Ship of Fools: How close is this to denying Christ?

Thread: How close is this to denying Christ? 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=026993

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

An Australian missionary being held by the North Koreans has been allowed to go home after writing an apology. Do I hear a rooster crowing?

Okay, as far as I can tell, the guy didn't write anything like "I can certainly see now that all this JESUS IS THE SAVIOUR stuff is a load of hogwash." Nevertheless, by expressing regret for his "insult" to the Korean people, he's stating, at least ostnsibly, that protecting cultural sensitivities is more important to him than spreading the gospel.

Furthermore, assuming(as seems likely) that he doesn't really care about the alleged feelings of the Korean people in this regard, but is just trying to get himself out of danger, he comes off looking even worse. Basically what he's implicitly saying is "Too bad about all the souls I didn't save, but sheesh, I can't stay in a North Korean prison forever, can I?"

I suppose you could argue that he wasn't doing much good as a missionary stuck in the jails of a totalitarian state, so he might as well just write up the demanded apology, get out of NK, and go preach to a more accomadating crowd. But you could say the same thing about Christian martyrs who are valourized for accepting death rather than denying Jesus. If they had lied and said "Okay, okay Jesus was a fraud!!" the knife would have been taken off their throats, and they would have had at least a fighting chance of doing effective witness later on.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

For my money it's not my job to say how close he is to denying Christ or not -- he was in a tight place and I have no idea what I would have done in his place. To say anything else seems judgmental.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For my money it's not my job to say how close he is to denying Christ or not -- he was in a tight place and I have no idea what I would have done in his place. To say anything else seems judgmental.

That is a fair perspective.

I do know other Christians, however, who make a point of praising their fellow believers for refusing even just vocally renounce the faith in the face of mortal threats. So, obviously, for some people, it is something upon which judgement can be passed.

For those who don't follow these things, there is a revolving-door of westerers, usually but not always missionaries, who enter North Korea illegally, get themselved apprehanded by the authorities, and then become the subject of earnest campaigns for their release.

I recall one guy, a missionary, who prior to entering, gave a sermon in which he said to his listerners "And I do not want Jimmy Carter to come and get me!!(a reference to a previous insident where Carter had negoriated someone's release). As I recall, he ended up accepting assistance from his home government, though not Jimmy Carter, so I guess he was technically off the hook for a hypocrisy charge.

Kenneth Bae is an American missionary who has been held in North Korea since late 2012. According to that article, he doesn't have to worry about Carter coming to get him.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I think I agree with Mousethief that it's necessary to be very careful about judging other people in this kind of context.

One of the problems here is that Westerners do rather stand out in a land like Korea, and are likely furthermore to be perceived as some kind of agents of their (supposedly) Christian governments stirring up political opposition to formally atheist communism rather than merely religious issues. As a point of strategy mission in such places is better done by comparative locals and Westerners should be careful not to risk the lives of the locals by being apparently provocative.

If Korea were a totally Christian-free land some form of Western mission might be appropriate; and even then, for a comparatively closed country other Asians might be better. but as I understand it even North Korea has a significant if underground native church. Christians outside must be interested and pray, but need to be very careful how we act.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I just hope someone's going to care for the poor guy. He must be feeling very broken.

I suspect only Christ can judge whether this constitutes denial or not. But even if it does--

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.

And we also know from Scripture that one of the very first resurrection appearances was Easter Sunday itself, when Jesus came to Peter, privately and alone-- it was apparently so important to him to defuse Peter's grief and despair that he didn't even put it off till the afternoon. The only thing we know for sure about that meeting is that it happened, and that Peter was heartbreakingly in love with Christ after that point--witness his behavior during the Sea of Galilee appearance. I think it's pretty safe to infer that what happened at that first meeting involved a lot of tears and repentance--and forgiveness.

I hope this poor guy has the same experience.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For my money it's not my job to say how close he is to denying Christ or not -- he was in a tight place and I have no idea what I would have done in his place. To say anything else seems judgmental.

Amen.

I don't know him personally, but I have prayed for him every month for years as I've worked through our denomination's missionary prayer guide.

If I had my druthers, he would have held out heroically, for years if necessary, but I don't know what he was threatened with, and I have no idea how I would respond in similar circumstances.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I just hope someone's going to care for the poor guy. He must be feeling very broken.

I suspect only Christ can judge whether this constitutes denial or not. But even if it does--

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.

