Our schools have not taught me a bloody thing about George III. There was a movie starring Nigel Hawthorne which proposed that he was a bit of a loony. But then that was British! :)
The IRA, as far as I know, is devoted to making Ireland an independent country, and therefore, Catholic. It stands to reason that the Pope would support it, and has history has shown, people can look away from unsavory methods if it supports their cause. (I'm not supporting the Pope's stance, I'm just explaining what I believe his mindset is)
But the devil is the one who would love such people.
I don't mean love the things they do, I mean love the people themselves. We are commanded to do that, after all. ("The greatest commandment is this: to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul. And another is like it, and that is to love your neighbor as yourself.") Perhaps he thinks that, by showing love to them, he can show them that there is another way. I don't know, and seeing as how I know nothing about this incident other than what you've said, I'm not really sure that I want to get into it.
If he does not believe they are evil, then he must not be against murder and barbarism - something all good men are against.
There's a difference between being evil and committing evil acts. We are commanded to love even our enemies, to do anything else would be hypocritcal. Quite frankly, I really don't think you understand this.
I agree with Matthew, although I'm not totally convinced the pope's doing his acts out of love or for his own self-interest.
That said, I too know very little about the events you are describing, sadly, and wish to refrain from making judgment.
It is biblical, though, to love all people--enemies, sinners, friends as we love ourselves. "Hate the sin, love the sinner"
NOW HE'S ATTACKING THE POPE!!!!!!!
I'm not Catholic--what are rosary beads? Do they mean Sands is canonized? Are they an expression of sorrow? Regret? Happiness?
The prisoners are not evil, they are sinners. Sin is not measured by how much or how bad, as there is no particular sin that is worse than another (except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said). I am just as bad as they are, and deserve death like they do, but have been redeemed by Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that their actions may not have been totally evil--they probably were, and they should be punished. But we should never stop loving them--for if God stopped loving all the sinners and evil people on Earth, He would stop loving us all.
It would just what Satan wants to have us hate him, for all hate does is produce more hate. Love on the other hand (true love) has no faults.
I'm not Catholic--what are rosary beads?
It's been far too long since I've seen a set, but...
It's a string of a certain number of beads used as sort of a an aid for prayer or something. Typically, one grasps one bead between finger and thumb, says a particular prayer, and moves on to the next bead. There's certain things you're supposed to say once you get to certain beads, but I have no idea what they are. (I went to a Catholic school in kindergarten and that was the last time I saw one said.)
They're fairly common, nearly every Catholic you'll find will have a rosary. It doesn't mean anything special.
Here's one idea that's totally off the wall.
Maybe the Pope sent the rosary beads as a reminder that the Christian Trinity (or whatever they are called; I confess ignorance) does not approve of his actions, even if He/They still love him.
Guilt tripping works wonders.
Maybe not in God's eyes, but in the eyes of everyone else.
Thankfully, "everyone else" doesn't include God.
You do realize that He's the only one that matters, right?
He loves one, but not the other, I believe.
Why? Seems to me that He loves everyone. At least, he loved the world enough to die for us, so that we might live. That's all of us. Everyone, past and future.
::I think it is pretty safe to say that murder is worse than adultery or theft. Maybe not in God's eyes, but in the eyes of everyone else.:: Peter
I would say that in religious terms evil, God's opinion is the only one that matters. How can you believe that God would love a person that he created with a soul?
Do you mean "How can you believe that God would NOT love a person", Jwb?
Here's a story that may explain my viewpoint. If three men try to jump over the Pacific Ocean, they will all fail. One may come a little closer than the others, but they still all fail. No one really has bragging rights because none of them actually made it.
The same goes with sin. Everyone tries to grapple with sin on their own. They all fail. No one can say they are better than others because no one can conquer sin on their own--they need God and Jesus to do it.
I think evil does exist--there are plenty of evil actions in the world, and many people do evil things. But writing people off as hopeless cases because they are evil doesn't solve much. The apostle Paul was a murderer. Moses killed an Egyptian person of authority. David was an adulterer. Jacob was a deceiver. Abraham was a liar. Those are all evil things done by sinful people--but those people were forgiven and loved by God.
I believe I deserve death. I don't think anyone can claim otherwise. That's what the Bible says.
Rosary Beads invovle saying the Lord's Prayer, a Hail Mary, and a Apostal's Creed. Then you swich the beed. And then you do the same with every beed. A Hail Mary is a prayer that is directed to the Virgin Mary, on the beilef that Christ will listen to her as he did in Canna.
