.
I think it's a tad on the harsh side (to say the least) to deny someone their claim to be in that group based on nothing more than how hard you find it to understand. And I say that as one who finds it very hard indeed to comprehend such a level of faith.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose Islamist suicide bombers illustrate this kind of faith; well, that's if we take their state of mind as read. Possibly, it is more complicated than that, they might be feeling shame about failure, peer pressure, and so on. None the less, it it seems to be a faith-driven activity.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: I think it's a tad on the harsh side (to say the least) to deny someone their claim to be in that group based on nothing more than how hard you find it to understand. And I say that as one who finds it very hard indeed to comprehend such a level of faith.
I'm not denying their claim. They may be sincere in their belief that they would do this. They'll most probably never be in a situation where this is going to be put to the test.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: Ideally - I'd not deny Jesus and pray for a miracle.
You'd bet the life of your child on a miracle?
BTW I don't believe that this is what you'd really do if push came to shove.
I said ideally that's what I'd do. Unless it ever happens, neither of us will know the real answer, will we?
That you find it hard to believe - your choice. Remember a brave woman in South Sudan just a few months ago was on death row and gave birth to her daughter in shackles because she refused to renounce her Christian faith and her marriage to a Christian man. Her 20 month old son was also detained. And it was the testimony of her faith that got people around the world signing petitions to save her and her family is now reunited.
So - she had two of her children in prison with her as a result of her refusal to renounce Christianity. I know it's not death, but do you think this woman is crazy? That what she did was wrong?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Remember a brave woman in South Sudan just a few months ago was on death row and gave birth to her daughter in shackles because she refused to renounce her Christian faith and her marriage to a Christian man. Her 20 month old son was also detained. And it was the testimony of her faith that got people around the world signing petitions to save her and her family is now reunited.
No-one put a gun to the head to her son and ordered her to renounce her Christian faith. Renouncing her faith wouldn't have helped her, because from her detainers' point of view she was already an apostate.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No-one put a gun to the head to her son and ordered her to renounce her Christian faith. Renouncing her faith wouldn't have helped her, because from her detainers' point of view she was already an apostate.
quote:
Giving her first interview since she was released last month, she told Fox News she was given three days to renounce her faith by the Sudanese authorities, and when she refused to was sentenced to hang.
In prison, she said she was visited every day by imams, who recited parts of the Koran to her in an attempt to pressure her into renouncing her religion.
She only got the death penalty after she refused to convert.
It's not a far leap from "gun to my child's head" to "imprisoned with my children and facing death penalty."
Anyway it would help me to understand your position - given that she endangered her children's lives quite seriously by refusing to convert to Islam, do you find her actions wrong?
The Telegraph
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: She only got the death penalty after she refused to convert.
But not her child. Was she still pregnant when they threatened to hang her if she didn't renounce her faith? In that case I'd say that yes, she was irresponsible by putting her child at risk.
Maybe there is something to be said for risking your life for your faith. But risking your child's life is another thing.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But not her child. Was she still pregnant when they threatened to hang her if she didn't renounce her faith? In that case I'd say that yes, she was irresponsible by putting her child at risk.
Maybe there is something to be said for risking your life for your faith. But risking your child's life is another thing.
She was pregnant when they gave her the death penalty. In their "mercy" they delayed the sentence until after she gave birth to her daughter - which she did in shackles. Her 20 month old son was also detained with her in prison. So there were two children involved.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you trust the promise of a gun-wielding maniac more than the promises of God in regards to staying faithful to Him, then it's not much of a faith to begin with.
The thing is that denying Jesus in these circumstances isn't denying Jesus at all.
I can remain faithful to Jesus and renounce my faith to a nutter - what I say to a nutter to save my children is not connected with my faith or love for Jesus. I am sure that God will more than understand that.
Lying to a psycho to save your child is allowed! Lying to a psycho to get any good and right outcome is allowed.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: She was pregnant when they gave her the death penalty. In their "mercy" they delayed the sentence until after she gave birth to her daughter - which she did in shackles. Her 20 month old son was also detained with her in prison. So there were two children involved.
I think that if you are going to risk your life for your faith, you should take your children into account. She got lucky: she and her children survived. But gamble she did.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
How far does this go, then?
No doubt if you live under an oppressive regime, taking a stand against that regime is likely to put you and yours at risk.
Is that risk never worth taking?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
TurquoiseTastic: How far does this go, then?
No doubt if you live under an oppressive regime, taking a stand against that regime is likely to put you and yours at risk.
Is that risk never worth taking?
I think that if you have children, you should always, always, always take them into account if you are going to take a risk because of your beliefs. You may still decide to take these risks, but in doing so you also take part of the consequences upon you.
I have done things in Central America that I wouldn't do if I had children.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing is that denying Jesus in these circumstances isn't denying Jesus at all.
I can remain faithful to Jesus and renounce my faith to a nutter - what I say to a nutter to save my children is not connected with my faith or love for Jesus. I am sure that God will more than understand that.
Lying to a psycho to save your child is allowed! Lying to a psycho to get any good and right outcome is allowed.
So you're saying that from your understanding of the Gospel:
- it's OK to lie to protect your physical and material well-being
- it's OK to publicly renounce faith in Christ
I'm sorry but I think we read different translations.
Again - I believe God can forgive this. But that's not the same as saying "it's allowed" or "it's OK God doesn't mind." It's an insult to God to say you don't know Him and it's a negative testimony to other believers and to the monsters trying to convert you on pain of death.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well I can assure you that I'd not let my children be killed so that I can indulge myself in martyrdom. I'll lie, lie and lie again to preserve their lives. And I cannot for the life of me imagine why God would want it otherwise.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm sorry but I think we read different translations.
No we don't, we just have different ways of interpreting what we read.
Nothing new there. Everyone interprets what they read in the Bible, we can't simply take it literally or we'd be in a state of either denial or complete confusion.
There are many ways to love God and love one another. I happen to think that lying to psychos can be one of them.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well I can assure you that I'd not let my children be killed so that I can indulge myself in martyrdom. I'll lie, lie and lie again to preserve their lives. And I cannot for the life of me imagine why God would want it otherwise.
You don't believe God can protect you and your children?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There are many ways to love God and love one another. I happen to think that lying to psychos can be one of them.
I just don't see anything in the Gospel that says it's more important to stay alive dishonestly than it is to die righteously.
I can see why you would want to believe such is the case, but there's not much support for it in Scripture or in the bulk of Christian tradition.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You don't believe God can protect you and your children?
There are many, many millions of children that God isn't protecting from the most terrible abuse - right now.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You don't believe God can protect you and your children?
There are many, many millions of children that God isn't protecting from the most terrible abuse - right now.
Of course - God isn't a magic genie who takes away all pain and suffering. But I'm not talking about general abuse.
If we're talking specifically about being faced with a choice between violence and renouncing faith - then I do think perseverance in faith is something God rewards, if not in this life in the next.
Again, I'm not saying I would be the perfect martyr if faced with such a choice. All I'm saying is that I'm confident that the right choice is to stick with God, whatever the consequences.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: You don't believe God can protect you and your children?
Sorry, but this is just bullshit. In the hypothetical situation that someone would point a gun at my child's head, giving the answer that would make them shoot and trusting God would miraculously save them is the stuff of nutters.
Putting your children at risk because you believe God will miraculously save them is sick. There are plenty of examples of that.
Mrs. Ibrahim's live was saved, yes. Many people's lives weren't. And her surviving had a lot to do with her husband having a US passport. God works in mysterious ways sometimes.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
And I am saying that we can stick with God - whatever we say to psychopaths.
In my time I have had one sociopath to deal with. We shared an office. I told her plenty of lies to save my job. She was bullying me, I had to collect evidence before anything could be done to remove her. She was eventually dismissed. If I had not lied to her she would still be there, bullying and harassing the next and the next and the next person.
She was the worst person I have ever had to deal with (I am very lucky) but it gave me an insight into people who have no empathy, no care, no conscience.
They are not people we need to be truthful to. Not at all.
If lying to psychopaths and sociopaths brings about the right result then it's not the wrong thing to do.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Putting your children at risk because you believe God will miraculously save them is sick. There are plenty of examples of that.
Good thing this is ridiculous hypothetical that will almost surely never happen. So you can calm your hysteria down a bit.
In my heart I would choose God over life. For me and my children. That's my belief.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You don't believe God can protect you and your children? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Not if you are reckless and refuse to use the brain he gave you.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: In my heart I would choose God over life. For me and my children. That's my belief.
You don't have the right to choose something over the life of your children for them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well I can assure you that I'd not let my children be killed so that I can indulge myself in martyrdom. I'll lie, lie and lie again to preserve their lives. And I cannot for the life of me imagine why God would want it otherwise.
You don't believe God can protect you and your children?
Oh, he could. I have no confidence that he would. Terrible things happen to people all the time that God could protect them from but doesn't.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Good thing this is ridiculous hypothetical that will almost surely never happen. So you can calm your hysteria down a bit.
The example I gave you actually happened 'tho.
I lied to a sociopath, kept my job and continued to feed my children.
What would you have done?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
God is there -- in you. You have the tools to at least try and save them, in this hypothetical situation. You can lie like Ananias. And I would. Talk is cheap; it's the heart that's true.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: In my heart I would choose God over life. For me and my children. That's my belief.
You don't have the right to choose something over the life of your children for them.
In this hypothetical - it isn't the parent who is going to take the child's life. It's the KILLER! So you are advocating joining the killer's group - ISIS or whatever - and potentially exposing yourself and your children to a life of abuse, sexual slavery, and brainwashing, just to "save" their life which will descend into a hell far worse than death. As shown in the Yazidi women who were lining up to commit suicide under ISIS captivity.
