|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How close is this to denying Christ?
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I don't know what I'd do if I were ordered to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament or die. But I find that a much more troubling thought experiment than ones based around a requirement for saying words of denouncement.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't know what I'd do if I were ordered to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament or die. But I find that a much more troubling thought experiment than ones based around a requirement for saying words of denouncement.
Well, I suppose that a pure materialist would say that it's just as absurd to hesitate in denigrating a piece of bread as it is to hesitate in uttering "Jesus" "is" "not" and "God" in succession, if the alternative is being murdered.
By the same token, someone who does attach qualitative spiritual significance to certain words uttered in succession might expect believers in the Real Presence to understand his dilemna.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
The question I have to ask: Should he have gone in the first place? I don't think it's as cut and dried as "yes, because we're commanded to preach the gospel". I ask becasue he set up the situation, and should have known the possible outcome in advance.
[ 05. March 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
The question I have to ask: Should he have gone in the first place? I don't think it's as cut and dried as "yes, because we're commanded to preach the gospel". I ask becasue he set up the situation, and should have known the possible outcome in advance.
Very good point, and here is something that has bugged me about all random propaganda drops on North Korea, not just the missionary stuff.
Suppose a young child wanders into that Buddhist temple, finds one of the tracts that Short left behind, and brings it school and shows the teacher. Or, better yet, a policeman he encounters along the way.
Is Short making any guarantees that the official response will be no more severe than taking the tract away from the kid?
[ 05. March 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's hard, because people don't see words the same way. For example, we had a nasty situation several years ago where someone offered to change their handwritten, signed, sworn testimony to the exact opposite if offered enough money. When we pointed out that they had signed their names to it, they shrugged and said, "so what? It's just words."
Against that sort of thing ... well, we basically threw up our hands and gave up. Such a person will do ANYTHING, it seems to me.
Similarly I've had a former boss commit character assassination against me (or so I took it), saying aloud in the hearing of other people that I had done things I had not done. When I called him on it, he was astonished that I had any trouble with his lie, because "everybody does it, they all know it's not the truth and they're not going to believe it anyway, it's just another move in the game, learn to play it. What's your problem?"
And that's the trouble I'm seeing on this thread and lots of others we've had in the past. We've got people for whom the words "I renounce Jesus Christ" are actual performative denial, and worth dying over. And we've got people who say "they're just words, what's the problem?"
Is there any way the two groups can communicate? I swear, I feel like a hopeless dinosaur sometimes.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's hard, because people don't see words the same way. For example, we had a nasty situation several years ago where someone offered to change their handwritten, signed, sworn testimony to the exact opposite if offered enough money. When we pointed out that they had signed their names to it, they shrugged and said, "so what? It's just words."
Against that sort of thing ... well, we basically threw up our hands and gave up. Such a person will do ANYTHING, it seems to me.
Similarly I've had a former boss commit character assassination against me (or so I took it), saying aloud in the hearing of other people that I had done things I had not done. When I called him on it, he was astonished that I had any trouble with his lie, because "everybody does it, they all know it's not the truth and they're not going to believe it anyway, it's just another move in the game, learn to play it. What's your problem?"
And that's the trouble I'm seeing on this thread and lots of others we've had in the past. We've got people for whom the words "I renounce Jesus Christ" are actual performative denial, and worth dying over. And we've got people who say "they're just words, what's the problem?"
Is there any way the two groups can communicate? I swear, I feel like a hopeless dinosaur sometimes.
In the scenarios you give, the person who is being lied to has no way of knowing that they're being lied to, so the lie does real harm. (And it sounds like you were in an awful situation at work ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
But in the case of making a statement about Jesus, Jesus knows what I believe about him. If I said words to the contrary under duress, he would know why and what was in my heart.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped wrote:
quote:
And that's the trouble I'm seeing on this thread and lots of others we've had in the past. We've got people for whom the words "I renounce Jesus Christ" are actual performative denial, and worth dying over. And we've got people who say "they're just words, what's the problem?"