P.S.- She'a also considered the Queen of Heaven.
P.S.S.- Nothing Pagan about that :->
Well then, no harm there. The pope probably sent the beads so Sands could do a "Hail Mary", and ask forgiveness.
Bcause they're the ones that the pope probably thought needed forgiveness the most.
::Do you mean "How can you believe that God would NOT love a person", Jwb?:: MikeC
I should have said "How can you believe that God would not love a person since he created them with a soul."
::Why give gifts to the worst of your supporters, the ones beyond redemption?:: Peter
According to the Bible, no one is beyond redemption except those who do not ask for it from God.
The points for being "good", that is obeying God's laws
(1) God deserves it. He created us, loves us, gives us all we need.
(2) God commands it in his Word.
(3) I don't believe that works get you into Heaven, but I believe that good and godly works should naturally follow when someone truly believes and loves Christ.
It's an example of the goodness of God that He for
The points for being "good", that is obeying God's laws
(1) God deserves it. He created us, loves us, gives us all we need.
(2) God commands it in his Word.
(3) I don't believe that works get you into Heaven, but I believe that good and godly works should naturally follow when someone truly believes and loves Christ.
It's an example of the goodness of God that He forgives all our sins. What He does want is for us to truly repent them--that is, stop doing them.
Jesus said to forgive your brother not once, not twice, not seven times, but seventy-seven times (which I take it is a metaphor for infinity).
Sorry for the double post--it cut me off the first time for some reason.
MikeC:
Jesus said to forgive your brother not once, not twice, not seven times, but seventy-seven times (which I take it is a metaphor for infinity).
I thought it said "seventy times seven," or 490? (Yes, I know it's intended to mean infinity.)
Peter:
That does not seem consistent with your claim that nothing is ever punished by God.
When did he say that things weren't punished? He said that things were forgiven. There is a bit of a difference there.
::All the way through the Bible, there are comments that make clear that God will punish those who do wrong.:: Peter
It also says that all who repent will be forgiven. The only sin the Bible says that you can't be forgiven for is the one you can't or won't ask to be forgiven for. God only punishes unrepentent sinners after death. Only those who are not sorry for their actions and have not repented are the ones who will be punished.
Peter: As a person of Irish decent I resent your implication that ALL IRA people are terrorists. This is not true. Many have attempted to reach a compromise with the Brits, but have been set back by the extremists on their side. Now I'm generally opposed to organized religon (emphasis on organized), but your attacks on the Pope are even further out of line than many of your previous comments.
Of course they needed forgiveness the most. They are the most evil people
imaginable. That is not the point. Why give gifts to the worst of your
supporters, the ones beyond redemption? Why not to thieves, or those who
make simple mistakes? Why not give them to those who have little time to
live because they have a serious illness? Peter
I'm sorry, but if that was the reason he sent the Rosaries, that is the point. Several times in the Gospels, Jesus is questioned/rebuked because he associates with prostitutes, publicans, and tax-collectors, and answers that they need his ministering more.
One of the apostles was Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were associated with the assassins in a very similar way that the Provos are to the IRA
I never said that things weren't punished by God. God punishes things on Earth through his earthly authority (which is imperfect), and after death, he punishes things on his own (which is perfect).
It's what God wants. (My pastor says that God will be more happy with you in Heaven if you have done His works all along, though, and have not just been forgiven in the last year of life)
Being good should be something that springs from your desire to be a good person, and your distaste for harming your fellow men and women, not from your fear of punishment. Repenting means *really* being sorry, wishing you'd never done something at all, not doing something then conveniently saying, "Oops, sorry, God! But I know you'll forgive me so it doesn't matter."
I think God can tell the difference between someone who is sorry because it pains their soul to have harmed another and/or sinned against God, and someone who is *saying* to Him that they're sorry because they want all the benefits and none of the consequences.
I agree with you, Mark. Jesus, in his time on Earth, did not have people come to him via "fire and brimstone" messages (he did a few, though) or just by gee-whiz miracles (he told the people he healed not to tell anyone), but by a serious love for God, and sincere willingness to repent.
Peter-
Here in the United States there is a different, and, we hope, a more objective viewpoint on the "Troubles."
There in the Islands your viewpoint is coloured (notice that I added the British "u") by the fact that you are so close to the problem.
