Eucharist Or People?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1650155' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:01 PM']*Steps back to see where this goes.*
[/quote]

My question is actually directed more to you

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1650159' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:04 PM']option C I put the buck knife I carry in my pocket through the closest ones neck, consume the Host and move to the next Praying that God wiill fight for us.

If I am somehow prevented from taking Option C well the morgue is going to be very busy tonight.[/quote]

In persecution, there is no Option C. Your actions either deny the Word made Flesh or they don't.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1650198' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:12 PM']My question is actually directed more to you



In persecution, there is no Option C. Your actions either deny the Word made Flesh or they don't.[/quote]


In real life there is always option C, except under the oddest of circumstances.

There are always 3 options when confronted by a hostile power, Submit, Run, or Fight.

Of course there is more than one way to fight... consuming the Host rather than giving in is still fighting, just a differant form of it.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1650166' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:07 PM']Read the whole thread... Your just not making any sense.[/quote]

I'm giving brief answers at this point because this debate began in a previous thread about the persecution scenario, so explaining everything at this point is just redundant.

In short, my belief is that one should always save human life before consecrated hosts in a life-threatening event like a fire. Jesus will not die if the hosts are destroyed, nor is their destruction caused by your direct action, thus you are not risking the sin of desecration.

Going back to the previous thread, I believe one should always remain faithful in their witness to Christ regardless of the circumstances. There is no such thing as a "fake denial." Our actions are what we believe. This is what it means to say we cannot be saved by faith alone. If so, then one could "fake deny" Christ and count on their faith to be saved. Also, I believe our eternal life always takes precedence over our earthly life, thus it is all the more imperative to remain faithful when lives are at risk. Your faithfulness may very likely be the witness that helps those people who are killed to open their hearts to God in their last breath of life. Your faithfulness may even change the hearts of your persecutors. And, only by remaining faithful do you allow God to intervene miraculously so that His glory is made evident. If you deny Christ, God cannot receive any glory by intervening.

Hence, my point about who calls the shots. Choosing to remain faithful recognizes God's eternal authority over all creation. Denying Christ recognizes only the persecutors' temporal authority in a particular place and time.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1650220' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:43 PM']I'm giving brief answers at this point because this debate began in a previous thread about the persecution scenario, so explaining everything at this point is just redundant.

In short, my belief is that one should always save human life before consecrated hosts in a life-threatening event like a fire. Jesus will not die if the hosts are destroyed, nor is their destruction caused by your direct action, thus you are not risking the sin of desecration.

Going back to the previous thread, I believe one should always remain faithful in their witness to Christ regardless of the circumstances. There is no such thing as a "fake denial." Our actions are what we believe. This is what it means to say we cannot be saved by faith alone. If so, then one could "fake deny" Christ and count on their faith to be saved. Also, I believe our eternal life always takes precedence over our earthly life, thus it is all the more imperative to remain faithful when lives are at risk. Your faithfulness may very likely be the witness that helps those people who are killed to open their hearts to God in their last breath of life. Your faithfulness may even change the hearts of your persecutors. And, only by remaining faithful do you allow God to intervene miraculously so that His glory is made evident. If you deny Christ, God cannot receive any glory by intervening.

Hence, my point about who calls the shots. Choosing to remain faithful recognizes God's eternal authority over all creation. Denying Christ recognizes only the persecutors' temporal authority in a particular place and time.[/quote]

Okay Then we are in substantial agreement

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1650206' date='Sep 7 2008, 07:23 PM']In real life there is always option C, except under the oddest of circumstances.

There are always 3 options when confronted by a hostile power, Submit, Run, or Fight.[/quote]

Be sure to read everything I said: [i]in persecution[/i], there is no Option C. Yes, you are free to fight, but you can no longer claim to be under persecution if you are fighting. To be persecuted, you must be helpless, completely at the mercy of another person for your earthly life and God's mercy for your eternal life. Thus, in persecution, there are only two options, and you cannot obey both God and mammon.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1650227' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:48 PM']Be sure to read everything I said: [i]in persecution[/i], there is no Option C. Yes, you are free to fight, but you can no longer claim to be under persecution if you are fighting. To be persecuted, you must be helpless, completely at the mercy of another person for your earthly life and God's mercy for your eternal life. Thus, in persecution, there are only two options, and you cannot obey both God and mammon.[/quote]