Is there any way the two groups can communicate? I swear, I feel like a hopeless dinosaur sometimes.
Earlier today, this thread had got me thinking about the climax of 1984, where, in order to avoid having his face eaten alive by rats, Winston pleads for the horrors to be inflicted upon his girfriend Julia instead. The idea being that the authorities want him to admit that he would willingly inflict certain horrors on his closest loved ones if it meant not having to undergo them himself.
But, of course, Winston likely knows that the Ministry has no intention of honouring his request to kill Julia with rats, they just wanna hear him uttering those words, with conviction. Presimably, the interrogator is able to figure out when someone is really expressing a willingness to see his loved one tortured to death, and when they're just faking it.
In the case of a missionary, if he has previously stated that he considers merely uttering the words to be a grave sin, I suppose it would be something of a twisted accomplishment if you got him to do so. Not sure if that really applies to Room 101 in the Ministry Of Love.
[ 05. March 2014, 14:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's true Jesus would know the truth. But then, he knew exactly the same about Peter, and still that denial was a problem...?
I also wonder about the effect on those who hear of the apparent apostasy--are we responsible to care for the impact on them, as our neighbors? I imagine (can't prove) that it would make nonChristians less likely to convert, and would sadly grieve and shake up Christians. And is there any chance that speaking or acting out a lie could bring it closer to being the truth?
This is maybe why I say so little in real life. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I'm rather afraid of the trouble my mouth can create.
[ 05. March 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I imagine (can't prove) that it would make nonChristians less likely to convert, and would sadly grieve and shake up Christians. And is there any chance that speaking or acting out a lie could bring it closer to being the truth?
Personally, speaking as someone who is not a Christian in the sense under discussion, I would probably be MORE likely to convert if I thought that the faith allowed for utilitarian lying.
Because, quite frankly, not uttering the words when you know the refusal could cause your own death(to say nothing of the deaths of others), strikes me as highly illogical, if for no other reason than it prevents you from effectively witnessing to others. And I'm not personally attracted to excessively illogical belief-systems.
Though I suppose if someone could show that every refusal-to-renounce in the face of death leads to X number of conversions, whereas every renunication leads to the same number of people deciding not to convert, it could be argued that non-renuncation is the logical way to go.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
[ETA: darn these crossposts! I meant damage to those who hear of the apostasy, take it seriously, and then conclude that there's no use in investigating a faith that a respected leader has chosen to give up]
Throwing something else into the mix, then...
My husband Mr. Lamb was a prisoner in a re-education camp for over three years. During that time, he and his fellow officers were obliged to sit in brainwashing groups where they would send in some fool to lecture them on why the South lost the war. I've no doubt that there were plenty of serious and even horrific things said that he isn't sharing with me, but a couple ridiculous ones stood out--
these former Air Force officers were required to listen, and then express their agreement verbally, to the following propositions:
1. The North Vietnamese communists won the war because they were smarter in how they used fuel. Instead of simply flying their planes all the time, like the idiot Americans and South Vietnamese, they had the brains to park their planes on a cloud and wait for the enemy to fly past underneath--at which point they would shoot them.
2. Similarly, they saved on bullets etc. by waiting until the American/South Vietnamese were flying in formation (=apparently several planes in a perfectly aligned row) and then using a single bullet, the Communist pilot would take out a whole row of planes at the same time.
Now these are obvious pieces of idiocy, and Mr. Lamb and his fellow pilots had much ado to avoid giggling (and getting shot as a result). These are not just lies, but lies that are apparent to any fool hearing them on either side of the conflict. And yet the brainwashers were absolutely set on getting these men to agree to these statements. Why? Apparently they thought that it would have some sort of break-down effect on their minds, hearts, wills, whatever. In spite of the fact that everyone within hearing range knew them for lies, and there was no way the South Vietnamese pilots' "apostasy" would be believed by anybody, whether their captors or outsiders. So in this case, we can't say that the "lies" (I can't even give them the dignity of leaving off the scare quotes!) would cause any damage to anybody at all, barring the person uttering them. But there the brainwashers obviously expected them to cause damage. And horrible as brainwashers are, I suspect they know by experience more about what forced apostasy of any sort can do to the human mind than I do. Anybody got any insights on this one?
