Persecution of Christians--real persecution.

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by BryanMaloney, Aug 15, 2013.

  1. jcortez78

    jcortez78 Registered User

    5
    2
    0
    I would like to say that being a mason is something we did and we are few and far between you KNOCK on that door you were from free will have hart like you said be a leader no a follower your a master lodge 90



    Freemason Connect HD
     
  2. jcortez78

    jcortez78 Registered User

    5
    2
    0
    Temples are there to make masons. What have you done for your temple to bring in brothers ..


    Freemason Connect HD
     
  3. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63

    And? People "tout" margarine as butter and "tout" bisons as buffalo. The USA has been "touted" as a democracy since the beginning of the 20th century, if not earlier. The United Kingdom is "touted" as a democracy. The People's Republic of China is "touted" as both being democratic and a republic. Just ask them. Does that make it a democratic republic.

    Who is "Moric"?

    No, the institutions of constitutional limits to the power of government give checks and balances. You could use the words "Igglebiggle Fabookiepoo" to get the exact same practical effect as hurling about "Democratic Republic" like some kind of magic spell.[/QUOTE]

    And that is also the reason that American Christians sit on our well-padded butts and whine about how WE are "persecuted" when we have to put up with nothing approaching the Copts' ordeal? Oh, and NPR is also reporting on this matter and doing so sympathetically to the Egyptian Christians--so I guess that means you now consider NPR to be "conservative".

    So, then, what about American Christians whining about being "persecuted" in the face of what is happening elsewhere? What does that say about those of us who are American Christians and indulge in this whining?
     
  4. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    Agreed. Does that mean we are "persecuted" in the USA with the little nothings we have to put up with?
     
  5. Brother JC

    Brother JC Vigilant Staff Member

    3,181
    2,010
    183
    Not getting your own way is not equal to persecution. From what I've seen, the "whiners" are generally intolerant, small-minded people who believe their way is the only way and would prefer to force-feed all of into believing the same thing.

    My prayers go out to the Copts of Egypt. My prayers go out to all peoples who are forbidden the right to worship as they please, especially if they suffer violence in the attempt.
     
  6. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,387
    133
    It does not. Actual persecution as is happening in Egypt as well as the riots against Muslims in a Buddhist majority country several months ago and other parallel examples across history is to be opposed. It's not that it's Christians in specific who are being persecuted it's that anyone is anywhere.

    I wonder what influence I can have and if any influence I wield might make things worse in Egypt. Signing petitions to be sent to Congress here hasn't helped in Darfur other than raising awareness and expanding the efforts to other ethnic violence in the world. As I learned in the former Yugoslavia the word "ethnic" is so broad as to include religious membership and is thus nearly meaningless. The violence against Copts in Egypt is ethnic violence.

    The problem of the Egyptian military - Their wages are literally paid by the US. Some of them know this some do not. In the past the money on the surface has been to hold peace with Israel. Should it not be paid to prevent ethnic violence of any sort? Paying the bills puts US Congress in their chain of command. Congress has veto power over any of their activity to the extent that Congress hold veto power over their paychecks. Is it time to flex that particular muscle? What I know is if I were in charge I would screw it up very badly.
     
  7. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    "Not getting your own way is not equal to persecution. From what I've seen, the "whiners" are generally intolerant, small-minded people who believe their way is the only way and would prefer to force-feed all of into believing the same thing."

    • I agree with this. There would seem to be a majority of Christian sects that condemn other groups religious or non religious which ties into they're "whining". You shouldn't expect tolerance, when you yourself are intolerant.
     
  8. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,387
    133
    I suggest "symmetrical tolerance" as a policy. Start out tolerating. When presented intolerance by intolerant of that.

    Tolerance is not a long list if stuff. Not acceptance, not approval, not agreement and so on. Tolerance is mutual peace and respect. It tends to be a stretch to learn how to be at peace with what we do not accept (Serenity Prayer) and to respect what we do not agree with or approve of. Tolerance is yet another mind expanding event of the "We make good men better" sort.
     
  9. Brother JC

    Brother JC Vigilant Staff Member

    3,181
    2,010
    183
    Tolerance is one of the great lessons found in Freemasonry. While I have always considered myself a tolerant person, I discovered I could apply it to my daily life far more often, and that it improved both my demeanor, and my outlook.
     