Oh I would completely disagree one can indeed fight while being persecuted. To be persecuted does not mean one must submit peacefully. A perfectly ligetement response to persecution is to forcefully resist, and it does not immediatly mean you are not being persecuted. Where would you get such an Idea?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1650233' date='Sep 7 2008, 07:51 PM']Oh I would completely disagree one can indeed fight while being persecuted. To be persecuted does not mean one must submit peacefully. A perfectly ligetement response to persecution is to forcefully resist, and it does not immediatly mean you are not being persecuted. Where would you get such an Idea?[/quote]

Then what's the difference between persecution and holy war? Two people, groups, or nations fighting each other is a war. When one side cannot defend themselves, then you have persecution.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1650242' date='Sep 7 2008, 06:59 PM']Then what's the difference between persecution and holy war? Two people, groups, or nations fighting each other is a war. When one side cannot defend themselves, then you have persecution.[/quote]


2 people fighting is not a war, it is a fight.


Persecution is a program of action to exterminate, supress or subjugate a group. that a group chooses to resist such persecution does not mean they are not persecuted.
The Nazi's persecuted the Jews, the Jews in Warsaw who fought were not suddently not persecuted.

A holy war is an organized conflict by one religion agiast another one.

They are differantthings, and not necessarly mutually excusive.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1650262' date='Sep 7 2008, 08:21 PM']Persecution is a program of action to exterminate, supress or subjugate a group. that a group chooses to resist such persecution does not mean they are not persecuted.
The Nazi's persecuted the Jews, the Jews in Warsaw who fought were not suddently not persecuted.[/quote]

The Jews were still greatly disadvantaged and stood no chance of actually saving themselves, at least no without outside assistance. Without getting into finer details, most people view Russia fighting Georgia as persecution, but Russia fighting the U.S. is considered a war, and among other reasons, the disparity of military power is one reason for the difference.

Definitions of war and persecution are beside the point though, which I concede is more complicated that I stated it previously.

For the sake of discussion, we must decide between denying Christ or remaining faithful, or desecrating the Eucharist or consuming it, and in both cases innocent lives hang in the balance.

Since Nihil has been the lone voice (that I recall) claiming one can fake a denial of Christ to save the lives, I'm curious to hear what he would do in the second scenario.

Edited September 7, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1650220' date='Sep 7 2008, 05:43 PM']I'm giving brief answers at this point because this debate began in a previous thread about the persecution scenario, so explaining everything at this point is just redundant.

In short, my belief is that one should always save human life before consecrated hosts in a life-threatening event like a fire. Jesus will not die if the hosts are destroyed, nor is their destruction caused by your direct action, thus you are not risking the sin of desecration.

Going back to the previous thread, I believe one should always remain faithful in their witness to Christ regardless of the circumstances. There is no such thing as a "fake denial." Our actions are what we believe. This is what it means to say we cannot be saved by faith alone. If so, then one could "fake deny" Christ and count on their faith to be saved. Also, I believe our eternal life always takes precedence over our earthly life, thus it is all the more imperative to remain faithful when lives are at risk. Your faithfulness may very likely be the witness that helps those people who are killed to open their hearts to God in their last breath of life. Your faithfulness may even change the hearts of your persecutors. And, only by remaining faithful do you allow God to intervene miraculously so that His glory is made evident. If you deny Christ, God cannot receive any glory by intervening.

Hence, my point about who calls the shots. Choosing to remain faithful recognizes God's eternal authority over all creation. Denying Christ recognizes only the persecutors' temporal authority in a particular place and time.[/quote]
I think you've explained it the best out of everybody so far. I may be finally agreeing with you two.

[LouisvilleFan]

Yay... now what do we argue about???

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1651344' date='Sep 9 2008, 08:15 AM']Yay... now what do we argue about??? [/quote]
We were arguing?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1652749' date='Sep 10 2008, 11:20 PM']We were arguing? [/quote]

Well, yeah... but not an ugly argument, obviously. I'm not one of those who views disagreement as a negative thing.

Edited September 13, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[johnnydigit]

i was going to choose "Eucharist" without reading the thread, then when i read what it was about i chose "People". who are the 25% that chose "Eucharist" and why? i bet they didn't read the thread or something. He's God. fire doesn't hurt God lol

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1654393' date='Sep 12 2008, 10:36 PM']i was going to choose "Eucharist" without reading the thread, then when i read what it was about i chose "People". who are the 25% that chose "Eucharist" and why? i bet they didn't read the thread or something. He's God. fire doesn't hurt God lol[/quote]
I get the impression that everyone who voted Eucharist read it wrong. Or didn't read it.