Most people on both sides know innocents who were hurt and even killed, so it's hard to stand back and see goodness and sincerity in "the enemy."
Here in the States our viewpoint is also colored, or at least tinted, by the comparison between the rebels in Ulster and the rebels here in the late eightteenth century, and the fact that we have a large population of Irish Americans who forebears came here because of the "Troubles," but for us it is no longer personal. And our viewpoint is simil;ar to that in other countries with no stake at all.
So please don't think that we are evil, or at least blind, when we say that we can see the point that some people on the other side are trying to make. Or when we argue that a large organization can include both terrorist and "normal" wings.
I do not say that you said or even implied that that we are blind and/or evil. I'm just using a debating technique to draw attention to my request that you try even harder to understand our viewpoint by clearly defining our different starting points.
Now I have to admit that I do not know the specific charges that were brought against Sands and the others, but it is obvious that they truly believed that they were politacal prisoners. (I said "truly believed" rather than "honestly believed," because if they were honest, I am sure that many of them would acknowledge that they were also guilty of some of the charges.)
Now to the reason for this post:
I resent your implication that anyone that joins the IRA is not a terrorist.
You make it soundlike a golf club with a few members of questionable
morality. We are talking about the most dangerous criminal organisation in
Europe. The IRA is a group created for killing - the A stands for Army. They
have killed thousands of innocent people in the last thirty years, by
shooting them in the back of the head, blowing them up and planting bombs
under their cars. I cannot see why anyone who is not evil woud want to do
that.
First, just the fact that an organization includes the word "Army" in its name is not an argument that it is ipso facto evil and violent. Would you consider the Salvation Army violent and/or evil?
Second, any sufficiently large group, especially politically active ones have extreme, and even violent fringe groups. Should the rest of the group disband because that fringe has given it a bad reputation? Consider the lunatics that bomb abortion clinics. Should you give up voicing your pro-life opinion just because of them?
You might reply to this point by saying that the "evil, murdering terrorist" wing is more than just a tiny fringe. And you may well be right in that statement, but it is still a minority in the party. (Here I'm talking about the leaders and instigators of the violence.)
There are probably more who want nothing more than to live a normal life, but got swept up in the mob dynamics when they got caught in the middle of an incident, and who now regret it deeply. I have been blessed in that I have never been caught up in a mob, and so I do not feel qualified to either condemn or forgive them, but I cannot consider them fundamentally evil.
I see that the thread has moved on while I was composing that last message, and is now on the question of works vs. faith. That is an area where I do not have everything worked out. Much of the New Testament, especially the Pauline Epistles, seem to take a "pure" "Salvation by Faith alone" stance, especiall verses like Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faithRom 3:27 and Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16
But it goes so against "common sense" and certain things in the Old Testament, or at least seems to, that I can't but consider that solution too simplistic.
I don't think I can truly resolve it until I can say that I understand these verses from the second chapter of the Epistle of James: What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
It is not clear whether James is claiming that good works are the proof of true faith, the earnest of true faith, a result of true faith, the requisite for true faith , the path to true faith or some combination. He does seem to say that a declaration of belief is not the same thing as true faith, which involves something more, something that includes action (works).
I interpret it this way:
*Salvation is obtained by faith alone.
*A person who truly has faith will do works.
Works do not get you into heaven, but if a person who claims to have faith does no works, does he really have faith?
It's sort of like you can be a (let's say) Detroit Pistons fan without ever going to a game or watching a game on television or listening to the games on the radio or reading about the team in the paper. But that's a pretty pathetic fan.
"By Brian Webber, Offended on Tuesday, August 22, 2000 - 12:46 am:
Peter: As a person of Irish decent I resent your implication that ALL IRA people are terrorists. This is not true. Many have attempted to reach a compromise with the Brits, but have been set back by the extremists on their side. Now I'm generally opposed to organized religon (emphasis on organized), but your attacks on the Pope are even further out of line than many of your previous comments. "
Erm, actually the IRA *are* the extremists in question.
Being in the IRA makes you a terrorist, at least potentially if nothing else. The IRA is an extremist group.
Ed? Where have you been?
::I cannot see why anyone who is not evil woud want to do that.:: Peter
Why do you see things as completely evil or completely good when most things are not?
::yra Hindley:: Peter
Whom?