  10. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    You are leaving out the part where the Mursi camp unilaterally rewrote the constitution, giving unprecedented powers to their newly elected president.

    Most Egyptians were, to say the least, alarmed at this turn of events and would have tossed these extremists out on their asses had they been given the opportunity in a fair and open election. Of course, such a thing was never going to happen, so the military has stepped into a bad situation and is trying to to reboot the whole process. I say good luck with that.

    Egypt is headed for civil war. Same Middle East story, different day. Radical Islam wants a theocracy where "God's Law" reigns supreme, other religious minorities (including Christians) want just about anything but that, and the notion that a secular system of law and government would be a better idea dies in a hail of bullets, fire-bombs, and ignorance. Think about that the next time someone argues that "The Ten Commandments" belong on court house walls.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
  11. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    IMO, The problem lies in the inability to balance God's law(s) with Mans law(s). Both are important to our daily lives, and both can be in harmony with each other. We just don't allow it to happen.
     
  12. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63

    It's amazing how much the world still suffers from the imperial ambitions of the UK and France.
     
  13. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    And Roman, Greece, Purshian, Automan and All the Islamic empires. We should not be so selective of which empires we pick to put blame on. There should be no blame on this but how do we work through the problems to fix the future. As long as some one or group of people can blame there problems on anyone but there self's this will happen. No one made anyone do something they did not want to do. Useful idiots will always follow someone and do the bidding of that person or group. Please read your Quran and see the Muslim Brotherhood is doing what they are told to do in 5 passages. I pray for the Christians and Jews to be safe. I also say the Christians and Jews should defend them self's.

    All religions have words like the ten commandments that say the same thing as the ten commandments so I think we could put the Buddhist or what ever version in the court house and it will work. being secular is only having the state not make a state religion not a freedom from religion. As Masons we are secular so we can better work together. It means that all religions have one thing in common the we believe that there is a GAOTU. In the court house the art or text on the wall are there to show history and ideals. Just because it is a Christian quote and not the one you want doesn't mean it is bad to be there. Is it what the ten commandments say that makes someone mad about it because they violated them or is it the morals that they represent.

    Secular = freedom of religion not from religion
     
  14. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I disagree with all you have to say on the subject of a democratic republic because if you look at the definition of Republic and Democracy separate before combining them you will see what I am saying. The constitution defines how the division happens not what it is.
     
  15. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    With respect, "God's law" has no place in secular society. None. Your "God's law" is not mine, and neither of ours is the same as our neighbors'. As Masons, we are charged to keep within the bounds provided by our own chosen VoSL. What's more, we are charged to seek and to celebrate where our own chosen "Divine laws" overlap. It is in those areas that "right" or "moral" transcends any particular canon, and it is that truth that the framers of our Constitution understood and so brilliantly codified. For the first time, ever, a government's authority was established as flowing from something other than some Divine authority. That was, to understate it, huge. Let us never forget that, and let us pray that the people in Egypt (and everywhere such light has yet to reach) find their way to such understanding.
     
  16. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63

    We can call the USA by whatever magical incantation you like, it will not change what its government actually is. How many legs does a mule have if you call the tail a leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't turn it into a leg. The USA is not a democratic republic merely because we call it a democratic republic. People call it a democratic republic because, as far as they can tell, it appears to be a democratic republic. However, more people currently call the USA a "democracy", flatly and without limit. If calling something by a specific name creates reality, the fact that the majority of people no longer use "republic" would mean that the USA would no longer be a republic.

    Words only determine reality in childrens' games and magical incantations. Otherwise, the best they can do is describe.

    You say that the USA is a democratic republic merely because it is "touted" or called one. If enough people stop calling it a republic, does that mean it is no longer a republic, no matter how it actually works? If enough people call a mule's tail a leg, does the mule start walking on it?
     
  17. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    God's law tells me that I am to forgive and forebear, not to seek out every petty advantage and legal loophole. Since the laws of our "secular society" do not tell us to forgive, do not tell us to forebear, and do not make it illegal to seek out loopholes and petty advantages in and of themselves, can we conclude, then, that when we operate in secular society, we are required to be vindictive and seek out loopholes? After all, if God's law has no place in secular society, then forgiveness and playing a straight game have no place in secular society, since it is God's law that enjoins such things, not secular law. If we must exclude God's law, then we must also exclude what God's law requires of us on every personal level. Otherwise, we might accidentally pollute secular society with God's law, which has no place for God's law.

