'The world needs to stand up and say that a man cannot be put to death because of his faith.
I hope he can be saved from his potential fate somehow.
somehow ?????
WTF, this should be easier than making a fat kid eat cake.
The man has a wife and two kids
if he does not have the common sense to say,
and here it is, it is really easy,
"I renounce this Christian religion"
then he is a complete failure as a man, father, husband and human being.
I agree it's what I think would be best for him to do (though I wouldn't go so far as to call him a "failure"). But that's what I mean-I either hope he'll "renounce" his faith, or if he really refuses to do that, that someone else has the courage to come along and save him somehow.
coolian2 said:this sounds like it could be solved as easily as when bart simpson had to apologise to australia.
Irvine511 said:Bullfrog? That's a funny name.
A pastor faces execution for his faith, and the sentiment I'm reading here is that it's the pastor at fault? Wow.
I understand this perspective, and am not sure what I personally might do in the hard-to-imagine event that I were in a similar situation. (Some in my father's family were apparently Marranos aka crypto-Jews back in Portugal before fleeing to Amsterdam, so, there's a kind of precedent there I guess.) But I seriously doubt many people in this situation could be properly (and dismissively) characterized as helplessly ruled by fear that God Will Get Mad If I Repent, or I'm Gonna Be A Hero In Heaven If I Resist. This is also a freedom of conscience issue, a stand with one's life for what is broadly internationally recognized as a fundamental human right, with ethical ramifications beyond just the individual and his immediate family. What else are people sometimes punished and executed for in this world that they could always pretend not to practice or believe in, for the sake of staying around to help support their families? I can think of other things...There's a case to be made that we have greater obligations than those to one's spouse and children, and I'm not just talking about God. I don't think (well, actually, I know) the responses here would be the same if this were, say, an atheist being persecuted.but the broader point is that this man is willing to die -- leaving his wife a widow and his children without a father -- rather than "repenting." for some, this seems crazy.
like, i'm quite sure Jesus would understand if he could pretend to repent.
I don't think (well, actually, I know) the responses here would be the same if this were, say, an atheist being persecuted.
A pastor faces execution for his faith, and the sentiment I'm reading here is that it's the pastor at fault? Wow.
Sophie Scholl and her friends were willing to give their lives for what they believe. Would it not have been okay if she'd been married with kids?
To quote from the anniversary thread: "But their willingness to risk everything for doing what they felt was right, that is quite amazing. "
Or is it only admirable if I understand what you believe in. If my opinion is that your beliefs are a crock then that makes you an immoral fool.
"...whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."
Different OP, different responses. For the people getting really riled up (lemelllllllll) I would take that into consideration.
I just find it difficult to sympathize with a religion that was basically doing the exact same thing 500 years ago and is reaping all the rewards today. Especially considering Islam is roughly as old now as Christianity was then.
You can't blame Christians for things done by the Catholic church. They were the ones killing people who didn't repent. The Bible was still only in Latin, so the non-elites didn't have a clue about what Christ really taught.
It's easy to say that someone should disown their faith to save their life if you don't believe in anything yourself. Hate was never stopped by people giving up on their beliefs.
You know I like you, lemel, so take this with a grain of salt, but when trying to distinguish between what quotes from Jesus might be true and what quotes may have been attributed to him after the fact, it's worth considering what the motivation behind the quote may be. When I read something like this, it's clear to me that it was most likely included to keep numbers up. It doesn't seem very Christ-like
U2DMfan said:I think most scholars agree that Mark is the oldest and John is the newest and has less harmony with the others. That quote, according to Saint Google (because I didn't recognize it), is from Matthew, which - along with Luke - could be considered the 2nd oldest.
Although any time we start opining about the Bible, I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Correct. I suppose Matthew could have some unfortunate additions and deviations, as the book is based on Mark but doesn't match it entirely. I find the topic fascinating. Luke, funny enough, has an entirely different meal order for the Last Supper that matches Jewish Passover, in stark contrast to the other three Gospels. Re: what Jive said about motivation, this distinction was purported to be a political choice.
Sophie Scholl and her friends were willing to give their lives for what they believe. Would it not have been okay if she'd been married with kids?
To quote from the anniversary thread: "But their willingness to risk everything for doing what they felt was right, that is quite amazing. "
Or is it only admirable if I understand what you believe in. If my opinion is that your beliefs are a crock then that makes you an immoral fool.