::I will repeat what I wrote before. Why be good if being bad and then asking forgiveness will bring exactly the same results.:: Peter
Only those who realize what they have done and are truly sorry will be forgiven when they ask. Are you saying that people who do bad things are incapable of being forgiven by God through His Grace? How do you reconcile that? God, in the Bible, says that he doesn't want anyone to perish but all to come to repentence if I remember properly.
::Being good should be something that springs from your desire to be a good person, and your distaste for harming your fellow men and women, not from your fear of punishment. Repenting means *really* being sorry, wishing you'd never done something at all, not doing something then conveniently saying, "Oops, sorry, God! But I know you'll forgive me so it doesn't matter."
I think God can tell the difference between someone who is sorry because it pains their soul to have harmed another and/or sinned against God, and someone who is *saying* to Him that they're sorry because they want all the benefits and none of the consequences.:: Mark Stanley
EXACTLY, that was very well said.
::First, just the fact that an organization includes the word "Army" in its name is not an argument that it is ipso facto evil and violent. Would you consider the Salvation Army violent and/or evil?:: TomM
This post reminds me of something I had been trying to remember. Peter reminds me of an episode of "Touched by an Angel" where some kids from protestant and catholic areas of Ireland were brought together to help build a house for Habitat for Humanity and in the process try to work out their differences and prejudices that they had developed growing up. They were all too close to see what they were doing to each other until they were forced to work together for a goal and Peter may not be able to understand those he is against as anything but evil unless something were to draw them together.
::Works do not get you into heaven, but if a person who claims to have faith does no works, does he really have faith?:: MikeC
Exactly, they are both important and essential.
Mike-
I'm not sure, but it seems as though James is spending so much time and making so many separate points to show that it is not as simple as all that. I have heard your viewpoint before and I think it is a valid argument, but there are other ways to read James' words. Perhaps the approach I lean closest to is the relationship between love and "works."
Love is not the "warm feeling" that you recieve from others, it is the caring and attention that you show to them. (I was going to insert some examples here of devotion and self sacrifice, but they all sounded maudlin and I'm sure you have heard the kind of thing I mean.) There are times when you don't feel loved or loving, but you do what you must, what you promised, what is honorable, and as you continue to act lovingly,you do start to feel loving again.
I guess I believe that it is similar with Faith: Thus the Prayer: "Lord, I believe; Help Thou my unbelief."
I'd wager your ancestors thought the same thing about us American devils back in the 1770s, eh? :)
I know that. It was a joke, but a barbed joke, since in the Revolution, the Revolutionists were not a majority or a minority--1/3 wanted revolution, 1/3 didn't, and 1/3 didn't care.
Love is not the "warm feeling" that you recieve from others, it is the caring and attention that you show to them.
As Madeleine L'Engle once said, "Love isn't how you feel. It's what you do." Sorry, I just love L'Engle quotes.
Northern Ireland can leave whenever it wants to, but the majority of people choose to remain a part of the UK, so the IRA has no excuse.
Technically, neither did Washington's group. Only 1/3 of the people in the colonies wanted revolution (something that tends to get glossed over in our history classes). The other 2/3 either didn't care or were emphatically against the idea.
I've really got to find a computer at school that doesn't allow anyone who wanders by to look at the screen. This conversation's going far too fast for me to follow.
Wow, Matthew, we just exchanged the same historical tidbit!
I'm not saying Washington was bad at all. I'm doing three things here.
(1) Making a joke to lighten the mood.
(2) Pointing out that to some, the IRA is despicable and sinister (I have no idea myself), while to others, they may be heroes and saints.
(3) Exchanging historical info via Al Gore's invention.
(Al Gore is our Vice-President, which would be equivalent to...I don't know...in the British society. Who's Tony Blair's "Number Two" anyway? Gore made a vague statement that he was one of the men responsible for either creating or making the Internet popular.)
Unrrelated Tidbit for our British Friend: Did you know that more schoolchildren in the U.K. could identify Pikachu than Tony Blair? :)
You really don't know about Shepard, do you? It's not Mark, it's Matthew.
Unless that was some subconscious desire to see our own beloved Morgan and Mark2...rearranged?
Peter: It seems to me that you're very concerned -- even obsessed with -- "proving" that the British have the moral high ground in the world.
(1) You believe that American children are taught that George III was an evil tyrant. I'm sure it will disappoint you to know that American children aren't taught beans about George III, other than the fact that he was king during the American Revolution. It's American history that Americans care about, not British history. That's probably a disappointment to rabid pro-British types like you -- I'm sure you would rather have us saying negative things about British kings than nothing at all.