    God's law is not the same as theocracy. Secular law, by and large, has very little inherent moral content. It might be legal to find loopholes, but it could also be immoral. Unfortunately, an outlook determined exclusively by secular law sees no problem in this--if it's legal, it's acceptable.
     
  18. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,387
    133
    Like a spoof of the opening scene of MacBeth! A lot of people would flip out. Let loose the staff of Mystery Science Threater 3000 on the scene and hilarity would ensue. (After I talk them into spoofing 2001 A Space Odyssey, though, please!).
     
  19. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    No. They don't.

    On the other hand, virtually every one that offers any "rules" at all, offers something that is eerily similar to what you probably call "The Golden Rule".
    Just a few... http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm
    No. It won't. Saying to those of your fellow citizens "We're going to enshrine the passage out of my book, because more of us read my book, and besides, it means the same thing," is disrespectful in the extreme to those who revere some other book. Wars are fought over such things. People are dying every day, right now, over such things. The only way to prevent such conflict is to have enough respect for everyone's differing beliefs to avoid such conflicts while striving to find common ground. That should sound familiar.

    Again, incorrect. Secular means, quite literally "not pertaining to or connected with religion". And again, your confusion is as understandable as it is common. Certain political and social quarters want very much for you to believe "freedom of religion - not freedom from religion" lie, so the repeat it wherever they can. The fact is that the framers of our Constitution very carefully and pointedly, (and with no small amount of debate, I might add), excluded the citation of any religious text or precept as the authority from which government and law would be handed down. The text of that document makes it quite clear, a study of the other works of these men makes it clearer still; they were religious men who understood that the influence of any religion on the government they were designing was a threat to all the citizens who embraced any other religion. Indeed, it was the notion that a particular Christian sect might hold sway that galvanized the movement to ratify our very secular Constitution. They very clearly wanted a separation "between church and state" and yes, at least one of them has used those very words.

    So yes, for our government to enshrine any sectarian dogma is "bad". That government was created to protect the right of every single one of it's citizens to embrace such dogma as he or she sees fit. It most certainly was not created to do so itself.
     
  20. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    "With respect, "God's law" has no place in secular society. None. Your "God's law" is not mine, and neither of ours is the same as our neighbors'. "

    • forgive me for implying that. I should have phased that a bit better. The basic laws of human rights are founded on the acknowledgement of the inheritance Mankind has received as rulers of the Earth given to him by his creator, and with this comes unalienable rights. "Rights endowed by the creator to man, which cannot be removed or violated etc." Call it Gods Law, YHWH Law, Allahs Law, or any other deity you like. These laws are supposed to help us conduct ourselves when creating our own laws. This does not mean that a theocracy should be put in place, we have done good in ruling ourselves, but with out the simple, easy guide that is Gods Law, we can see how our world can be a worse place to live.

    "As Masons, we are charged to keep within the bounds provided by our own chosen VoSL. What's more, we are charged to seek and to celebrate where our own chosen "Divine laws" overlap."

    • very true but our own divine laws stem from the unalienable rights endowed by the creator. Our own created laws are legitimized by our special rights given to us by the creator. It is these laws that give us our freedom and in turn allow us to create laws to govern our material life.

    " It is in those areas that "right" or "moral" transcends any particular canon, and it is that truth that the framers of our Constitution understood and so brilliantly codified. For the first time, ever, a government's authority was established as flowing from something other than some Divine authority. That was, to understate it, huge."

    • I'm not American nor an expert on the philosophy behind the American ideal, however I believe that the framers had the intention of having the principles of ones faith act as a moral guide rather than having their established faith as the ruling authority. The principles of the Church or faith effect the decisions of the state or people, rather than the Church or faith existing as the state and making decisions for the people. Again I believe it stems from our endowed rights given by the Deity.

    "let us pray that the people in Egypt (and everywhere such light has yet to reach) find their way to such understanding."

    • Amen to that.
     

Share My Freemasonry