And we also know from Scripture that one of the very first resurrection appearances was Easter Sunday itself, when Jesus came to Peter, privately and alone-- it was apparently so important to him to defuse Peter's grief and despair that he didn't even put it off till the afternoon. The only thing we know for sure about that meeting is that it happened, and that Peter was heartbreakingly in love with Christ after that point--witness his behavior during the Sea of Galilee appearance. I think it's pretty safe to infer that what happened at that first meeting involved a lot of tears and repentance--and forgiveness.

I hope this poor guy has the same experience.

Thanks for that, LC.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

I do know other Christians, however, who make a point of praising their fellow believers for refusing even just vocally renounce the faith in the face of mortal threats. So, obviously, for some people, it is something upon which judgement can be passed.

To stand firm in the face of mortal threats is praiseworthy, but it doesn't follow that not to stand firm is blameworthy.

We can praise a hero for running into a burning building and saving someone without blaming someone who didn't.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I just hope someone's going to care for the poor guy. He must be feeling very broken.

I suspect only Christ can judge whether this constitutes denial or not. But even if it does--

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.

And we also know from Scripture that one of the very first resurrection appearances was Easter Sunday itself, when Jesus came to Peter, privately and alone-- it was apparently so important to him to defuse Peter's grief and despair that he didn't even put it off till the afternoon. The only thing we know for sure about that meeting is that it happened, and that Peter was heartbreakingly in love with Christ after that point--witness his behavior during the Sea of Galilee appearance. I think it's pretty safe to infer that what happened at that first meeting involved a lot of tears and repentance--and forgiveness.

I hope this poor guy has the same experience.

i'll add my amen to this prayer.
[Votive]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Okay, as far as I can tell, the guy didn't write anything like "I can certainly see now that all this JESUS IS THE SAVIOUR stuff is a load of hogwash." Nevertheless, by expressing regret for his "insult" to the Korean people, he's stating, at least ostnsibly, that protecting cultural sensitivities is more important to him than spreading the gospel.

That's fascinating, you are a Noviatianist / Donatist. Except that the Stetsonists are even more rigorous, in that they condemn on conjecture. To translate this back into ancient terms, not only are Christians beyond the pale who actually have sacrificed to the pagan gods or handed over their scriptures, but now even sucking up to the Emperor and his cronies in the face of persecution is suspect. It's an all out holy war against the world, or nothing.

I hope we find a St Augustine to tell the Stetsonists where they can stuff their rigour mortis ("stiffness of death")... In the meantime we can find succour in the orthodox teaching of wide mental reservation, which allows Christians to be both wise as serpents and harmless as doves in giving their lives to Christ.

(And perhaps there is a biological solution to this heresy, as the Stetsonist are constantly risking their lives for Christ in their rigorous pursuit of martyrdom at all costs. For one positive thing about Stetsonists is that they would never ask a sacrifice of others that they are not trying to make themselves. Or so I'd expect from the loud noises being made...)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Wow, I've just praised Lamb Chopped on another thread, and she's done it again. What's even more disturbing. I may not totally agree with his manner of expression, but I agree with IngoB. I don't often find myself saying that.

We haven't got this chap's exact words, but he doesn't seem to have been made to say 'Jesus is not the Son of God' or 'I don't believe in Jesus any more'. He seems merely to have been forced to say in rather extravagant language, 'I've been a bad boy and shouldn't have come to North Korea when its people, as personified by their government, clearly don't want me here'.

Of course, we, and probably still him, don't actually accept the equation, 'Government of North Korea = the personified, single and unanimous expression of what everyone who has the misfortune to live there wants', but that is a different issue.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

This reminds me of the story I was told as a kid of the missionaries to somewhere (Japan or China maybe) who were forced to spit on an image of Jesus or be killed.

I might have made up some of the details there.

Anyway, the idea that you should not say whatever a brutal thug wants you to say, because it might 'offend' God seems to me to be ridiculous.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

So much is going to depend on what the action/"confession" means a) to the person forced to do/write it, b) to those who do the forcing, and c) to those who hear about it. It could have a different set of meanings to all three.

I suspect that in the case of the fumie (stepping on an icon of Christ), I would have said something like "Fine, I can do that, it's an image and my action symbolizes that Christ is the safe place for my feet." However I would have felt obliged to SAY this to my captors just so they didn't carry on with the idea that the action meant I was in fact denying Jesus himself--at which point they would no doubt have backed off and found some other, less ambiguous challenge to put in front of me (such as forcing me to say the words "I deny Christ"). At which point I'd be a dead duck anyway. Yay.