2) Why do you care that the Pope sent Sands a rosary? It's a religious object used in prayer. Did he send Sands a machine gun? No. Did he send Sands a letter of support? No. Did he send him money? No. And Protestent ministers attend to convicted murderers all the time. Even the Nuremberg Nazi defendants all had the benefit of ministers/priests as they went through their trial and awaited execution. If the chief Nazis can't be denied the possibility of spiritual redemption, what murderer could be?
3) You say the IRA are murderers and "devils." What about the Protestant Northern Irish who blow up innocent Catholic children with their bombs, and incite riots with their bonfires? What about the good British protestants who killed thousands of innocent Indians and Pakistanis?
I believe (although I'm not Christian) that Jesus said not to go around throwing stones unless you were without sin. How about laying down your own rocks?
Sorry, George III is mentioned as the king who didn't listen to the colonists petitions. Period.
Of course, it's generally known (probably through that BRITISH MADE FILM) that he was a looney.
Internet Fact:
"It's not what you say, it's what people think you mean."
I resent your implication that anyone that joins the IRA is not a terrorist. You
make it soundlike a golf club with a few members of questionable morality. We are
talking about the most dangerous criminal organisation in Europe. The IRA is a
group created for killing - the A stands for Army. They have killed thousands of
innocent people in the last thirty years, by shooting them in the back of the head,
blowing them up and planting bombs under their cars. I cannot see why anyone
who is not evil woud want to do that.
People who feel they have no other choice, perhaps? That doesn't make them right, not by any stretch of the word, but you have to admit that these poor people were pushed too •••• far, and you Brits have no excuse claiming they were unprovoked. Again, that doesn't make them right.
As for reaching a compromise, I am afraid no such thing has occurred. My
government surrendered to the IRA. That is what really happened. They were
unprepared to fight terror and crime and so they gave up and have now allowed
Martin McGuinness to run the education system of one quarter of the UK. How
would you feel if twelve states in the US or 7 counties of Ireland were being run
by Charles Manson or Myra Hindley?
If that ain't Euro-centric I don't what is! What do you mean no compormises? I watch BBC occasionally (mostly for Later with Jools Holand but that's another story), and I catch your news every once in a while, and so far your cliam has not been substantied(sp?). Or is your countries' media a "liberal conspiracy" too?
FREE IRELAND, FREE TIBET, AND FREE PELTIER!
Note: With the IRA, I support the ends, NOT THE MEANS! The means they've been using are quite evil, like Peter says. I will give him that.
More like FREE CHINA!
At least you don't live in a country where terrorists are coddled because of the need for the ethnic vote in the New York Senate race.
** I think I am going to like your next President - the next best thing to government by me ;-) **
OK, EVERYONE!!!!!! VOTE FOR GORE NOW!!!!!!!
But it's not Election Day yet! :)
Oh yes, Bush's foreign policy is quite cogent:
"The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' I will be, but until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective."
—In Wayne, Mich., as quoted by Katharine Q. Seelye in the New York Times, June 28, 2000.
No wonder you Britons are so enthused! But wait, there's more! This man's foreign policy just doesn't quit!
"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas." — To a Slovak journalist as quoted by Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999. Bush's meeting was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia.
"Keep good relations with the Grecians."—Quoted in The Economist, June 12, 1999
"Kosovians can move back in."—CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1999
Dubya is governor of Texas. that job requires little knowlege of people's names in other countries. He'll learn.
::Dubya is governor of Texas. that job requires little knowlege of people's names in other countries. He'll learn.:: Matt Pesti
While I agree that doing things in Texas doesn't necessarily require knowing people's names in other countries, I hope you didn't mean this as an insult or that Southerners are dumb.
Either he supports evil, or he is unwilling to oppose evil, and is merciful to the evil.
Or there's another possibility and one I find far more likely: He's simply following the Biblical commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. I personally like the guy, although I seriously doubt he'll be around for much longer. He's done a lot of great stuff, and the world could do worse than to follow his example.
Oh, and God, no.
Pope John Paul II has helped improve
Catholic-Jewish relations
But didn't Pope Pius XII cooperate with Hitler in killing Jews during the Holocaust
Pope Francis seems like a decent person, should Pope Francis or some
Future Pope convene a Third
Vatican Council, Vatican III or is it too soon after Vatican II ended in
1965