deny Christ to save other lives?

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Please explain the difference. Can I sin without taking on the sin that i committed? If I cannot, what is the difference between taking it on and committing it? Did we take on the sins of Adam? Did we commit the sins of Adam? Is there any difference? Should God view us differently than Adam since we didnt eat anything? Are we viewed differently? is there any difference?

so when did Jesus commit a sin?

 

[RaymondG]

so when did Jesus commit a sin?

Guess my questions were too hard to answer. Ok. When did we commit Sin? Do you believe that being Born is a sin? That we take on Adams sin as soon as we are born, and then have to believe things and follow certain rules to have our sins covered? Wouldnt the same apply in this case?

 

[Outtaluck]

Guess my questions were too hard to answer. Ok. When did we commit Sin? Do you believe that being Born is a sin? That we take on Adams sin as soon as we are born, and then have to believe things and follow certain rules to have our sins covered? Wouldnt the same apply in this case?

Well, no, it wouldn't apply. The way to salvation is through Christ, who offered Himself as the sacrificial lamb, perfect and without blemish (sin), thereby by accepting Him, we are saved.

But your hard against these sets of rules. Any place we go has rules. Rules on forums, rules on the road, rules for society. So, whats the issue with the rules that are generally accepted which are created by man, and rules created by God, with His Will, that we so vehemently turn against? I heard it said that Satan wants us exactly where God doesn't, and God wants us exactly where Satan doesn't. That's the battle we face.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Guess my questions were too hard to answer. Ok. When did we commit Sin? Do you believe that being Born is a sin? That we take on Adams sin as soon as we are born, and then have to believe things and follow certain rules to have our sins covered? Wouldnt the same apply in this case?

So Jesus was subject to original sin?

 

[RaymondG]

Well, no, it wouldn't apply. The way to salvation is through Christ, who offered Himself as the sacrificial lamb, perfect and without blemish (sin), thereby by accepting Him, we are saved.

But your hard against these sets of rules. Any place we go has rules. Rules on forums, rules on the road, rules for society. So, whats the issue with the rules that are generally accepted which are created by man, and rules created by God, with His Will, that we so vehemently turn against? I heard it said that Satan wants us exactly where God doesn't, and God wants us exactly where Satan doesn't. That's the battle we face.

Thanks for your input. Im not against any rules, you or anyone else states and wants to follow. You are free to believe and do as you desire...God gave you that right and no one should try to take it from you. Good luck to you.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

Ya know, if you just sacrifice this one little pigeon and light some incense to Apollo, you can keep your beliefs about Jesus. Stepping on an icon is about the same thing for us Orthodox and Catholics.

Whoa, hang on...

Just as there is a huge difference in denying an object and denying God.

There is also a huge difference in participating in pagan ceremony and putting down a piece of wood.

We are hear talking about the sin that he committed, like it is just understood that his setting down his piece of wood is worthy of death! I do not believe there is Bible for that doctrine.

The object that I hold in most esteem is probably my Bible. But if you said throw down your Bible or I will kill your family, I'll throw it down in a heart beat, repeatedly and stomp on it if needs be. That bible is a book with black and white (and some red in some cases) words in it. Every word in that Bible is probably written elsewhere in a book of spells or a romance novel somewhere. The importatnce isn't in the leather bound book, but in the word of life. So that is my object.

But when you begin talking about preforming acts to celebrate paganism (ie satanism) like burning incense to Apollo or sacrificing pigeons. That is a whole different story.

Just like Jesus in Mark 2 says, Sabbath was made for the man, and not man for the sabbath. It was put in place by God for the benefit of man, not as an idol to tear man down. So then too could Jesus heal (ie benefit) man on the Sabbath day. Because he was fulfilling the purpose of the Sabbath, and not stuck in an idolistic theology.

So too... the Bible is made for the man, and not the man for the Bible.
Or the relic is made for the man, and not the man for the relic.

I understand the religious tradition, I do not however see Biblical doctrine for such a belief.

 

[RaymondG]

So Jesus was subject to original sin?