Honesty is a deadly thing. meh.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I don't feel under any obligation to tell a brutal thug the truth.

They don't deserve it, they're not going to use it for any other purpose than to hurt me or others.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Everyone deserves the truth that they are Loved. Especially brutal thugs.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

None of know what we'd say, how brave we'd be unless in a situation.

I agree with IngoB re- the Donatists.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Nevertheless, by expressing regret for his "insult" to the Korean people, he's stating, at least ostensibly, that protecting cultural sensitivities is more important to him than spreading the gospel.

Or maybe he's stating that remaining alive to spread the Gospel elsewhere is more important than dying in North Korea, the message still unheard?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't feel under any obligation to tell a brutal thug the truth.

They don't deserve it, they're not going to use it for any other purpose than to hurt me or others.

Good job we're not relying on you to atone for the sins of the world then really, innit? [Razz]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Thanks for all the replies.

Leroning wrote:

quote:
We can praise a hero for running into a burning building and saving someone without blaming someone who didn't.

True.

However, if you belonged to a group that was on record as advertising how its members were fearless in the face of fiery danger, it might be a little problematic if you ran the other way.

pydesybare wrote:

quote:
I don't feel under any obligation to tell a brutal thug the truth.

Well, the issue for me is not "OMG, how could this heartless bastard lie to poor Kim Jong Un!" I am certain that KJU knows full well why the guy wrote the letter, and thus has in no way been deceived.

The issue is that, in writing the letter, Short has shown that he cares more about his own life-expectancy than about spreading the gospel. Which pretty much constitutes validation of KJU's anti-Christian polemics. Hard to preach about the heroism of the martyrs when the Emperor has a story right on hand about someone who got down on his knees and begged for forgiveness.

Erroneous Monk wrote:

quote:
Or maybe he's stating that remaining alive to spread the Gospel elsewhere is more important than dying in North Korea, the message still unheard?

Absolutely. In fact, I mentioned that counterargument in my OP. However, as I also rejoinded, the same argument could be made in favour of someone who utters "Jesus was a fake" when the knife is put to his throat; he, too, will live to preach another day.

And while he probably does not wish my fraternal salutations on this issue, I think Lambchopped has come closet to acknowleging my point...

quote:
I just hope someone's going to care for the poor guy. He must be feeling very broken.

Yes. Broken, because he likely knows that his actions call into mockery one of the most often-heard claims about Christian missionaries, ie. their fearlessness on behalf of the Lord.

I should say that my impressions in this regard have largely been garnered from the writings of Christian evangelicals, plus a few scattered conversations with the same. Perhaps they have overstated the extent to which Christians advertise their own fearlessness, in which case they might bear some of the blame for any mockery directed against Mr. Short.

Furthermore, and this has nothing to do with religion, but as an expatriate, I also have a somewhat negative attitude toward people who enter foreign countries with the intention of breaking the law. And I don't care who they are, what the law is, or how supposedly draconian the punishment is.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Often times when a missionary is released from North Korea after apologizing to the NK for offending their dear leader, they will recant once they arrive in Beijing.

Meanwhile, an American missionary who is in poor health and has made a similar apology on television remains in custody. Why won't NK release him?

There are other ways to evangelize in NK. Radio broadcasts are much more effective. Family exchanges will allow some good news to get through.

Eventually the regime will fall. God will prevail. The Australian missionary is but one pebble that has impacted the regime. Likewise the American missionary. No regime has ever prevailed against the Good News.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
This reminds me of the story I was told as a kid of the missionaries to somewhere (Japan or China maybe) who were forced to spit on an image of Jesus or be killed.

Japan, most likely. Christianity was very heavily persecuted there for a time. There's a fantastic novel - "Silence", by Shusaku Endo - about a missionary from the 17th century who's put in this situation. It's one of my favourite books of all time.

I wouldn't blame anyone for giving the regime what they want in North Korea. It's a truly horrific place - it's not called the world's biggest prison camp for no reason. People still routinely starve to death there or get worked to death in the gulag. It's also rare for the regime to only punish the person charged - the likelihood is that if this guy has friends or relatives or church connections in North Korea, those people may well be tortured and killed if he doesn't do as he's told. The NK regime specialises in tormenting dissent by punishing everyone you care about or even everyone you know. When someone escapes from NK, the policy is to put their entire family in the gulag for three generations. He may fear for his life. He may very well have more fear for the lives of others.