You can lie in your heart but when they've put a gun in your 10 year old son's hands and sold your 12 year old daughter to be the third wife of a 70 year old with a temper, hasn't the lie become the truth?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The example I gave you actually happened 'tho.
I lied to a sociopath, kept my job and continued to feed my children.
What would you have done?
Apologies I must have missed this. What is the story?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: So you are advocating joining the killer's group - ISIS or whatever - and potentially exposing yourself and your children to a life of abuse, sexual slavery, and brainwashing, just to "save" their life which will descend into a hell far worse than death.
Yes, I would. Without a doubt, without hesitation.
It is possible that I myself might be in a situation where I'd choose death above living (I'd probably choose a dangerous escape above suicide though), but I cannot make that choice for someone else. And making that choice before the slavery has even happened is just plain stupid.
quote:
seekingsister: You can lie in your heart but when they've put a gun in your 10 year old son's hands and sold your 12 year old daughter to be the third wife of a 70 year old with a temper, hasn't the lie become the truth?
I'd still be Christian.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: In my heart I would choose God over life. For me and my children. That's my belief.
You don't have the right to choose something over the life of your children for them.
In this hypothetical - it isn't the parent who is going to take the child's life. It's the KILLER!
But I can stop them by lying. Which I will. Where's there's life there's hope; when they're dead they're dead. Deciding they're better dead is not for me to do.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Deciding they're better dead is not for me to do.
Exactly.
Nicely summed up.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where's there's life there's hope; when they're dead they're dead. Deciding they're better dead is not for me to do.
So the whole Christian "Jesus conquering the grave, hope after death for those who believe in Him" thing is just metaphor to you?
And again - it's ridiculous for anyone to see the parent in this scenario as the villain, and not, you know, the villain.
When people can destroy faith and hope there's nothing left worth living for. Someone asking for a renouncement at the barrel of a gun is trying to do just that. Why acquiesce?
As someone else mentioned I guess the choir of "yes let's lie to save our skins" doesn't believe in any sort of civil disobedience.
[ 13. October 2014, 15:53: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: So the whole Christian "Jesus conquering the grave, hope after death for those who believe in Him" thing is just metaphor to you?
Sigh yes, I believe that. But that isn't a reason not to do everything to stop my children from being killed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: So the whole Christian "Jesus conquering the grave, hope after death for those who believe in Him" thing is just metaphor to you?
Sigh yes, I believe that. But that isn't a reason not to do everything to stop my children from being killed.
Exactly. And given I was on strike this morning SeekingSister's other weird non-sequitur is also shown to be bollocks.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
seekingsister: So the whole Christian "Jesus conquering the grave, hope after death for those who believe in Him" thing is just metaphor to you?
Sigh yes, I believe that. But that isn't a reason not to do everything to stop my children from being killed.
Because you'd rather them trained to be murderers or sex slaves?
I'm sorry but I would rather my child die innocent than be raped and beaten daily wishing for the escape of suicide. I would rather my child die innocent than kill others.
Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Losing their soul and their dignity is worse.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And given I was on strike this morning SeekingSister's other weird non-sequitur is also shown to be bollocks.
The only weird thing is that I'm being asked to debate the most unrealistic scenario ever.
Someone who says "Convert to X or I'll kill your child." is almost certainly planning to wreak ongoing havoc on you and said child regardless of your answer to that question.
The fact that people would willingly renounce the only thing that really matters from a spiritual perspective - and there's lots in the Gospels as wells about speaking truthfully so lying to murderers doesn't seem to me a special exception - because some psycho said you should - that in my view indicates a lack of faith.
I would want to stay faithful. I don't know if I'd be able to. But I think it would be the right thing to do. God will sort out the rest, frankly if a gun is at my head or my child's head any semblance of "control" over the situation is a delusion.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: The only weird thing is that I'm being asked to debate the most unrealistic scenario ever.
No-one is asking you to do anything.
quote:
seekingsister: Someone who says "Convert to X or I'll kill your child." is almost certainly planning to wreak ongoing havoc on you and said child regardless of your answer to that question.
One of the outcomes is going to wreak more havoc than the other.
quote:
seekingsister: I would want to stay faithful. I don't know if I'd be able to. But I think it would be the right thing to do. God will sort out the rest, frankly if a gun is at my head or my child's head any semblance of "control" over the situation is a delusion.
Putting your faith above your child's life is monstruous.
And yes, you can have some kind of control when there's a gun to your or anyone else's head. I know.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Because you'd rather them trained to be murderers or sex slaves?
Rather than them being dead, yes. A thousand times.
quote:
seekingsister: I'm sorry but I would rather my child die innocent than be raped and beaten daily wishing for the escape of suicide. I would rather my child die innocent than kill others.
Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Losing their soul and their dignity is worse.
That's not your choice to make. You can't make this choice for anyone else. Not even as a parent.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Putting your faith above your child's life is monstruous.
Thanks. I'll hope neither of us ever have to make the choice. I don't have children so perhaps I'll change my mind. I'm just debating. The hyperbolic reaction to imaginary situations frankly is getting irritating.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Thanks. I'll hope neither of us ever have to make the choice. I don't have children so perhaps I'll change my mind. I'm just debating. The hyperbolic reaction to imaginary situations frankly is getting irritating.
To be honest, it does say something about people's faith, when they value it above other people's lives. You my call this hyperbolic, but I find it troubling.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
We make similar choices for our children all the time--mostly in the doctor's office, though also at school, etc. And yes, these are also choices that may turn out to be life or death. Any decent parent makes the best decision he/she knows how to do.
In my case, I would also prefer death over apostasy for myself or my children.
You are treating death as if it were the ultimate evil. It is not. There are many, many fates worth than death, and true apostasy is one of them.
And I don't believe it possible to do a fake conversion without running a very real risk of it turning into the real thing.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Well, I've certainly learned something. How gruesome some forms of Christianity can be.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
To be honest, it does say something about people's faith, when they value it above other people's lives. You my call this hyperbolic, but I find it troubling.
It does indeed say something about people's faith.
quote:
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it." Mark 8:35
[ 13. October 2014, 16:35: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it." Mark 8:35
I posted this on page 3 and it was roundly ignored!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
And whoever causes his/her child to lose its life for His sake? You may believe that Jesus will save it, but that's your faith. You cannot make a life and death decision for someone else based on this faith.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, I've certainly learned something. How gruesome some forms of Christianity can be.
Yes. Baffling and repellent.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, I've certainly learned something. How gruesome some forms of Christianity can be.
I'm astonished you didn't realize this already. After all, it is mainstream historic Christianity.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Yes. Baffling and repellent.
I'm actually feeling physically disgusted by this.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, I promise to keep my baffling, repellant, gruesome orthodoxy safely hidden next time you folks come over for tea, how's that?
Oh, and LeRoc, I'll have the Maalox for you in a moment.
[ 13. October 2014, 16:42: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The thing is: I think this affects the rest of your faith. When you'd choose your faith over someone else's life (even that of your children!) it cannot but have an effect on your other faith decisions.
[ 13. October 2014, 16:43: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
You all need to get off your high horses.
You're wilfully ignoring many things that Jesus said and many things that his closest followers believed about the sacrifices required of faith, because you think it's icky and gross.
Fine - but at least be honest that you are deciding that God didn't actually mean this or that or the other.
We are called to be willing to give up EVERYTHING for the Gospel. All of us will fail to do so. Doesn't mean we have to not only relish in the fact that we think we will fail, but to justify that failure as being OK.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: You're wilfully ignoring many things that Jesus said and many things that his closest followers believed about the sacrifices required of faith
Just because something is in the Bible, I don't necessarily believe that Jesus said it.
quote:
seekingsister: because you think it's icky and gross.
When a child is murdered, this isn't 'icky and gross' for the parent.
quote:
seekingsister: We are called to be willing to give up EVERYTHING for the Gospel.
Not someone else's life. Not the life of our children. If God asks this from us, then He isn't worthy of being worshipped.
(In fact, isn't there a story in Genesis about that?)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Of course it affects all areas of my faith! It is, for example, behind my decision to settle in this ***forsaken city in the Midwest and serve the immigrants here rather than staying on the West Coast where I belong and becoming a doctor making a hopefully fantabulous salary. You could rightfully say that I've deprived my son of the affluent Californian childhood that would have been his but for my incomprehensible faith choices. Oh, woe am I!
Strangely enough, I can still sleep at night. Must be totally depraved.
Must go off to run errands now. Back to join in the horse apple flinging in an hour or two.
[ 13. October 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: You could rightfully say that I've deprived my son of the affluent Californian childhood that would have been his but for my incomprehensible faith choices. Oh, woe am I!
He's still alive (at least I hope so).
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You're wilfully ignoring many things that Jesus said and many things that his closest followers believed about the sacrifices required of faith, because you think it's icky and gross.
Not icky and gross, just plain wrong interpretation. He wasn't talking about sacrificing our children to nutters. He was talking about denying our selfish pleasures. Big difference.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Where WASN'T Jesus elliptical, parabolic or hyperbolic? Where WAS He literal?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I saw a programme with Rabbi Jonathan Sachs and an imam of similar status discussing the sacrifice of Abraham's son story. They came to the conclusion that it wasn't significant which son, Isaac or Ishmael was involved in the story, the essence was that sacrificing one's children was completely and utterly wrong and not what God wanted. But then, they were neither of them Christian.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And the better for it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I believe the bond between a parent and a child is special. It is sacred. And it is our holy duty to protect that. God wouldn't want anything else from us.