[ 05. March 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
And horrible as brainwashers are, I suspect they know by experience more about what forced apostasy of any sort can do to the human mind than I do. Anybody got any insights on this one?
I'm speculating that the logic of the brainwashers would be "Well, if we can condition them against laughing at the cloud story, we can pretty much guarantee that they will never snicker at any of our propaganda if released back into society." The idea being to train them against overt displays of skepticism(which set a bad example for others), not to actually make them think that clouds are solid entities.
That said, North Korean propaganda contains many mystical elements, verging on and in some cases heading straight into magic. But my understanding is that that stuff is mostly fashioned from pre-existing folklore, which at least part of the population might actually believe naturally(the ruling family claims descent from Tangun, for example). Whereas the stuff about the airplanes just seems to have been deliberately concocted AS absurd.
And, again, this is speculation.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Persuant to the issue of "brainwashing"...
Korean War Brainwashing Debunked
Not saying that's the be-all-and-end-all on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me if so-called brainwashing isn't very effective cross-culturally.
EDIT: Actually, according to that, the North Koreans didn't even really try to indoctrinate the Americans.
[ 05. March 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's hard, because people don't see words the same way. For example, we had a nasty situation several years ago where someone offered to change their handwritten, signed, sworn testimony to the exact opposite if offered enough money. When we pointed out that they had signed their names to it, they shrugged and said, "so what? It's just words."
Against that sort of thing ... well, we basically threw up our hands and gave up. Such a person will do ANYTHING, it seems to me.
I would say rather that they would SAY anything. They appear to be making a very strong distinction between words and actions. Words don't matter to them. It doesn't follow that actions don't, and it is on the contrary fairly strongly implied that they do.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But, of course, Winston likely knows that the Ministry has no intention of honouring his request to kill Julia with rats, they just wanna hear him uttering those words, with conviction.
I'm not sure that at the time of his greatest fear, he was making such fine distinctions. The ministry wanted to break his spirit. He defiantly told his captors that they had done all these things to him, but he had never betrayed Julia. Under duress, without thinking, he betrays her, and then in the cool of the aftermath he realizes what he has done, and it breaks his spirit. He realizes the Ministry owns him, and can make him do whatever it wants him to do. They could have just killed him, but that's not what they wanted. They didn't want dead people, they wanted unpeople.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
MT, the doing I had in mind here was the willingness to do anything for money, even if it meant sacrificing their own public reputation. Most people have some care for what the community thinks of them, and this was a very public volte-face--though i should have mentioned that.
Stetson, interesting idea, but the plan was not to let them go home into Viet society again. Basically you stayed there until starvation and overwork killed you off. Mr Lamb escaped; his brother stayed there fourteen years until he was nearly dead and the govt finally caved to international Christian pressure. Lots more did die. The non-officers had a bit more lenience, and might be released after a while. I'll have to ask Mr. Lamb if he knows of any officers who were ever simply set free.
[ 05. March 2014, 16:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
MT, the doing I had in mind here was the willingness to do anything for money, even if it meant sacrificing their own public reputation. Most people have some care for what the community thinks of them, and this was a very public volte-face--though i should have mentioned that.
I get that, but I still think the saying "it's only words" indicates that he places a thick line between DOING anything for money and SAYING anything for money.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Could be. Trouble is, I know these freaks in real life, and in fact they will (and have) done anything in the years since. Including murder. I'm sorry!
[ETA: which reminds me to go check the trial date again, thanks]
[ 05. March 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We are told that Peter denied Christ outright, not in waffly probably-dictated words, but straight out "I don't fucking know the guy"--and that when Jesus was on trial for his life.
