just some thoughts.
i Commented on Maundy Thursday
Grading is based on one original post and one response. These two posts add up to ten points per week. The criteria are as follows: Completion; please refrain from poor grammar, poor spelling, and internet shorthand. Reference; mention the text or post to which the reply is directed. Personality; show thoughtfulness, care, and a sense of originality. Cohesiveness; The student should explain his or her thought without adding "fluff" merely to meet the requirement.
This was the same question i wrestled with when reading silence. For the priest to apostatize so that the other christians wouldn't suffer does seem like a very selfless act. Technically, all he did was a physical act that does not necessarily reflect a decision he made in his heart. Yet, that still raises the question of even though that act may not have meant anything for him, and even though he did it on behalf of the other christians, was what he did ok? This debate could go on for either side for days, but i think the core issue is whether denying your faith on behalf of others or maintaining that regardless of any other conditions is valued more.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my many positions from which i debated myself today while I was thinking about yesterday's discussion. I don't know which is worse, to apostatize or neglect to show Christ's love to others. The tortured people are just that, people, and Christians are to show love to them, and if that means that someone must apostatize to show that love to others, then where do you take the question.
ReplyDeleteI think that apostatizing could or could not be a reflection of the relationship between the believer in Christ. I have probably typed this message about 5 times now. I'm having an internal debate with myself on whether someone who truely denounces Christ is guilty if he is tortured over and over. I understand that the Christian is not to blame if he just tells the torturer what he wants to hear, because that is reasonable. But I'm not sure what I can say about the eternity of one who denounces Christ through endless painful torture. I know it's wrong to do that, but physical, mental, and emotional drama kick in, and.... i just don't know.
ReplyDeleteI personally think it is a reflection of the Japanese torture methods. You are right, again, in my opinion. There is nothing that can take away your salvation. It is a gift, freely given by God. There is nothing we can do that is too much for His gift of grace and mercy. In Talmage's cinema class the other night, we were watching a film that I frankly cannot remember the title of. In in, a man was essentially living a lie. He was a hustling preacher man for lack of better terminology. But by the end of it, I fully believe he understood what it meant to have faith in Christ. He went through some pretty dirty business behind closed doors, and then he came through. Does that mean that his faith is any less faith? No. As far as I can tell, sin is sin is sin is sin. End of story. I think it would be a sad case of pride if we honestly believe that our single act of weakness could separate us from a God we claim. So they acted to appease an authority, an authority who thought there was no weight in their actions. For the earthly authority, there was no formality in it. Granted, there are a million loopholes here...and I am ranting. Okay, I'm done.
ReplyDeleteI don't think renouncing your faith after being tortured would truly cause you to lose your faith, but I don't think it's excusable to relinquish it simply for a little pain. If you think about it, Jesus suffered more pain than anyone could ever imagine even though he could have stopped it all with a word. It makes a concession of faith seem pathetic when one could consider all Jesus still had to suffer. Not that I could do it--but I believe it is a special blessing for those who are called to die in such a manner.
ReplyDelete