The relationship we have with Jesus is important too, but this isn't a competition. Jesus isn't some kind of jealous boyfriend, quick to take offence; He's stronger than that. If we have to say something nasty about Him to protect the other bond, then I believe He can take that.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I think it's rather sad that someone would rather see their children dead than non-Christian.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: You could rightfully say that I've deprived my son of the affluent Californian childhood that would have been his but for my incomprehensible faith choices. Oh, woe am I!
He's still alive (at least I hope so).
What exactly are you insinuating here?
And since when has it become acceptable to take potshots in Purgatory at the character of those who are, after all, merely stating the historic Christian position?
Play the argument, not the person.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Alternately, call me to Hell. It's been a bit quiet down there lately.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: What exactly are you insinuating here?
Simple. This wasn't a life or death decision. There is no moral imperative that parents should give their children the most affluent life possible. However, there is a moral imperative that keeping their children alive should be their priority.
Yes, the decisions that parents make affect their children. Of course they do. You decided that your son would live in the Midwest because of your faith, and you tell that as if it's a terrible thing. It's not. He's still in the richest country in the world. I'm sure he has enough to eat, gets health care and has an education. This isn't comparable with your son being killed because of your faith.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And whoever causes his/her child to lose its life for His sake? You may believe that Jesus will save it, but that's your faith. You cannot make a life and death decision for someone else based on this faith.
I don't think Lamb Chopped is making a life and death decision for someone else based on their faith. She is refusing to acknowledge any right of somebody else to make the life and death decision for her child. She isn't the person holding the gun in the scenario.
Compare The Sound of Music. In the film Captain von Trapp risks the lives of his children by taking them illegally over the Alps in order to avoid supporting the Nazis. Does he really have no right to risk their lives in that manner for that reason?
If someone is deliberately putting you in a moral dilemma, I think it is a valid choice to refuse to go along with their threats. I'm not saying it's the only choice.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Dafyd: Compare The Sound of Music. In the film Captain von Trapp risks the lives of his children by taking them illegally over the Alps in order to avoid supporting the Nazis. Does he really have no right to risk their lives in that manner for that reason?
Yes, he did take a risk. This means that at least in part he's responsible for what happens next. If the nazi's had shot their children in the Alps, it would be at least partly on the Captain's head too. If you risk the lives of other people, you take up some kind of responsibility.
Of course, risk = danger × success. Part of the responsibility is estimating this equation. In the hypothetical situation we're describing here, the danger is infinite. The children will be shot. That changes the equation. What if Von Trapp was sure that his children would die in the Alps. Would he still take them?
But an important thing for me is: in the hypothetical situation where you choose not to apostate and your child dies, then it's your responsibility. You took the decision. Some people on this thread seem to be running away from that responsibility.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes, it fucking would be my responsibility. Just as it would be my responsibility if I chose to pull the plug in unimaginable horrible Medical Situation #1.
And parents make those choices every day.
As for insinuations, I was referring to the bit in bold:
quote:
He's still alive (at least I hope so).
What the hell was that about? My negligence as a parent? Or something worse?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: What the hell was that about?
I don't know your son. So I can't be sure if he is alive.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I see. And you just randomly make statements of that sort in the context of a discussion about parental responsibility for the deaths of children?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: I see. And you just randomly make statements of that sort in the context of a discussion about parental responsibility for the deaths of children?
No, in answer to you talking about your son going through the terrible ordeal of living in the Midwest, I answered: he's alive. Then I realized that I didn't know for sure that he is. What if I said "he's alive" and he isn't? So I added: "I hope he is".
[ 14. October 2014, 01:08: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
A serious question. If you would rather see your 5 year old child dead than apostate, what happens to your relationship if in 15 or so years he loses his faith entirely, or voluntarily changes to another one?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And whoever causes his/her child to lose its life for His sake? You may believe that Jesus will save it, but that's your faith. You cannot make a life and death decision for someone else based on this faith.
I don't think Lamb Chopped is making a life and death decision for someone else based on their faith. She is refusing to acknowledge any right of somebody else to make the life and death decision for her child. She isn't the person holding the gun in the scenario.
1. ( waning: graphic)
*****
*****
******
There was some awful indie film I saw starring Emma Thompson which involved a European diplomat ( herself) and her daughter being abducted, tortured, and repeatedly raped by a Central American junta. In one scene, the most vicious torturer asks her to choose someone for her daughter's torture. He makes it clear that if she doesn't choose, it will be him.
Emma says nothing, so he says "well, you chose," and drags the girl off.
Well, no she didn't choose. She chose not to let her daughter hear her agree to the opressors rules.
2.)Someone who survived the Polish purge in the Holocaust talked about his experience watching a synagogue razed . He said the townfolk were gathered in the sanctuary beforehand and ordered to spit on the Torah on pain of death. He said, to his surprise, the Orthodox among them accepted the rules philosophically and spit on the Torah, reasoning that God was big enough to handle it. It was the secular
Jews, tne intellectuals and atheists, that resisted. And were shot, one after another.
I suppose you could say they choked in the face of death and suddenly began worrying about God. I wonder if it was more about not wanting to give power to evil people by supporting tneir rules. I wonder if it was about leaving some message with the survivors that they would rather die than act in support of their abuse. I wonder if they simply decided it wasn't worth living in a world where madmen made the rules.
Right or wrong, I can see how such thinking could drift into threats made against children-- not just will they live or die, but what kind of world they will live in once they choose to give in to oppressors. And what the oppressors will do next to up the ante.
The "Love and Rockets"retred had a couple of sisters ask their aunt which one of tnem she'd choose if a Nazi offered her a "sophie's choice" dilemma. She 1. Said she would attack tne Nazi and force him to kill her or all of them, 2. It wasn't the choice that was obscene, it was the Nazis that were obscene. Meaning, if you find yourself in a situation whete someone is asking you to make that kind of decision, tne concept if a "right answer" no longer exists.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Not the life of our children. If God asks this from us, then He isn't worthy of being worshipped.
(In fact, isn't there a story in Genesis about that?)
Um... Abraham and Isaac? Doesn't that actually kind of go in the opposite direction?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jesus isn't some kind of jealous boyfriend
Yes, He's stronger than that, absolutely, and without the sinfulness that such a boyfriend would have, but... um... well, what do you think is meant about Him being "a jealous God"?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I hope (and trust) you'll never be in the situation to find out.
Likewise. I think we all agree this would be a horrible situation.
quote:
Even if Jesus did say this, I wouldn't obey Him blindly.
This I don't understand at all, unless you mean that you'd want to make sure you understood Him rightly?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose someone puts a gun to your child's head and says to you: "Deny Jesus or your child dies." What would you do?
I hope and pray I would have the courage and strength to not deny my God.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(BTW, the promise of God is just the pie in the sky here.)
And I totally have no idea what you mean here. But I honestly don't know what you believe theologically, not even the denomination.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Ideally - I'd not deny Jesus and pray for a miracle.
Me too.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
BTW I don't believe that this is what you'd really do if push came to shove.
Well, I certainly hope I would not give in. Obviously those of us who believe this way hope we would not give in, but then even St. Peter denied Jesus three times.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You can lie like Ananias.
Uh... isn't this kind of a bad example? We're talking about Ananias and Sapphira, not Ananias who was sent to Paul?
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm sorry but I would rather my child die innocent than be raped and beaten daily wishing for the escape of suicide. I would rather my child die innocent than kill others.
Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Losing their soul and their dignity is worse.
I agree wholly with you here.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Rather than them being dead, yes. A thousand times.
Again, we'll just have to disagree here, then.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think it's rather sad that someone would rather see their children dead than non-Christian.
It's not just sad, it's deeply worrying. A similar attitude to some fundamentalists in other faiths.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If the obscenity happened, which it could well have done, IS ARE that evil, war, you know the thing that we don't know, have no idea what Jesus would do in, is that evil, always, then the problem isn't the poor Christian parents who let this happen to their poor children.
It's OUR problem. Christianity's. To deal with Jesus. His blatantly obvious conic section types and figures of speech. IN CONTEXT.
Mark 8:35 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.
Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
These are orthodox - straight, plain, literal, obvious, universal - teaching are they?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not just sad, it's deeply worrying. A similar attitude to some fundamentalists in other faiths.
So you're saying it's only fundamentalist Christian teaching that says faith in Christ is more important than life on Earth?
quote:
Q: If someone is told to deny Christ or acknowledge another religion or god under the threat of death, is it sinful to give in out of fear? I know modern culture doesn't demand this kind of heroic virtue, but in Revelation 2:10, Jesus says, “Be faithful unto death.”
A: Such a scenario is currently quite likely. Just recently some Fox News employees in the Middle East were coerced into accepting Islam. To accept an ideology contrary to one’s own under duress renders such an acceptance null by most civilized societies. Nevertheless, we are called to never betray our loyalty to Christ and his Church even under pain of torture and/or death. But only God knows how morally culpable one is who does break under such duress.
From those well-known fundamentalists the Roman Catholic Church.
Catholic Answers
[ 14. October 2014, 08:06: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I cannot believe that CM, SS, and for that matter Jesus, would want the last thing my child experiences to be my betraying them and letting them be killed when I could prevent it.
Utterly bewildering.
[ 14. October 2014, 09:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think it's rather sad that someone would rather see their children dead than non-Christian.
It's not just sad, it's deeply worrying. A similar attitude to some fundamentalists in other faiths.
It seems cult-like to me. I keep thinking of Jonestown, where the deaths of the children were preferred to them being taken by outsiders, or having their minds influenced by others.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot believe that CM, SS, and for that matter Jesus, would want the last thing my child experiences to be my betraying them and letting them be killed when I could prevent it.
Utterly bewildering.
I haven't said anything about what you should do with your own child. I've said what I believe is right for me to do if in that situation, while acknowledging that in the moment I'm as likely to be weak as anyone else is.