Under the circumstances, I think that Jesus' pride can probably handle it. But anyone who's pondering this should probably read "Silence" as it's a fantastic exploration of a similar situation.

[ 04. March 2014, 16:18: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Stetson, that's just idiocy. Whatever fool told you that Christian missionaries were fearless has obviously not been out of the playpen for very long. And you--come on, dude, you fell for it?

I'm a freakin' missionary. And I get scared every week of my life--and I'm not living in a persecuting country.

I know a lot of missionaries too. And none of them AFAIK is stupid enough not to be afraid. Or to advertise themselves as being fearless.

In fact, the worst fear which I think we all share is that somehow we are going to fuck things up by failing at a key moment--whether that's under persecution, or just by doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. And that goes with the territory. With God's help we hopefully deal with it well enough that it doesn't paralyze us and make us no damn use, but I don't think that fear ever goes away.

Well, until we're dead.

Kim What's-his-face isn't going to be astonished or overjoyed or what-have-you to discover that a missionary could be broken. Unless he's really, really, REALLY a total newbie and has no clue about how fragile human beings are. Somehow I doubt that.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Meanwhile, an American missionary who is in poor health and has made a similar apology on television remains in custody. Why won't NK release him?

I'm not sure. But one of the ideas floated about is that, with American miscreants, the North Koreans like to hold out until they get the real big-name Yank politicians to come in and shake hands with the leadership. So they can run propaganda footage on TV showing that even the POTUS worships at the feet of the Kims.

Remember those two American reporters, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who got nabbed after they ran into North Korea to take photos? They were employees of Al Gore's TV station, and the story went that they originally offered to call Gore to come and negotiate their release, but Pyeongyang demanded someone bigger, eventually managing to swing Bill Clinton.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Stetson, that's just idiocy. Whatever fool told you that Christian missionaries were fearless has obviously not been out of the playpen for very long. And you--come on, dude, you fell for it?

I'm a freakin' missionary. And I get scared every week of my life--and I'm not living in a persecuting country.

Okay, I knew someone was gonna make an issue of the word "fearless", and in fairness, I should have re-written that before posting.

I did not mean "never feeling fear fear". I meant "not being deterred by fear".

And yes, I have had at least one conversation, with Christians, in which I put the scenario to them: "If someone threatened to kill innocent people unless uttered a renouncement of Jesus, what would you do?". And the reply was that, while he would do almost everything in his power to stop the guy from actually carrying out his threat to kill innocent people, he would not utter a renouncement of Jesus.

For the record, my friend had previously, and commendably, expressed equal callousness with regard to his own life in that scenario, which is why I upped the ante and brought in innocent children. As well, I had given him only two options, "yes, I would renounce", and "no, I wouldn't".

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

John 8:7b - substituting 'he' for 'she' and you have it.

Until you have been in the same pinch yourself, I doubt that any of us has the moral authority to be throwing stones.

Just a thought ... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, as a wise person up thread said, you never know what you're going to do until you actually face the situation. So asking someone "what would you do?" isn't likely to get you useful information.

Now, asking "What do you think you ought to do?" would maybe be more useful. AND allow you to really start a thread war. For grins, I'll kick it off, shall I? Your friend was right to say that denying Christ is not an acceptable option, period. (And a pretty big hunk of Jewish tradition would agree with the "no denial" thing, witness the story of the Jewish mother with her seven children being killed in front of her, one by one.)

There. Now we can all have an argument about whether Christians are inhumane and evil to put Christ above the lives of their nearest and dearest. [Two face]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

And yes, I have had at least one conversation, with Christians, in which I put the scenario to them: "If someone threatened to kill innocent people unless uttered a renouncement of Jesus, what would you do?". And the reply was that, while he would do almost everything in his power to stop the guy from actually carrying out his threat to kill innocent people, he would not utter a renouncement of Jesus.

I bet he wouldn't. And frankly, I would think worse of him for not trying to protect the innocent than whether he has 'renounced' Jesus Christ.

And the problem is that all of those folks who are making out that they'd be doing a better job and that this guy should be doing a better job are actually giving him a further kicking whilst he is down.