Good question. I believe that Jesus was a perfect example to follow. I believe that when he said to pick up our cross and follow him and to "Be ye perfect as I and my father in heaven are perfect" that he was telling us to do something that was possible.... But this question could throw a wrench in the machine... Are you saying that Jesus came go with certain Privileges that we dont and cant possess? Are you saying that he couldnt have been an example for us because he started on a level higher than us? a level that we cant possibly reach?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Good question. I believe that Jesus was a perfect example to follow. I believe that when he said to pick up our cross and follow him and to "Be ye perfect as I and my father in heaven are perfect" that he was telling us to do something that was possible.... But this question could throw a wrench in the machine... Are you saying that Jesus came go with certain Privileges that we dont and cant possess? Are you saying that he couldnt have been an example for us because he started on a level higher than us? a level that we cant possibly reach?

So you are saying that Jesus was subject to original sin?

 

[RaymondG]

So you are saying that Jesus was subject to original sin?

Was nice trying to reason together. Good luck to you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Apostasy or denying Christ is wrong no matter the circumstances. There is no acceptable situation for such a thing. It is always wrong. Just as raping is always wrong. Just as hurting an innocent child is always wrong.


...

 

[PropheticTimes]

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33

I am called to this. All followers of Christ are called to this. The OP wrote that the man did this - "to save the lives of several Japanese Christians who have already denied Christ." They made their choice. They denied the Savior of their souls to save their flesh. My choice is clear and without hesitation - I would never, under any circumstances, deny my Lord. Ever. Period. I have even told my family should this ever come into play in our lives where someone threatens to kill me if they do not renounce Jesus, DO NOT DENY HIM! I would rather die in my flesh that their souls be saved. For "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"

 

[RaymondG]

Apostasy or denying Christ is wrong no matter the circumstances. There is no acceptable situation for such a thing. It is always wrong. Just as raping is always wrong. Just as hurting an innocent child is always wrong.


...

Was God wrong when he sent His son to die for the world? Wasnt His child innocent? Or is there now an exception for your "always wrong" and "no acceptable situation" statements? Or were your examples just wrong?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Was God wrong when he sent His son to die for the world? Wasnt His child innocent? Or is there now an exception for your "always wrong" and "no acceptable situation" statements? Or were your examples just wrong?

God is the giver and taker of life.
So it was not wrong for God to offer up His only Son as a sacrifice for us.

We are not God to create or take life.
Apostasy is about rejecting God or Christ.
I do not see an example of when that is ever a good or acceptable thing under any circumstance.


...

 

[PropheticTimes]

Was God wrong when he sent His son to die for the world? Wasnt His child innocent?

Jesus agreed to this. He could have stopped at any time. "53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matthew 26:53-54). Yes, Jesus was innocent, but He was also God. This was not something done against Christ or against God. It was done by God our Savior in the ultimate act of love.

 

[HenryM]

Everyone is familiar with the usual stories of Christian martydom. But what about situations like in the story Silence, where other people are threatened with death to get a Christian to renounce their faith? In the story, Rodrigues symbolically denounces his faith by stomping on an icon of Christ, to save the lives of several Japanese Christians who have already denied Christ.

It is an interesting ethical situation.

Maybe it's better to don't mind a lot about Hollywood movies. True Christian martydom isn't portrayed there, if scarcely.

Look what they've done with that movie you quote. They invested millions to put out an idea that it's Christian behaviour to deny Christ.

We are fallen, and things can be forgiven, who is anyone to judge other's limit of pain, but we don't have to watch movies that propagate those naratives from who knows what motivations. Those studios don't invest millions to show Christians living on Earth in highest light and admiration, usually it's some type of mocking. I say pass this one too.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Whoa, hang on...

Just as there is a huge difference in denying an object and denying God.

The object that I hold in most esteem is probably my Bible. But if you said throw down your Bible or I will kill your family, I'll throw it down in a heart beat, repeatedly and stomp on it if needs be. That bible is a book with black and white (and some red in some cases) words in it. Every word in that Bible is probably written elsewhere in a book of spells or a romance novel somewhere. The importatnce isn't in the leather bound book, but in the word of life. So that is my object.
I understand the religious tradition, I do not however see Biblical doctrine for such a belief.