I echo a previous sentiment that if the discussion is going to continue to descend into mischaracterizations of comments and personal attacks, it should be taken to Hell.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot believe that CM, SS, and for that matter Jesus, would want the last thing my child experiences to be my betraying them and letting them be killed when I could prevent it.
Utterly bewildering.
I would give my life for my son's, but I would not surrender his life to protect my beliefs.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Boogie: It's not just sad, it's deeply worrying. A similar attitude to some fundamentalists in other faiths.
I feel the same thing. Of course we were talking about a hypothetical situation here, but if you value your faith more than other people's lives, then this is going to spill over to other areas: your faith decisions, your pastoral attitudes, your political decisions ... Yes, I find that worrying.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot believe that CM, SS, and for that matter Jesus, would want the last thing my child experiences to be my betraying them and letting them be killed when I could prevent it.
Utterly bewildering.
I haven't said anything about what you should do with your own child.
Bullshit. You've expressed the view that someone in this position should refuse to convert and let their child be killed, and rhapsodised about how that's not so bad and is better than the alternative.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep thinking of Jonestown, where the deaths of the children were preferred to them being taken by outsiders, or having their minds influenced by others.
Yeah, but Jonestown was a false religion. If you're part of the true religion then it's not only acceptable but downright essential to give the kids the Kool-Aid rather than let them be corrupted.
I think that's how the argument goes, anyway...
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bullshit. You've expressed the view that someone in this position should refuse to convert and let their child be killed, and rhapsodised about how that's not so bad and is better than the alternative.
Please show me a post I made that universalized my opinion. Where I said that anyone in that position should do what I said I would like to do.
And to jump on the hysterical bandwagon - I find is sickening that anyone sees the hypothetical situation where someone wants to murder a child, and views the parent forced into an evil and depraved choice as the bad guy. The murderer is the bad guy. It is inherently a no-win situation. There is no good outcome. The parent will never have peace or rest no matter what their choice.
I'm amazed honestly that people sitting on their butts posting on the internet can speak with such certainty and confidence that children are better of raped and beaten and tortured than dead. Would you rather that? I wouldn't. The Yazidis who committed suicide wouldn't. But no no - Marvin and boogie etc. are sure that it's better to be a sex slave who can't practice Christianity than to be dead.
That's a pretty sick thing to say and an insult to those in such situations who wish they were dead.
[ 14. October 2014, 10:19: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bullshit. You've expressed the view that someone in this position should refuse to convert and let their child be killed, and rhapsodised about how that's not so bad and is better than the alternative.
Please show me a post I made that universalized my opinion. Where I said that anyone in that position should do what I said I would like to do.
Try here: quote:
The fact that people would willingly renounce the only thing that really matters from a spiritual perspective - and there's lots in the Gospels as wells about speaking truthfully so lying to murderers doesn't seem to me a special exception - because some psycho said you should - that in my view indicates a lack of faith.
Or here: quote:
So you're saying that from your understanding of the Gospel:
- it's OK to lie to protect your physical and material well-being
- it's OK to publicly renounce faith in Christ
I'm sorry but I think we read different translations.
Again - I believe God can forgive this. But that's not the same as saying "it's allowed" or "it's OK God doesn't mind." It's an insult to God to say you don't know Him and it's a negative testimony to other believers and to the monsters trying to convert you on pain of death.
Those sound like pretty objective, general principles you're trying to suggest the Christian follow to me.
People in those positions deciding they'd be better off dead is one thing. My making that decision for them is quite another.
[ 14. October 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: I'm amazed honestly that people sitting on their butts posting on the internet can speak with such certainty and confidence that children are better of raped and beaten and tortured than dead.
When it comes to my (hypothetical) children: yes. Absolutely. Without a shread of doubt.
Suppose my children were kidnapped and I thought they were dead. And suppose after some time I'd find out they were somewere in Syria living as slaves. "They're alive! Thank God!!" Maybe I can even get them out, just like Mrs. Ibrahim did. A miracle can always happen.
quote:
seekingsister: That's a pretty sick thing to say and an insult to those in such situations who wish they were dead.
When someone is in such a bad situation that they prefer to be dead, then that's their decision (although I'm a bit surprised by your position on suicide; it isn't the standard Christian position). The only thing I'm saying is that no-one else can decide this for them. I cannot decide that it's better for these Yasidi to be dead, only they can. You however, seem to consider yourself entitled to make this decision for someone else.
[ 14. October 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm amazed honestly that people sitting on their butts posting on the internet can speak with such certainty and confidence that children are better of raped and beaten and tortured than dead. Would you rather that? I wouldn't. The Yazidis who committed suicide wouldn't. But no no - Marvin and boogie etc. are sure that it's better to be a sex slave who can't practice Christianity than to be dead.
Have you considered the possibility that we're not talking about situations where literally the only choices are "abused sex slave" or "death"?
The subject is "forced conversion (or at least the appearance thereof) with your child at gunpoint". You are the only one adding all these extra conditions to that situation in order to justify your choice - and to be honest, that you feel the need to do so doesn't speak highly for how confident you are of making your case without them.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Those sound like pretty objective, general principles you're trying to suggest the Christian follow to me.
So now "trying to suggest" is equivalent to, in your words "express[ing] the view that someone in this position should refuse to convert and let their child be killed, and rhapsodised about how that's not so bad and is better than the alternative."
I tried to suggest that traditional Christian teaching favors martyrdom over survival. Yes, that's correct.
You took it to the fact that I'm telling YOU or anyone else that they SHOULD let their child be killed - which I have never done. I've never even said that I would do that in the moment.
I know a bad faith debate when I see one and that's what this is. Anyone else who can read my words objectively can see I'm speaking entirely from personal conviction and not telling anyone else what they must, should, have to do, Christian or not.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Bad faith? Bollocks. If you're saying "this is Christian teaching" you are saying "this is what Christians (and by extension you if you are one)" should do". I think the quotes I selected show that quite comfortably that you think any Christian who doesn't is doing the wrong thing.
Trying to fit a fag paper between the two is mere sophistry. I really don't think there's much point carrying this on, is there?
[ 14. October 2014, 11:40: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If martyrdom is preferable to forced conversion, does this mean that suicide is also preferable?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
A serious question. If you would rather see your 5 year old child dead than apostate, what happens to your relationship if in 15 or so years he loses his faith entirely, or voluntarily changes to another one?
Duh, you love him. You talk to him about it (probably with tears in your eyes), but that's all.
I will not have my child of any age forced into apostasy. Similarly I will not have anyone forced into Christianity (as if that were even possible), most particularly someone I love. Christianity has to be free or it's not Christianity. To force the Gospel on anyone is a kind of spiritual rape and that is a dreadful blasphemy.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Roman Catholicism is deeply fundamentalist.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If martyrdom is preferable to forced conversion, does this mean that suicide is also preferable?
No, because a forced suicide is no suicide at all. It's a form of homicide.
Now a suicide that takes place before that final squeeze--when someone is anticipating a confrontation that will end with either apostasy or martyrdom, but it hasn't come to that yet--that's a different matter. My opinion is that the person simply lost his nerve and bottled out. Which is not ideal behavior, but then, who of us can swear we'd do better? And I doubt God would look harshly on such a person.
[ 14. October 2014, 12:54: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
2.)Someone who survived the Polish purge in the Holocaust talked about his experience watching a synagogue razed . He said the townfolk were gathered in the sanctuary beforehand and ordered to spit on the Torah on pain of death. He said, to his surprise, the Orthodox among them accepted the rules philosophically and spit on the Torah, reasoning that God was big enough to handle it. It was the secular
Jews, tne intellectuals and atheists, that resisted. And were shot, one after another.
I suppose you could say they choked in the face of death and suddenly began worrying about God. I wonder if it was more about not wanting to give power to evil people by supporting tneir rules. I wonder if it was about leaving some message with the survivors that they would rather die than act in support of their abuse. I wonder if they simply decided it wasn't worth living in a world where madmen made the rules.
Right or wrong, I can see how such thinking could drift into threats made against children-- not just will they live or die, but what kind of world they will live in once they choose to give in to oppressors. And what the oppressors will do next to up the ante.
This is the most interesting and nuanced thing anybody's said yet on this thread. Tons of good stuff here.
Not wanting to be seen to give assent, even forced assent, to the rules of oppressors--I get this, I really do. "Live free or die." Though in practice for me it'd take a pretty big oppression to make me think a protest death was worth it. But forced conversion would make the list.
About the Orthodox spitting on the Torah--I have some vague, vague remembrance somewhere of Jewish law (not Torah, probably something in the Talmud) allowing such acts in extremis and considering them not to carry any guilt. I can't recall exactly what the reasoning was, though. Maybe someone else remembers better?
I read Silence (Shusaku Endo) where Christians were being forced to step on the fumie (an icon of Christ, I believe) or be martyred. I am not at all sure that I would kick up a major fuss about that particular action, or about the spitting bit. I think it could be done without the same symbolic content the persecutors are attempting to force onto the action. One could mentally interpret the stepping action by saying, "Christ holds me up, he is my safe place for me feet." Of course, if you don't say this aloud, your onlookers will assume you are doing it with the evil meaning, which means you'd probably need to say something to prevent false witness. Similarly, kissing the Torah before spitting on it would make clear that the second action was bullshit. Though yeah, the minute your persecutors realize you've reframed the action, they'll force you into something less ambiguous, which leaves you right back in the same dilemma you started with.
It's not that I think God can't handle apostasy for emotional reasons of his own. It's that apostasy appears to break something vital inside the believer. Thus all the controversy about if and how to receive back the apostates during the Roman persecutions. Such a break would take a heckuva lot of healing, if it could be healed at all (I suspect a lot of the forced apostates stayed apostate and never petitioned for forgiveness).