I used to know (very slightly) a guy who went to Mynmar and was caught handing out pro-democracy leaflets and was imprisoned. He went knowing that it was inevitable that he would be arrested.

I used to think this was very brave and noble and upright. I now think it was mostly a daft thing to do. But then, many of us have done daft and dangerous things. I have lied my way out of sticky positions, I don't blame anyone for attempting to do the same.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I wouldn't blame anyone for giving the regime what they want in North Korea... It's also rare for the regime to only punish the person charged - the likelihood is that if this guy has friends or relatives or church connections in North Korea, those people may well be tortured and killed if he doesn't do as he's told. The NK regime specialises in tormenting dissent by punishing everyone you care about or even everyone you know. When someone escapes from NK, the policy is to put their entire family in the gulag for three generations. He may fear for his life. He may very well have more fear for the lives of others.

Hmm, I was reading this thread and idealistically thinking 'Surely we should hold firm to our faith and proclamation of Jesus' lordship, never mind the consequences!' (Not that I'm confident I would hold firm.) But what if the consequences are quite likely to include imprisonment, torture and / or death for many other people, just because they happened to know me? That does rather change the picture, I'd say...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Lamb Chopped wrote:

quote:
There. Now we can all have an argument about whether Christians are inhumane and evil to put Christ above the lives of their nearest and dearest.

Well, you know, on the Ship, I once tried to argue that Jesus meant exactly what he said when he told the guy that he could either follow him, or attend his father's burial. Someone(can't recall who) replied that, oh no, it's nothing that awful, Jesus just knew the guy only wanted to go to the burial to get his inheritance. Thus, the whole story is really just a lesson against greed.

Which I didn't find entirely convincing, since if that was Jesus' real point, he would have found a less in-your-face way to put it than "Let the dead bury themselves." More to the point would have been "Better to not mourn than to mourn for gold." Or something.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't feel under any obligation to tell a brutal thug the truth.

They don't deserve it, they're not going to use it for any other purpose than to hurt me or others.
Good job we're not relying on you to atone for the sins of the world then really, innit?

I have a hunch this is true of every person on this thread. I know it's true for me. I suppose you will have to speak for your own qualifications in this regard.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The issue is that, in writing the letter, Short has shown that he cares more about his own life-expectancy than about spreading the gospel.

Does he? I don't see that. In order for that to be the case, you would have to set it up this way:

He signs the letter: he lives
He doesn't sign the letter: he gets to spread the gospel, at least for a little while, before he dies.

I don't think those are the options. The choice is between signing a letter and dying. He's showing he'd rather be alive than dead. At no point does spreading the gospel enter into his decision, except that by living, he can potentially spread the gospel somewhere else, whereas by dying, he can do no such thing.

In fact it would appear you have it exactly backwards.

In short, you are by your words still judging this guy, which you have no right to do. In fact Jesus said something about judging. Let me think, let me think....

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't think the cases are similar.

In the one you mention, there's hardly any chance that a Jewish son would be away from home listening to a passing rabbi (and incidentally making the whole crowd ritually unclean by his mere presence!) while Dad lay dead at home. Thus it makes sense to look for a less literal interpretation. The culture doesn't allow for a literal one, any more than American culture would allow you to rightly interpret "Want a knuckle sandwich?" in a literal sense, and respond, "Sure, I'll get the catsup."

In the other case, we've got clear teaching in a number of different texts regarding the necessity to put Christ first. Above life, above family, above everything. And there is nothing in the context to suggest that anything metaphorical is meant.

Thus speaketh the pain-in-the-butt former literature teacher.

[ 04. March 2014, 17:07: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, as a wise person up thread said, you never know what you're going to do until you actually face the situation. So asking someone "what would you do?" isn't likely to get you useful information.

Before we were married my then girlfriend and I went to Cairo, Egypt. In my naiveté I decided to explore the local backstreet Mosque while she sat on the steps outside. I was followed out of the Mosque by a group of angry young men who cornered us shouting, "Christians? Christians? Are you Christians?". I found that the words "no, no" slipped out very, very easily indeed.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I had a much less dangerous and basically farcical encounter. While I was still coming to the conclusion that the person wasn't actually going to knife me, I basically gibbered. And since I really knew deep down that the freak wasn't going to do it, it wasn't a fair test by any means.