This is exactly what I first thought, LC. The rock upon which the Church was built was a repentant outright denier. And (as Mousethief basically said), to say that this fellow is a denier is above my pay-grade as a fellow believer. I hope I'd be able to refuse to do anything that looked like denial, but I make no non-experience-based extravagant claims.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Could be. Trouble is, I know these freaks in real life, and in fact they will (and have) done anything in the years since. Including murder. I'm sorry!
[ETA: which reminds me to go check the trial date again, thanks]
Well, dammit, you failed to mention that. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I did. Bad LC. Very, very bad LC. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(does anybody know what the hell a "case review" is, in a murder case that's not yet come to trial? It's been like four freaking years.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Whenever I read of elaborate confessions or apologies from prisoners released by North Koreans or other extremists, I always assume that they are false; and that the captors, captive and global public know they are false.
Everyone recognizes they are a mere formality or ceremony performed on such occasions in exchange for freedom, and that their truth or otherwise is irrelevant.
No-one in these circumstances is likely to accuse the released prisoner of a deliberate untruth which was meant to be believed.
A distant, and perhaps trivial, analogy can be drawn with everyday life.
When people ask us “How are you?”, or “How do you do?”, we answer “Very well, thank you”.
We might, in fact, be in all sorts of trouble (health, finances, relationships, whatever) , and the person greeting us, and any onlookers witnessing the exchange, might know this, but no-one is likely to accuse us of a deliberate untruth which is intended to mislead.
It is just the done thing on such an occasion, and to instead launch into a long description of all our problems in response to the greeting would be inappropriate.
[ 05. March 2014, 22:17: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure that at the time of his greatest fear, he was making such fine distinctions. The ministry wanted to break his spirit. He defiantly told his captors that they had done all these things to him, but he had never betrayed Julia. Under duress, without thinking, he betrays her, and then in the cool of the aftermath he realizes what he has done, and it breaks his spirit. He realizes the Ministry owns him, and can make him do whatever it wants him to do. They could have just killed him, but that's not what they wanted. They didn't want dead people, they wanted unpeople.
Yeah, the psychology of that scene is kind of hard to sort out for me, in terms of knowing what Winston knows about his captors' wishes, and what they know about what he knows etc. There's sort of a "game theory" aspect to it.
I akways got the impression that Winston knows that it is specifically Julia that they want him to name as his stand-in, and I took that as indicating that he knows the nature of the game that's being played, ie. he knows that they just want him to admit that he would have Julia tortured to save himself. Not that they actually want him to make a serious request to have her tortured.
But I guess he does say "Do it to Julia!", rather than "I'd rather that you do it to Julia", which might indicate that he expects the torture to be carried out. But why would he think that they want his permission to do it to her?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Good point. It may be that he realizes at the time, not afterwards, that he is consciously betraying her. He realizes what they want is for him to betray her, and that if he will do so, they will refrain from releasing the rats. He tries to hold out, out of pride, and it really is devastating to him that he gives in out of fear. Maybe?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
That was certainly my reading of the scene, MT.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Short's Apology
Or at least edited portions thereof.
Apparently, all that stuff about North Korea lacking freedom is western media lies!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Short's Apology Or at least edited portions thereof. Apparently, all that stuff about North Korea lacking freedom is western media lies!
There was nothing explicitly Christ-denying in this statement. There was considerable irony in making Mr Short read out a statement which went on and on about how criminal and insulting it was to hand out bible tracts and then concluded with how the West was wrong about the lack of religious freedom in North Korea. But who expected this to be anything but a farce staged by a no-banana republic?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
a no-banana republic?
Nice. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
There was nothing explicitly Christ-denying in this statement.
Yeah, I know. I acknowledged that in my OP.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
And one more thing...
quote:
There was considerable irony in making Mr Short read out a statement which went on and on about how criminal and insulting it was to hand out bible tracts and then concluded with how the West was wrong about the lack of religious freedom in North Korea.
I wasn't criticizing Short for the ludicrousness of that particular line, which I doubt he wrote. I was just kinda making fun of the line, generally.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