Some of you clearly don't think apostasy breaks anything vital. But in that case, I ask you, Why do the persecutors place such a high value on forcing it? They know as well as we do that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." They also know that the watching world does not believe in the genuineness of the conversion, not being idiots. So why bother? I believe it's precisely because they do believe forced conversion/apostasy breaks a person. It is one more way to torture and destroy someone--spiritually, this time. The goal is not true conversion. The goal is destruction.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: In the film Captain von Trapp risks the lives of his children by taking them illegally over the Alps in order to avoid supporting the Nazis. Does he really have no right to risk their lives in that manner for that reason?
Yes, he did take a risk. This means that at least in part he's responsible for what happens next. If the nazi's had shot their children in the Alps, it would be at least partly on the Captain's head too. If you risk the lives of other people, you take up some kind of responsibility.
While the risk of getting his children killed is perhaps lower than it would be had the Nazis had guns to their heads, it's still a risk of the children getting killed. And contrariwise, it's a risk of him getting the children killed rather than of the Nazis killing them.
quote:
But an important thing for me is: in the hypothetical situation where you choose not to apostate and your child dies, then it's your responsibility. You took the decision. Some people on this thread seem to be running away from that responsibility.
I do not think that you are responsible for other people's decisions in that way. In particular I do not think you are morally responsible for what somebody threatens to do if you don't comply.
You cannot impose a moral obligation upon someone by pointing a gun at a third party.
(Also: what Kelly Alves said.)
[ 14. October 2014, 13:41: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Responsibility is not my issue here. It's that I don't want my children dead, even if I'm not "responsible" for their deaths.
As to the reason for the demands for apostasy - I'd have thought there are as many reasons for it as their are people demanding it, but humiliation and prevention of rebellion (you can hardly rebel in the name of a cause you're pretending you don't support) would be a start.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Like rape, yes. Nothing to do with lust. It is power.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Like rape, yes. Nothing to do with lust. It is power.
So when someone forces you to convert from your faith with violence, just do it.
If someone rapes you don't fight back or scratch, just take it.
Is this the line of logic here?
[ 14. October 2014, 13:54: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Someone who survived the Polish purge in the Holocaust talked about his experience watching a synagogue razed . He said the townfolk were gathered in the sanctuary beforehand and ordered to spit on the Torah on pain of death. He said, to his surprise, the Orthodox among them accepted the rules philosophically and spit on the Torah, reasoning that God was big enough to handle it.
This reminds me of an incident when Dietrich Bonhoeffer and one of his students was in a cafe when some SS walked in and he stood and gave the Nazi salute like everyone else.
He later explained to his student that it was important to be able to take a stand on big matters rather than being killed for a small matter.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kelly Alves: He said, to his surprise, the Orthodox among them accepted the rules philosophically and spit on the Torah, reasoning that God was big enough to handle it.
I'm not surprised that they got it right.
quote:
Kelly Alves: I wonder if they simply decided it wasn't worth living in a world where madmen made the rules.
I can understand this sentiment. I doubt however whether letting them kill you is the answer.
I've often been in neighbourhoods in Latin America where madmen make the rules. I understand you're in California; no doubt there are areas like this there too. And I've stared into the barril of a gun more often than I care for. In these cases, I've always done what the guy on the other side wanted.
After the mugging is over, I've hated the mugger. I hated that he had been able to dictate the rules for me. It isn't only that he walked away with my money and my cell phone; this power he had over me is absolutely infuriating. But at the same time: I walked away from this alive. And I thank God on my bare knees for that.
There still is a difference though, between me deciding it is better to die than to live in a world ruled by madmen, or me deciding for my children it is better for them to die than to live in a world ruled by madmen. This difference is crucial to me. I don't have the right to make this decision for them.
quote:
Dafyd: While the risk of getting his children killed is perhaps lower than it would be had the Nazis had guns to their heads, it's still a risk of the children getting killed.
To me, there is a difference between taking a risk involving your children, and choosing certain death for your children.
Okay, the Von Trapps sing these silly songs on stage and they run away. The captain takes this risk involving his children, because he doesn't want them to live under the nazi regime. I can live with that (but whatever happens to them is still partly on his head).
Now suppose the whole family is running through a dark forest in the Alpes. Suddenly a harsh voice shouts "Stehen bleiben!" They are surrounded by nazi's with machine guns, and their commander says they will open fire if the family doesn't stop. Will Captain Von Trapp still urge his children to keep running?
quote:
seekingsister: If someone rapes you don't fight back or scratch, just take it.
If I have a gun pointed at me, yes.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Le Roc wrote:
There still is a difference though, between me deciding it is better to die than to live in a world ruled by madmen, or me deciding for my children it is better for them to die than to live in a world ruled by madmen. This difference is crucial to me. I don't have the right to make this decision for them.
Yes, it seems crucial to me. The second one strikes me as the height of narcissism - that my beliefs trump my child's life. I can't even get my head round that - I suppose a secular equivalent is 'better dead than red', although I think that normally applied to fighting against communists.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Better a live dog than a dead lion. Ecclesiastes 9:4
These particular evil men are wooden literalists and actually believe that mere words are magical.
What would real apostasy look like? The only thing I can think of is DOING something irremediably unchristian in this life like murdering another person.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Mmm. Murderers have been known to repent and be saved. I would say that if you lose the distinction between good and evil-- the sin against the Holy Ghost -- then you are toast. And these folks are just about there. To kill children to the greater glory of God, this is not something I can imagine God approving of.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
and actually believe that mere words are magical.
They are, but that's another topic perhaps...
And re: rape and guns, they can fuck my head-exploded dead corpse if they can stand the mess. No pun intended but I'd go down fighting.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's assuming one found the distinction in the first place Brenda.
And aye ChastMastr, words are magical, but not in that sense.
And THAT'S the point. You'd make them blow your brains out. Good man. You'd HAVE to kill me to get to those I love. It's a parent's, a husband's JOB to die for their children, their wife.
I know these evil perverts who give demons a bad name are masters at doing the most despicable possible thing, from which there is no way out, but it's a man's job to set an example of dying. There is a time to be supine, to say anything and there is a time to die. Well. Pray that God gives that moment in the Philistine temple. God save us from the helplessness of watching those we love be butchered with raw courage. With the 23rd Psalm. With 'Father forgive them, lay not this sin at their door, they know not what they do.'. And with ALL the force possible in the moment.
Yeah, I'm THAT kind of pacifist.
Not that it will happen to ANY of us.
But we can fantasize in hope, eh?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not that it will happen to ANY of us.
But we can fantasize in hope, eh?
Well, we can try to prepare ourselves for the possibility that something like that--and as well to pray for the strength to fight the temptation to deny Christ in other, less obvious ways--may happen.
Some may consider this silly, but... back in the early/mid-2000s, under Bush/Cheney, when it looked to me and Cubby (then living in DC), quite seriously and sincerely, without hyperbole, like the US was headed down the path to 1930s Berlin, with the possibility that as liberals and gays we might get all kinds of horrible treatment or persecution (now it seems so long ago and far away, but at the time, when laws were being abrogated left and right, when things were leaking out about torture and denial of habeas corpus and "if you are not with us then you are helping the terrorists," and the language protecting gay employees was being taken away from information sources, and so on and so on)... we talked and agreed that if worst came to worst, if the US really became like Nazi Germany, then no matter what they tried to do to us, even to use hurting one of us to manipulate the other, that we would never give in, or at least do our damndest not to give in.
Again, this may sound silly to some people now, but that's genuinely the way it seemed to us then and the way it felt at the time. It looked--again, at least to us--like the US was headed down a long dark tunnel to total fascism with no escape. I would have not been surprised to find out that our regime at the time was the foretold Antichrist.
Thankfully, while things aren't perfect and Guantanamo is still inexplicably around, we seem to have dodged that bullet. But for a good couple of years there, that's how it felt. No actual guns to our heads (though all kinds of tortures of other people in our name, God have mercy), but the serious thought that It Might Really Happen Sometime Soon.
I look back and I can't believe how bleak it all seemed then.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot believe that CM, SS, and for that matter Jesus, would want the last thing my child experiences to be my betraying them and letting them be killed when I could prevent it.
Utterly bewildering.
I would give my life for my son's, but I would not surrender his life to protect my beliefs.
All theorizing aside, this is probably the choice I would make.
I have a lame-ass basis for believing it, but let's see if you get my reasoning: Despite my allegiance to Christ, I will never send on a meme that includes thr Bible verse " "If you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you " It's not that I don't think Jesus had a reason for saying what he said, it's that just because some two- bit guilt mongerer throws a verse at me doesn't mean I am going to take the bait-- much less will I subject any of my friends to a direction to prove their faith to me. So, I reasoned, if Jesus got his little feelings hurt by my slight, at least I'd be taking the bullet and not passing on the dilemma like one of those stupid fucking Ringu videos.
So, yeah, I can see myself applying the same reasoning-- Giving my life for my faith is one thing, giving another's is not what I believe the Lord requires of me. And if judgement is going to fall, let it fall on my head rather than handing my child over to the enemy.
At the same time-- no way am I gonna judge those people who had a gun held to their head and made a different choice, because how the fuck do I know what depths of despair, outrage, or rebellion they may have been driven to?
Another example: in the Rwandan genocide, a group of girls and their teachers at a Catholic boarding school huddled in a group holding each other and refused to tell Hutu terrorists which girls were Tsutsi. They were told their refusal to name the undesirables would lead them all to be shot. They refused to speak up. They all got shot.