[ 04. March 2014, 17:15: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Before we were married my then girlfriend and I went to Cairo, Egypt. In my naiveté I decided to explore the local backstreet Mosque while she sat on the steps outside. I was followed out of the Mosque by a group of angry young men who cornered us shouting, "Christians? Christians? Are you Christians?". I found that the words "no, no" slipped out very, very easily indeed.

I have lied my way out of several 'hairy' situations in the Middle East. Once an obnoxious border guard questioned what the little book was I was carrying in my pocket. It was a NT.

I'm not sure what I said, but he didn't look very closely at it.

Other times I've deliberately lied about who I've met and where I've been whilst questioned by authorities who asked.

I've lied. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think the cases are similar.

In the one you mention, there's hardly any chance that a Jewish son would be away from home listening to a passing rabbi (and incidentally making the whole crowd ritually unclean by his mere presence!) while Dad lay dead at home. Thus it makes sense to look for a less literal interpretation. The culture doesn't allow for a literal one, any more than American culture would allow you to rightly interpret "Want a knuckle sandwich?" in a literal sense, and respond, "Sure, I'll get the catsup."

In the other case, we've got clear teaching in a number of different texts regarding the necessity to put Christ first. Above life, above family, above everything. And there is nothing in the context to suggest that anything metaphorical is meant.

Thus speaketh the pain-in-the-butt former literature teacher.

I have continued the Luke 9 discussion here.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Before we were married my then girlfriend and I went to Cairo, Egypt. In my naiveté I decided to explore the local backstreet Mosque while she sat on the steps outside. I was followed out of the Mosque by a group of angry young men who cornered us shouting, "Christians? Christians? Are you Christians?". I found that the words "no, no" slipped out very, very easily indeed.
I have lied my way out of several 'hairy' situations in the Middle East. Once an obnoxious border guard questioned what the little book was I was carrying in my pocket. It was a NT.

Blimey. It would be a horrible irony to get strung up for having a book which the average Muslim holds in higher regard than you do. [Two face]

[ 04. March 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We must put, I think, some of this into context. We, in the information age, think that thoughts and intent are paramount. And we think that the doing is the outcome of the thinking. How about: sometimes the doing leads to thinking.

I am reminded of (particularly young) people who have asserted that XYZ behaviour is wrong, from the point of morality and thought about it, and then they engage in the behaviour (often without having a premeditated intent), with subsequent conversation with them showing the adaptation of the their thoughts so as to justify the behaviour previously ruled by them as something never to do.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

As a result of a false understanding of church history, and the dubious tactics of some anti-persecution advocacy groups, there is a belief among many Western Christians that persecuted believers have always heroically endured opposition.

It is true that “semen est sanguis Christianorum”, but it is not true that all (or most) Christians have always remained publicly faithful to Christ.

As IngoB’s reference to Novatianists and Donatists reminds us, there were many, lay and clerical, who succumbed during the Decian and Diocletianic persecutions, with all the ecclesiastical and sacramental complications involving sacrificati, libellatici and confessors, which ensued.

The fact is that persecution, if it is harsh enough and consistent enough, can be quite effective.

For example, there was a time during the 1970s – 1980s when there were no known believers in Hoxha’s Albania.

From time to time one hears Christians claiming that some persecution would do wonders for the purification of the Western church, the implication being that they, the speakers, would be faithful, while lesser brethren would betray the faith and be weeded out.

Half of me thinks “be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it”, and the other half wants to kick them very hard up the arse.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

God only knows what any of us would do in such a situation. Personally, I don't think She would damn, hate, or even judge us negatively if we denied Her. If a child were told, on pain of imprisonment, torture, or death, to reject its parent, would a good parent blame the child if it did reject them??

I grew up in a church that was very serious and grave about this sort of thing, and we were supposed to always be ready to stand up for Jesus, no matter the cost. That included the expectation that the End Times might come in our time, and we'd be put to that test. (Fortunately, not the kind of church that's foaming at the mouth about it. Though they did show that very traumatic ****ing "Thief In The Night" movie. I can still see the last few scenes in my head. (Shudder.) There was a Ship discussion, some years back, prompted by a very stupid church that tricked the youth group into thinking they were kidnapped for their faith--actually kidnapping them. Huge mess. Anyway, we got to talking about the "Thief In The Night" film, and I found I wasn't the only one traumatized by it.)

Refusing to deny your faith may preserve your inner integrity, in some ways. But I'm not convinced that's a destiny that God would choose for anyone, and I don't worship martyrdom.