For early Christians, the deacon was the person who would protect the local congregation's copies of the Scriptures. There are a number of instances where government officials would torture them to turn over the scrolls and the deacons would refuse:

Not having any success, Faustinus commanded the martyrs to be taken to prison. The holy martyrs prayed fervently and boldly preached the Word of God to the imprisoned, so that many were converted to Christianity. Eutinios, the head of the prison, reported this to the governor.

Faustinus again summoned them to trial and again he urged them to renounce Christ. Before the eyes of Saint Theodulus they brought forth some who had been Christians, but betrayed the Faith. “You have conquered the weak, but you will never conquer the strong warriors of Christ, even if you invent greater torments,” exclaimed Saint Theodulus. The governor commanded the martyr to produce the Christian books. “Here, is my body given for torture,” he answered, “do with it what you wish; torture me fiercely, but I shall not hand over the sacred writings to be mocked by the impious!”

So even early Christians would be martyred for the Scriptures rather than turn them over.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Everyone is familiar with the usual stories of Christian martydom. But what about situations like in the story Silence, where other people are threatened with death to get a Christian to renounce their faith? In the story, Rodrigues symbolically denounces his faith by stomping on an icon of Christ, to save the lives of several Japanese Christians who have already denied Christ.

It is an interesting ethical situation.

I think Rodrigues response differed from hundreds of real plain Japanese Christians who decided to remain true and face the consequences. Those are the heroic witnesses, the ones who knew what they had to do. Real martyrs. Heros of the faith that preserved the faith for generations after the the Jesuits were gone from Japan. Kichijiro in his twisted way of petty apostasies is probably more faithful to Christ than Rodrigues. Rodrigues is an elitist, thinking himself such a Christ figure and thinking Kichijiro is a Judas. But Ridrigues is the real Judas. The ethical question that matters in Endo's 'Silence' is whether you are going to remain true to God no matter the consequences.

 

[Toro]

"It's better to do evil than to be evil" - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Jesus said a good tree can not produce bad fruit and a bad tree can not produce good fruit.....Matthew7:18

So how can one "do evil" but "be good"?

To compromise and do what we know to be wrong for "the greater good" shows a lack of faith in God by leaning more on your own knowledge and understanding rather than the Fathers.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Everyone is familiar with the usual stories of Christian martydom. But what about situations like in the story Silence, where other people are threatened with death to get a Christian to renounce their faith? In the story, Rodrigues symbolically denounces his faith by stomping on an icon of Christ, to save the lives of several Japanese Christians who have already denied Christ.

It is an interesting ethical situation.

It would all depend upon your understanding. In the case of Rodrigues, I'd have to put myself into his understanding and I'm not sure I can do that since its so, alien to me. I personally believe in universal reconciliation so win-win. Since that is my belief, nothing can possibly persuade me that anyone could ever be anything but reconciled in the end. That was a problem I had with the movie, and although I could understand the basic dilemma of the men, all I could do the whole movie is think "Cheer up guys, everything is reconciled in the end; you're good to go."

I can say that if you were to bring Rodrigues before me as a judge, and said "This man trampled in order to save the lives of others" I would say "Then the man has shown great love and compassion for others; reward him appropriately"

 

[FireDragon76]

Look what they've done with that movie you quote. They invested millions to put out an idea that it's Christian behaviour to deny Christ.

Shukaku Endo, the author of this story, was a devout Roman Catholic who to my knowledge, died as a Servant of God.

Those studios don't invest millions to show Christians living on Earth in highest light and admiration, usually it's some type of mocking. I say pass this one too.

Of course, lets sell more false Christian theologies of glory. The theology of glory is the stuff of Peter rebuking Christ, not only for turning his face towards Jerusalem, but also for washing Peter's feet. Sometimes people have to do horribly ugly things, just so that other people can live.