One of the girls, or the nuns that were held with them, could have pointed out the Tsusi girls and saved a significant portion of the group. Would that have been the right thing to do? Before you think I am being glib, I am wondering how I would respond to a parent of one of the slain Hutu girls who asked this question. And the only answer I am coming up with is," It is really not my place to judge."
[ 15. October 2014, 05:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
2.)Someone who survived the Polish purge in the Holocaust talked about his experience watching a synagogue razed . He said the townfolk were gathered in the sanctuary beforehand and ordered to spit on the Torah on pain of death. He said, to his surprise, the Orthodox among them accepted the rules philosophically and spit on the Torah, reasoning that God was big enough to handle it. It was the secular
Jews, tne intellectuals and atheists, that resisted. And were shot, one after another.
I suppose you could say they choked in the face of death and suddenly began worrying about God. I wonder if it was more about not wanting to give power to evil people by supporting tneir rules. I wonder if it was about leaving some message with the survivors that they would rather die than act in support of their abuse. I wonder if they simply decided it wasn't worth living in a world where madmen made the rules.
Right or wrong, I can see how such thinking could drift into threats made against children-- not just will they live or die, but what kind of world they will live in once they choose to give in to oppressors. And what the oppressors will do next to up the ante.
It's not that I think God can't handle apostasy for emotional reasons of his own. It's that apostasy appears to break something vital inside the believer. Thus all the controversy about if and how to receive back the apostates during the Roman persecutions. Such a break would take a heckuva lot of healing, if it could be healed at all (I suspect a lot of the forced apostates stayed apostate and never petitioned for forgiveness).
Some of you clearly don't think apostasy breaks anything vital. But in that case, I ask you, Why do the persecutors place such a high value on forcing it? They know as well as we do that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." They also know that the watching world does not believe in the genuineness of the conversion, not being idiots. So why bother? I believe it's precisely because they do believe forced conversion/apostasy breaks a person. It is one more way to torture and destroy someone--spiritually, this time. The goal is not true conversion. The goal is destruction.
This is a good point.
One of the first things US soldiers did to internees at Abu Ghirab was to fuck with their religious practices-- witholding water so that they could taunt the inmates for neglecting their ritual washing, sneaking pork into their meals, forcing them into contact with dogs or other unclean animals.
Being that it is in fact a psychological assault, it may well produce a mindset where families agree amongst themselves to tell their persecutors to go fuck themselves no matter who is threatened with what. Again, I am not saying whether this is right or wrong, I am saying I can see how things would get to that point.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What has having a knife to ones child's throat got to do with apostasy? Being ashamed of, denying Christ?
Being ashamed of Christ is what we all are demonstrably, denying Him is what we do, by our almost total inability to bring people to him.
In ordinary discourse.
We're invisible.
We're USELESS at it. Starting with the leadership. SHOW ME!
So all of our armchair courage means what?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And THAT'S the point. You'd make them blow your brains out. Good man. You'd HAVE to kill me to get to those I love. It's a parent's, a husband's JOB to die for their children, their wife. ... There is a time to be supine, to say anything and there is a time to die.
Those are worthy sentiments, but for the question at hand they are evasive. For the question is not whether you should man up to die for your loved ones. The question is whether you should man up to kill for your loved ones. "You have to kill me first" can mean two different things. It can indicate a simple sequence, say to practically remove you from standing in front of someone, or it can indicate that you will do everything in your power - including the total destruction of the opponent if necessary - to stop what is going on. So what is it going to be, when push comes to rape and murder?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Kelly Alves wrote:
Being that it is in fact a psychological assault, it may well produce a mindset where families agree amongst themselves to tell their persecutors to go fuck themselves no matter who is threatened with what. Again, I am not saying whether this is right or wrong, I am saying I can see how things would get to that point.
Yes, they could get to that point, but the original scenario keeps getting altered. Being tortured is different from being told to convert to Islam. I think I'm entitled to choose death rather than survival, but to choose it for someone else seems quite different to me. In fact, it's rather god-like, like I just happen to know that it's better for that other person to die than become a Muslim.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, they could get to that point, but the original scenario keeps getting altered. Being tortured is different from being told to convert to Islam.
So you don't think someone telling you to convert or be murdered/have a loved one murdered, is the type of person that engages in torture? Isn't the request a form of torture in itself? It's not about Islam, it's about any action that's being "requested" at the barrel of a gun. I'd no sooner join a Methodist church if I had to make a choice between death and membership.
The original scenario from the OP was that children were told if they didn't convert they'd be killed, and then they were. As this has been rubbished I posted a fact-based example where teenage girls in Syria were starved because they wouldn't convert, and then when they did to end the suffering they were sold off as wives where they were raped and abused.
The basis of my argument from the start was that it's unreasonable to take the promise of a killer or terrorist in the first place. I was then asked to consider what I would do if I could guarantee that by converting to the killer's religion I would save my child. This is, on its face, ridiculous. It's the most unlikely situation in the world, one that frankly I suspect almost never happens - that the result of a forced conversion is peace and a stable and happy life for the victims.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: I was then asked to consider what I would do if I could guarantee that by converting to the killer's religion I would save my child.
You've been asked to consider what you would do if by converting to the killers religion you could improve the odds of your child from certain death to at least a chance to stay alive.
[ 15. October 2014, 10:35: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, it's rather god-like, like I just happen to know that it's better for that other person to die than become a Muslim.
Isn't it just as god-like to believe that you know the person with the gun won't have a change of heart and refuse to carry out their threat?
It seems to me that the line of argument you're putting forward makes sense if you're a consequentialist. That is, if you think the only thing that morally matters is the future state once the dust has settled, and it's morally entirely irrelevant how that comes about. But most of us aren't consequentialist, not most of the time. I think it's fallacious to present moral dilemmas as if you're choosing between two future states, and evaluating which one is best for your child (and everyone else concerned). Moral dilemmas aren't choosing between future states; you're choosing between things that you personally do.
What other people do in reaction to you is not your decision. (Up to a point: you're responsible for any reaction you try to provoke.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Dafyd: Isn't it just as god-like to believe that you know the person with the gun won't have a change of heart and refuse to carry out their threat?
Betting your child's life on this is playing God.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You've been asked to consider what you would do if by converting to the killers religion you could improve the odds of your child from certain death to at least a chance to stay alive.
And I have to repeat what I said previously - in such a situation any semblance of control on my part is a delusion. Therefore the decision should be based on my own morals and values. Jeopardizing those values for an outcome over which I have absolutely no control whatsoever does not make sense. So I would ideally - again, have no idea what would actually happen, likely would involve peeing all over myself as a start - stand my ground and refuse to agree to the terrorist's demands, God help me.
Look at Steven Sotloff's mother who made a video to ISIS referring to its leader as a legitimate caliph and religious authority. Then ISIS killed her son anyway. In the meantime they now have recruitment videos they can show to jihadis-in-training to prove that the Westerners even acknowledge their religious credentials. I'm sure she was thinking "Hey let's just tell these people what they want to hear to save my kid" but this may have worsened things in some ways from a PR perspective for ISIS. And Alan Kassig, who has already converted to Islam in captivity and changed his name to Abdul-Rahman, was nonetheless listed for potential beheading by ISIS last week. So it isn't working out for him either.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kelly Alves: Being that it is in fact a psychological assault, it may well produce a mindset where families agree amongst themselves to tell their persecutors to go fuck themselves no matter who is threatened with what. Again, I am not saying whether this is right or wrong, I am saying I can see how things would get to that point.
Hmm, at least in this case the children had a say in it. To me, that's morally already different from their parents deciding for them.
I guess one of the things this depends on is on the age of the children. Not that I'm able to draw a line here. It does remind me a bit of euthanasia laws though. In the Netherlands, children are allowed to decide together with their parents about their euthanasia from the age of 16. In Belgium this has recently been reduced to 12.
Interestingly, I don't think that Jewish families in WWII had pacts like this. The way I understand it, when they made pacts, they were mostly like "We must survive, even if it's only one of us. Our history must go on. Go along with anything if you have to, but we must achieve that."
I believe the case about the Hutu and Tutsi girls is morally different.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: And I have to repeat what I said previously - in such a situation any semblance of control on my part is a delusion. Therefore the decision should be based on my own morals and values.
You do that a lot, repeating your arguments without listening what people have to say about them.
I've had a gun pointed at my head by a madman. Not once, but a number of times. I don't know if you have, but I assume — and I hope — that you haven't.
When a madman points a gun at your head, what you do matters. You can improve your chances of survival. There has been research that shows this. There are policemen who are trained in negotiating with madmen who point guns at people's heads. They wouldn't do this if there weren't at least a chance of success.
But the best proof that what you do can influence the one who is pointing a gun at you is that I'm sitting here, typing this right now.
What I'm trying to make you understand is the difference between guaranteeing that a madman won't shoot you (which you can't) and improving your chances that he won't (which you can).
What I'm saying is that it should be a parent's duty to at least try. Even if you fail, trying makes a difference.
quote:
seekingsister: Look at Steven Sotloff's mother who made a video to ISIS referring to its leader as a legitimate caliph and religious authority. Then ISIS killed her son anyway.
Like I said, there was never a guarantee that she would succeed. But she tried. This is what a parent should do. What ISIS does next with these videos isn't upon her. No mother should be asked to sacrifice her child to prevent an organisation from making videos like this.
I'm trying to explain to you the difference between not being able to guarantee a positive outcome and at least trying to improve the chances. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can do.
quote:
seekingsister: Jeopardizing those values for an outcome over which I have absolutely no control whatsoever does not make sense.
Giving up your child's life because you feel you have no control over the situation makes no sense. I can understand that people would do this in dispair, but aiming for this outcome is crazy.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Giving up your child's life because you feel you have no control over the situation makes no sense. I can understand that people would do this in dispair, but aiming for this outcome is crazy.