Some people have a fantasy of martyrdom, or even a psychological drive. I don't think that's healthy. In one of his plays, TS Eliot said that "some are martyred by not being martyrs".

I grew up reading Br. Andrew's "God's Smuggler", wondering and fantasizing, and wondering if it was always a good thing to do what he did, and maybe considering it a high calling. And in his case, it may wall have been right and good.

But I think that a lot of people get into evangelical derring-do for bad reasons--scoring points with God, self-aggrandizement, acting out due to personal problems and even mental illness, running away from daily life--and don't think clearly about it. It's one thing to be put in that situation, as with a Christian (or other religious practitioners, 'cause it happens to them, too) who's arrested for simply practicing their faith. IMHO, it's another thing entirely to purposely seek it out.

Starhawk, a Pagan priestess, teacher, and social activist who's been arrested many times for her activism, said that being jailed makes you figure out what you really believe. I have great respect for Starhawk. The world missed out on a good rabbi, because that path wasn't available, but gained a good Pagan priestess.

But I think that, even with activism about social issues, it doesn't make sense to do your action in such a way that you're likely to get arrested. E.g., people who protest outside a nuclear installation, but choose to trespass in order to get arrested--whether due to the reasons I mentioned above, or trying to gain street cred.

Sometimes, too, foolish actions can endanger other people. Someone who barges into another culture and country, acting out their evangelism fantasy, is apt to endanger the people they allegedly are there to help. Or look at the guy (or more than one?) who was dead-set on seeing Aun Sang Soo Kyi and somehow helping her, when she was under house arrest. He got into her home, and caused a great deal of trouble for her.

I'm not saying no one should be a missionary. (Though, these days, I favor more the kind that focus on practical help.) But it should be done sanely, compassionately, and wisely.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Sometimes, too, foolish actions can endanger other people. Someone who barges into another culture and country, acting out their evangelism fantasy, is apt to endanger the people they allegedly are there to help.

I'm not saying no one should be a missionary. (Though, these days, I favor more the kind that focus on practical help.) But it should be done sanely, compassionately, and wisely.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/january-february/world-missionaries-made.html

Some interesting research which challenges the current secular stereotype of missionaries.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

If things ever change in North Korea, and one hopes and prays for the poor people that have the misfortune to live there that one day they will, the people who will bring the message of Jesus to them will be the South Koreans. They speak the same language. Their recent history has meant there are now significant cultural differences between them but until the 1950s, there was only one Korea. South Korea is a country full of Christians whose commitment - if you have the good fortune to meet them - puts us to shame.

This ought to be obvious.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

KC

Unfortunately, that link is to an article which can only be read in full if you have a subscription.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Stetson

I find the judgemental tone of your OP quite astonishing.

We none of us know how we would respond if taken prisoner by a repressive, regressive neo-fascist state such as NK.

Your glib musings as to whether a 75 year-old man is going to hear a mental rooster call is sick.

Get out of your bible belt whichever it is - look at the real world, look at world (not US) history and grow up.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

IngoB:
I was disappointed, from your post, to find that I may have been mis-representing (and defending) RCC teaching on what honestly really is.

I believed, actually, that this was a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants, in that the latter believed that any statement given which was contrary to known fact, was a lie and therefore a sin. Whereas the RCC made this dependent on the relationship between the parties, which was what demanded (or did not) factual accuracy. It's a degree of situational ethics which I think is right.

After all, isn't the command defined as not bearing false witness against our neighbour? Is it not odd to believe that, faced with an enemy we may kill them (clearly I'm not a total pacifist) but mustn't tell a downright lie. I believe Bonhoeffer wrote that he learned to lie in his teeth. Good for him.

Maybe I've mistaken you and you would only resort to mental reservation on cases where you are being forced to deny the faith. Maybe it's me, but rather than find carefully crafted words, I'd rather tell a straight lie. Like various valiant people in the Bible.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
From time to time one hears Christians claiming that some persecution would do wonders for the purification of the Western church, the implication being that they, the speakers, would be faithful, while lesser brethren would betray the faith and be weeded out.

They never seem to consider that any kind of serious persecution would lead to "the faithful" being killed, leaving only the "lesser brethren" alive to spread the gospel.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

After all, isn't the command defined as not bearing false witness against our neighbour? Is it not odd to believe that, faced with an enemy we may kill them (clearly I'm not a total pacifist) but mustn't tell a downright lie. I believe Bonhoeffer wrote that he learned to lie in his teeth. Good for him.