If someone else has a gun to your child's head -
you do not have control. It's not like feeling you don't have it. It's fact.
ETA: What is your opinion on Abdul-Rahman whose head may be chopped off any day now despite his conversion to Islam in captivity? Given this information, what would you advise a parent given a similar choice for their child - if you convert your kid is safe. Do you expect them to hold to that commitment?
[ 15. October 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: If someone else has a gun to your child's head -
you do not have control. It's not like feeling you don't have it. It's fact.
I've answered to this four or five times now. Are you ever going to read these answers, or are you just going to repeat your assertion?
quote:
seekingsister: ETA: What is your opinion on Abdul-Rahman whose head may be chopped off any day now despite his conversion to Islam in captivity?
He tried. I salute him for that.
quote:
seekingsister: Given this information, what would you advise a parent given a similar choice for their child - if you convert your kid is safe. Do you expect them to hold to that commitment?
There would be no guarantee that they'd hold to that commitment. But there would be a chance. Based on this, I'd advise the parents to convert. Try.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've answered to this four or five times now. Are you ever going to read these answers, or are you just going to repeat your assertion?
Your answers have been unsatisfactory. What I do can never determine what someone else does, even in the best of circumstance. In the worst of them? Nigh on impossible.
quote:
There would be no guarantee that they'd hold to that commitment. But there would be a chance. Based on this, I'd advise the parents to convert. Try.
And if this encourages ISIS to kidnap more Westerners as a result of their "successes" in getting conversions in these previous cases, that's OK with you? I'd say it already has, actually.
[ 15. October 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
I've had a gun pointed at my head by a madman. Not once, but a number of times. I don't know if you have, but I assume — and I hope — that you haven't.
When a madman points a gun at your head, what you do matters. You can improve your chances of survival. There has been research that shows this.
I'm not sure it's appropriate to compare the jihadists with madmen. I assume the madmen you refer to were alone, rather than being part of a group. It seems to me that even if a jihadist is influenced by the words and actions of his potential victims, the group dynamic would interfere with his responding to the victim rather than his jihad group.
Moo
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
seekingsister: Your answers have been unsatisfactory. What I do can never determine what someone else does, even in the best of circumstance. In the worst of them? Nigh on impossible.
I could try to explain to you the difference between determining what someone does and trying to improve the chances that he'll act in the way you you'd want, but what's the use? I've already tried several times ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:
seekingsister: And if this encourages ISIS to kidnap more Westerners as a result of their "successes" in getting conversions in these previous cases, that's OK with you? I'd say it already has, actually.
ISIS kidnapping more westerners (or other people) is never ok, and I'd never agree with that. But you can't put this on a parent's head.
If someone kidnaps my child for money, I'd pay the ransom if I thought this would save my child. Heck, I'd pay the money even if there was a tiny chance that it might save my child (this is one of the distinctions you don't understand).
Will this encourage the criminals to kidnap more children? Yes, probably. Does this change my decision? No. Preventing other kidnappings isn't this parent's task or responsibility. A parent's priority should be to protect the lives of their children.
quote:
Moo: I'm not sure it's appropriate to compare the jihadists with madmen. I assume the madmen you refer to were alone, rather than being part of a group. It seems to me that even if a jihadist is influenced by the words and actions of his potential victims, the group dynamic would interfere with his responding to the victim rather than his jihad group.
I'm not the one who started calling jihadists madmen. Some of the madmen who pointed guns at me were alone, some were in groups, I think of 2–6 people (I'm sorry; I didn't always count well under those circumstances).
I agree that group dynamics are at play here and that these would make things more difficult, but in that case my answer would the same: maybe pretending to convert to Islam might influence the group.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
IngoB.
Well said.
One would hope that one WOULDN'T totally lose it and merely die an active, as opposed to a passive, martyr's death. But it's far from certain. If I could see a chink of light on a knife, gun, grenade, eyeball ... and having done the 'thought experiment' many times ... I'd probably HAVE to take that route. Losing it being, "Ooh look, the pin's come out.".
God wouldn't mind and I wouldn't live long enough to much either. But I wouldn't get a martyr's reward.
However, my armchair heroism has been tested and found, at least felt, wanting many times. Last Friday included: "There's a bunch of drunken Russians outside and they're going to kick off.". They were Balts (Latvian and Estonian I think) and Poles. Six of them. Drink had been taken. That was interesting. Why I didn't have to call the cops amazes me. Bloody 'exhilarating' I can tell you! Especially when one guy with 'issues' whispers 'Call police now.'.
The time I got beat up in the park for being the Good Samaritan (what a hero eh? - Remember, no sufficiently good deed goes unpunished) I COULDN'T take the guy out although I really, really could see the move, because he hadn't made his! It was his mate who took me out while he was in my face.
Aye IngoB. The courage to kill. Not just to block, overpower, but, because it's the ONLY possibility in the moment or nothing, to kill to save.
Well, for the weak in my company, I hope so.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye IngoB. The courage to kill. Not just to block, overpower, but, because it's the ONLY possibility in the moment or nothing, to kill to save. Well, for the weak in my company, I hope so.
Well then, we agree. Or at least so in theory, for my own "heroism" remains largely untested, and may it ever remain so - pretty please with a cherry on top.
But I would not call this (theoretical...) attitude of mine "pacifism", just because I prefer to avoid violence if possible. And if I did one day refrain from killing to save, then the likely causes would be ineptitude and/or cowardice rather than religious conviction. I consider the traditional "just war" philosophy, and its personalised equivalent as " just self-defence", to be perfectly fine developments of Christian doctrine - one of the many things that the Holy Spirit has revealed to us as an appropriate interpretation and implementation of Christ's teachings.
Those are, in fact, challenging enough - as justice always is. And they are to me precisely the "normal" foundation above which heroic sanctity can rise on occasion, in charity.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Holy Spirit certainly leads us in to ALL truth. I.e. Jesus' and Augustine-Aquinas' and yours and mine and their intersection with each other and absolute truth.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Interestingly, I don't think that Jewish families in WWII had pacts like this. The way I understand it, when they made pacts, they were mostly like "We must survive, even if it's only one of us. Our history must go on. Go along with anything if you have to, but we must achieve that."
Jewish response to Nazi threat was all over the map-- hiding, submitting, colluding, bartering, defying, sacrificing, anything an average human can think of. There was more than one report of a parent giving cyanide to their entire families-- including children-- when reports of an SS roundup were in the air.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS RIGHT. I am saying (1.) it is inaccurate to say Jewish families did or did not choose X strategy, because the survivor narratives indicate they pretty much tried them all, and (2.) I am saying that in desperate times human beings do desperate things. We may shudder at these things-- and I do-- but it is beyond me to armchair- quarterback people who were in such situations.
As others said above, I can't imagine a situation in which someone would threaten a parent to convert or watch their child die that wasn't part of a larger culture of terrorism, abuse and oppression.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kelly Alves: There was more than one report of a parent giving cyanide to their entire families-- including children-- when reports of an SS roundup were in the air.
Ok, I stand corrected.
quote:
Kelly Alves: I am saying that in desperate times human beings do desperate things.
I also agree with this. I can understand that these families took this decision out of despair. You're right that this doesn't make it right, especially when parents decide for small children. There is also a difference between the near-certain death of concentration camps and slavery under ISIS.
I know the comparison is awkward, but allow me to stretch it a bit further. What some people of this thread seem to be saying, while in a safe position is: "We will take the cyanide pill. I hope I'll be able to go through with it." This kind of premeditation makes it less of an act of despair.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another reminder of Jonestown; on the 'death tape':
'Parroting Jones' prior statements that hostile forces would convert captured children to Fascism, one temple member states: "The ones that they take captured, they're gonna just let them grow up and be dummies."' (Wiki).
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QUOTE]
I know the comparison is awkward, but allow me to stretch it a bit further. What some people of this thread seem to be saying, while in a safe position is: "We will take the cyanide pill. I hope I'll be able to go through with it." This kind of premeditation makes it less of an act of despair.
You don't have a handy stash of cynide capsules around unless you have planned for them.
Again, not saying it's right, but it wasn't a moment of despair these people were suffering, it was what must seemed like and endless, descending cavern of despair with no light at the end.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
And I guess the main point for me is: I ain't buying any capsules for anyone right now, because live is liveable. I am not hearing gunshots down the street and wondering which of my neighbors got it. I am not being stopped by random soldiers and hassled for their amusement. I am not checking out my basement crawl spaces to figure out how noticable they are and how many people can fit there. This makes it really difficult for me to firmly state what kind of decisions I would make if that were going on.
I guess my comment about armchair quarterbacking cuts both ways, though-- my first example of the synagoge destruction lends to the argument that religious folk might be inclined to trust in God's forgiveness rather than antagonise their oppressors.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I would also say that resolving ahead of time that, even at the point of death, even at the point of others trying to threaten the death of others, one hopes to stand firm and not deny Christ (even as a deliberate lie), is not despair.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Granted. I just don't think we should kid ourselves that it isn't armchair quarterbacking, out of respect to the people who are up to their necks in very real reasons to contemplate these dilemmas.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Granted. I just don't think we should kid ourselves that it isn't armchair quarterbacking, out of respect to the people who are up to their necks in very real reasons to contemplate these dilemmas.
Amen. This is arguably the most horrible Earthly thing one could be threatened with, even worse for most people than their own actual death by torture. May God bless and have mercy on everyone in such horrible, horrible situations, and help us not sit in judgment on them for how they react. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
LeRoc: quote:
There is also a difference between the near-certain death of concentration camps and slavery under ISIS.
Well, yes, we can say that *now*. But it wasn't that obvious to the Jews of Nazi-occupied Europe back in the 1940s. Many of them did not realise that the time-honoured strategy of keeping their heads down and obeying the government wasn't going to work until it was too late for them to change their minds...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, the fanasy about Jewish people being a desirable slave labor force and the camps simply being work camps was holding out long after the actual exterminations began. People who opted for suicide rather than camps most likely still thought they were opting out of a lifetime of slavery, not sure death.
Speaking of the slaves-- while most American slaves wound up lowering their heads and following along, again, survivor narratives take you all over the map. There were indeed parents that smothered their offspring rather than have them live as slaves. Frederick Douglass witness a young girl jump from a boat and drown rather than become a concubine to her new owner ( and it was clear that that was what would happen.) And there were many people who made the horrible decision-- to them, I mean-- to leave behind families, including wives and children, with little promise to retrieve them, because an irrefusable opportunity for escape arose.
[ 16. October 2014, 18:58: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
And here is what Canon Andrew White is reported to have said recently:
“Well, there’s one man and he was disabled and had hidden his children in his house in Kirkush and ISIS came in one day and said, ‘You’re Christian. You either convert or we chop off the heads of all your children.’” Rev. White replied, “So he was forced to say the words of conversion and they spared his children, but they said if he came back and they saw he had been doing any Christian things they would kill them all. And he phoned me and said, ‘Father, Father! How could I do this? Will Jesus not love me anymore because I’ve done this?’ And I said, ‘No, whoever is in this situation would have done the same to save their children. And you will not lose them and you will not lose your faith. And you are still a Christian.’”
Found here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/vicar-of-baghdad-isis-is-beheading-christians-but-nobody-believes-it-interv
I realise that the source is ... interesting ... and I tried to find this quote from another source, but no dice. Anyway, there it is. I have great respect for Andrew White and he, unlike me, has been out on the frontline.
I have three very simple things to say:
- I've had a knife pulled on me. You don't argue with someone holding a knife against your body. You. Just. Don't.
- I'm not a parent but if I had children I would do anything to save them.
- Parents being bullied, coerced and intimidated by IS thugs threatening their children have very little choice about how they respond and what they do.
[ 17. October 2014, 11:03: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I believe Andrew White: “It’s just been terrible. They have been amputating people’s heads and putting them on railings. They have chopped children in half. You know, I write some of these things on my blog and nobody believes it,” he said in frustration, “They say you must be making this up, that there’s no evidence of this, this isn’t in this paper or that paper. Here we are living with it and people can’t accept it. There is no other Western person here in central Iraq. Not one. I’m the only one and they can’t believe it.”
I STILL don't believe the 'missionary'.
And of these 'people', who are Christian? I know of one little Christian boy severed, from Andrew White.
Not that it matters, but it does, the 'missionary' was implicitly claiming exceptional persecution of Christians - and so is Andrew it seems - over Yazidi, Shia and non-IS Sunni. And that Christian children are dying martyrs' deaths while their parents watch and do nothing, absolutely nothing.
As for the IS warning Christians not to do anything Christian, does that forbid kindness, generosity, gratitude, understanding, forgiveness, mercy, prayer? Or something else?
I'll check Andrew's blog.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Searching EVERY page. There is NOTHING on Andrew's blog indicating disproportionate, exceptional, targeted killing of Christians for four years. NOTHING to back up the 'missionary' story.
NOT that it couldn't WELL be true, despite NOTHING ANYWHERE to back up the claims, but the spin on it ISN'T. Even though 'they' may well believe it.
•June 23: ISIS Rape Christian Mother and Daughter, Kill 4 Christian Women for Not Wearing Veil
February 7, 2014
...
Yesterday’s bombings were so serious and all around the church there were homicide bombings. Scores of people were killed including two young male friends in their twenties. They were Dawood’s closest friends and ran a shop which provided our church with much it needs.
29/05/2012
Regularly our people are wounded and killed not because they are targeted but because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
12/01/2012
Fatwa FORBIDS the killing of Christians.
30/10/2010
It was on the last day of October in 2010 that everything changed for Christians in Iraq. AQI gunmen broke into the Syrian Catholic Church during a service and killed 59 people. What followed was over 2 months of massacring, killing and torturing of Christians.
November 2010
Sadly a month later an attack killing a Christian family happened in Baghdad.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I have great respect for Andrew White and he,
Me too - and if he said what was reported, that settles the matter for me.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
psychologically, it's a mitzvah on his part to say that publicly. Those who are forced into a place where they have to feign conversion at least know they have a bishop who will stand by them through the ordeal. And that can help reassure them that God is with them through it, too.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
psychologically, it's a mitzvah on his part to say that publicly. Those who are forced into a place where they have to feign conversion at least know they have a bishop who will stand by them through the ordeal. And that can help reassure them that God is with them through it, too.
That's a very nice point. I suppose those opt for death may be also reassured that God is with them.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Since you have made it clear that you think submitting and saving the kids is the right thing to do, I would think you'd welcome any idea that helps people cope with doing that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Since you have made it clear that you think submitting and saving the kids is the right thing to do, I would think you'd welcome any idea that helps people cope with doing that.
Absolutely. I am just having my five minutes a week, when I am feeling magnanimous. Although I find the idea of preferring one's child's death abhorrent, I'm not sure that God would condemn it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Since I have spent the last 2-3 pages saying that we shoudn't judge such a choice, I will be predictable and agree.
[ 17. October 2014, 17:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although I find the idea of preferring one's child's death abhorrent, I'm not sure that God would condemn it.
Consider a Sophie's Choice situation. A Nazi forces Sophie to choose which of her children he'll kill. (Or he'll kill them both.)
I do not think you can say that because she chooses one child rather than the other she prefers that child's death to the other child's death. That's the Nazi's logic. For that matter, if she rejects the Nazi's sadistic choice I don't think you can say she prefers that both children die.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
leo. He didn't.
Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on
:
I have read this thread for a while and found some of the posts abhorrent. I can not get my head around the idea that a parent would happily allow a child to be put in a position where they are likely to be a slave or a murderer. This seems wrong to me.
The readings this morning, in my church, were looking at Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament; and The baptism of Jesus, with verse 29 being the link between the two tales.
I have come to the conclusion that the Abraham story, whilst outwardly repellent, is a tale of trust. Abraham trusted that God had a great inheritance for himself, although how killing the "chosen one" was going to achieve this he didn't quite understand.
I do not think that it was an easy thing, without emotion, for Abraham to do, but yet Abraham trusted God. I would hate to have to decide the fate of any hypothetical Children I had, but I think I would try and trust God.
What's better, an eternity without suffering or any pain in the company of my Children, or a lifetime of suffering and humiliation because I denounced my faith.
If we deny Jesus are we also denying our Salvation? Jesus makes it clear in the Gospels that the fire of hell is real and we need him to avoid it. Isis appear to make sure that those who make the oath to Isis will follow the will of Isis. I think that does have an effect on salvation.
My hope is that I would take the heaven sent opportunity if forced to deny my faith. Pain and suffering would end for ever....what's not to like. I hope that I would trust in the Jesus of the creeds. Remember that when Jesus died, there was a heartbroken father that had allowed his son to die, to quote a sermon I heard this morning.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a source before I believe that Jewish families committed suicide to avoid being transported to what they thought were mere labour camps.
It is true that there were a lot of rumours and misinformation, but I don't think the myth that these were just labour camps lasted long. Around 1980, I interviewed a couple of restistance members in the Netherlands who had hidden away Jews, and they knew very well at the time what they were protecting them from.
Warsaw: "No indication whatever is given by the Nazis as to the fate of the deportees, except that they are being sent to occupied Russian territory. The fear prevails that the victims are slaughtered by the Nazis on their way to the alleged 'unknown distinction in the east.'"
Paris: "The despair of the Jews both in occupied and in unoccupied France can hardly be described. They know that their deportation amounts to virtual death."
These were big cities, people knew that being sent away was near-certain death. Word gets around.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There is nothing more abhorrent than God the damner. The antithesis of Jesus.
Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is nothing more abhorrent than God the damner. The antithesis of Jesus.
I've always understood the bible as teaching a God who has set the rules....whether you accept the rules or not is up to you. God may be the judge, but it is the person who does the damning. I see a loving God who would allow his soon to die so that people might live. What's abhorrent in that?
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is nothing more abhorrent than God the damner. The antithesis of Jesus.
Hmm. A glance at the gospel according to St Matthew will show that Jesus was not averse to a bit of damning. The "blessed"s in the Beatitudes are immediately followed by some "woe to"s; and later those goats are dealt with sharply enough.
If not salvation by works, perhaps damnation by works.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Rules that are as arbitrary as stoning a man to death for picking up sticks?
There are no woes after the Beatitudes until six chapters.
Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Rules that are as arbitrary as stoning a man to death for picking up sticks?
There are no woes after the Beatitudes until six chapters.
I'm just trying to remember Jesus' words on that, to the pharisee's....something about "the man without sin gets some free stones"....
[ 19. October 2014, 21:04: Message edited by: Lord Pontivillian ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Which Pharisee's what?
Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Which Pharisee's what?
Reading John chapter 8 may answer you question.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think Martin was referring to your grocers' apostrophe.
Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on
:
Does that mean he's a grammar Pharisee? I blame the modern educational system for my grammatical deficiencies!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm not a question.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Lord Pontivillian wrote:
I have read this thread for a while and found some of the posts abhorrent. I can not get my head around the idea that a parent would happily allow a child to be put in a position where they are likely to be a slave or a murderer. This seems wrong to me.
I get your point, but the word 'happily' is jarring; are you saying that people who convert rather than see their children killed, are happy about it? I doubt it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0