There is a story, I think about Bonhoeffer, which has him in a crowd. His companion is refusing to give the Nazi salute, obviously in contrast to all his companions.

B (if it was actually he) asks his friend what he is doing, and the friend replies that he is standing against the Nazis.

B replies by forcing his friend's arm into the salute position on the basis that being caught for this small infraction wasn't worth it.

Again, this is from memory, so the details might be made up.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

This story is repeated here

quote:
There’s the famous story about Bonhoeffer and Bethge who were visiting one of the Confessing Church pastors in Prussia while Hitler’s Blitzkrieg was pulverizing Europe. While they were there news came that France had surrendered to Germany. The whole place erupted in song, giving the Nazi salute. To Bethge’s surprise Bonhoeffer joined in. “Are you crazy,” he whispered to Bethge, “Raise your arm! We’ll have to run risks for many different things, but this silly salute is not one of them!”

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

After all, isn't the command defined as not bearing false witness against our neighbour? Is it not odd to believe that, faced with an enemy we may kill them (clearly I'm not a total pacifist) but mustn't tell a downright lie. I believe Bonhoeffer wrote that he learned to lie in his teeth. Good for him.

There is a story, I think about Bonhoeffer, which has him in a crowd. His companion is refusing to give the Nazi salute, obviously in contrast to all his companions.

B (if it was actually he) asks his friend what he is doing, and the friend replies that he is standing against the Nazis.

B replies by forcing his friend's arm into the salute position on the basis that being caught for this small infraction wasn't worth it.

Again, this is from memory, so the details might be made up.

That's how I remember the story.

And I had thought of posting along the same lines.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

L'organist wrote:

quote:
Your glib musings as to whether a 75 year-old man is going to hear a mental rooster call is sick.

Well, for the record, I'd have the same degree of flippancy(whatever that may be) if it was the crew of Girls Gone Wild getting arrested while trying to film an Asian Edition video in North Korea. As I said above, my sympathy for lawbreakers abroad is pretty close to zero.

quote:
Get out of your bible belt whichever it is

Actually, right now, it's this one. The Deep South, in fact.

Though I make no special claims to cultural expertise, I only really know what I read in the papers.

quote:
look at world (not US) history and grow up.

Thanks for the side-helping anti-Americanism. And I didn't even have to ask!

Not sure why you thought the over-zealous missionaries I had in mind were all Americans, though. I'm Canadian, and have spent a grand total of one week in the US Bible Belt(Tanmpa counts, I assume?)

Per capita, there are probably just as many reckless Christian missionaries in my current Bible Belt as in the American one. These guys, for example. After being directly warned by the government against going to Afghanistan, they actually stood in front of a sign bearing a similar warning at the airport, took a smiling snapshot, and got on the place to Kabul!

Of course, when they were eventually kidnapped and held hostage by anti-Christian militants, the government's ransom, including the tax money of Buddhists, atheists, and others, certainly came in handy for shortening their heroic stay in the Lion's Den.

[ 05. March 2014, 13:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

And yes, I have had at least one conversation, with Christians, in which I put the scenario to them: "If someone threatened to kill innocent people unless uttered a renouncement of Jesus, what would you do?". And the reply was that, while he would do almost everything in his power to stop the guy from actually carrying out his threat to kill innocent people, he would not utter a renouncement of Jesus.

I reckon Jesus would think this was nuts. If your friend were to pretend that he renounced Jesus, it would save the lives of the innocents, and Jesus would know very well it was pretence.

If your friend refuses to pretend to renounce Jesus, the innocents die. The threatener/killer may be impressed by this display of "faith" but probably equally unimpressed with a faith that puts maintaining the outward appearance of righteousness ahead of love for neighbour. So your friend probably doesn't even win any souls. The children die for nothing.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

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]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

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 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

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]

)

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.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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]

I'm rather afraid of the trouble my mouth can create.

[ 05. March 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[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 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I did. Bad LC. Very, very bad LC. [Big Grin]

(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.)

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

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 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

That was certainly my reading of the scene, MT.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Short's Apology

Or at least edited portions thereof.

Apparently, all that stuff about North Korea lacking freedom is western media lies!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
a no-banana republic?

Nice.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
There was nothing explicitly Christ-denying in this statement.

Yeah, I know. I acknowledged that in my OP.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0