16 year old executed in Iran

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Aerich: quote: Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Aerich: One of them, a female journalist with long-standing Canadian citizenship, went to Iran to report on the status of women in the country. She was held for a month in a state prison "for questioning", and died in state custody. The state-run trial, held at the insistence of Canadian Foreign Affairs and the international community, was a crock. Nothing happened, and the Iranian government had the gall to suggest that her multiple severe head injuries (consistent with those caused by blunt instruments) were caused by an "accidental fall." Yeah, right.

I know, I'm pretty pissed off at the Iranian government right now. [/QUOTE]Likewise. I'd be more than happy to see it go down, but I'd prefer it to come from within the country. [/QUOTE]I agree.

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: @Yorick - a small point you may like to ponder. I'm not sure whether you have interpreted the phrase "an elect or chosen membership" quite in context. I believe what the author of the piece was getting at was the belief of these "fundamentalists" that they are "elect" in the extreme Clavinist doctrinal sense of the word i.e predestined for salvation. "Chosen" in this context is synonymous and interchangeable. In short, it is an indicator of narrow, elitist and intolerant dogma.

Not at all. It's fundamental mainstream christian doctrine. Predestination and free will hold a delicate and intertwining balance in fundamental doctrine.

1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us. [/QUOTE]I'll make one final clarification and leave it at that. Followers of extreme Calvinist doctrine (amongst others, I'm sure) believe that to be elect/chosen gives them automatic and inviolable access to their God's Grace. Therefore their State of Grace is unaffected by their actions on earth. They believe can lie, cheat, steal and even murder without affecting their eventual salvation. Such an extreme interpretation and application of the concept of predestination, I'm sure you'll agree, is not supported and encouraged by "mainstream" or even most "fundamental" faiths.

[Memnoch]

You lot will find anything to argue about, eh.

Oh well, that's what this forum is for...but be nice to each other, eh?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: I'll make one final clarification and leave it at that. Followers of extreme Calvinist doctrine (amongst others, I'm sure) believe that to be elect/chosen gives them automatic and inviolable access to their God's Grace. Therefore their State of Grace is unaffected by their actions on earth. They believe can lie, cheat, steal and even murder without affecting their eventual salvation. Such an extreme interpretation and application of the concept of predestination, I'm sure you'll agree, is not supported and encouraged by "mainstream" or even most "fundamental" faiths.

Nope that is actually fundamental mainstream Christian doctrine Mouse. Once you receive Christ's grace, you can, in theory sin to your hearts content and not lose your salvation. This theology is biblical and the consequences of it are addressed by Paul, when he actually asks if we should willingly sin, so that we receive more and more grace... to which he answers "no".

Though we CAN, we shouldn't. Sin affects our relationship with God. It affects our effectiveness in ministry, and has irreversible physical consequences (you can't unring a bell) but it doesn't affect salvation. Amazing grace.

That is the heart of the good news. There is nothing we can do to make God love us more, and nothing we can do to make God love us less. Fundamental mainstream Christian doctrine.

At the heart of fundamentalist Christianity is the idea of Jesus dying for our sins. Any adherance to the laws of Moses, or to Jesus own commands, are followed out of LOVE. Out of a prodding of the indwelling Holy Spirit, not out of FEAR of losing salvation.

Any and every "rule" of the bible - whether keeping sex for marriage, not lying, or whatever - I keep because I love my God, I love the presence of his Holy Spirit, (that is grieved by sin) and because I have found every law of the bible is for my own benefit. They exist to create a happy life, a workable society and a God-intended state of existence. I don't keep them out of fear of losing salvation.

That is the fundamental, mainstream approach. Grace abounds. Yay for us. God condemns the world by setting up the law of Moses, allowing free will, and creating the concept of sin. He condemns us so he can forgive us of any and everything, because FORGIVENESS is love with a cost. It's arguably the highest form of love, along with dying for someone you love.... which Jesus also did.

Hence the "good news" (gospel).

So it IS fundamentalist and mainstream Christian doctrine Mouse. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But it's an anathaema to Judaism, and Islam, which do not have Christs grace.

[ 08-26-2004, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aerich: The judge's personal involvement/grudge which affected the case.

This is the most shocking aspect of the scenario. How dare he use his power to end the life of a woman, based on a grudge. It is a truly appalling misuse of power.

If Mohammad is right, and the Qu'ran is correct, Allah will most suredly judge this man. I think when all is said and done, we will find that his actions are deplorable under Islamic, Christian, and Jewish teaching.

Had she money, she would have had a lawyer, and so not had to use her "sharp tongue".

[Yorick]

I reread the links. I do not think we have heard the end of this.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: I'm just sick of having people I love being lumped in with violent extremists. I could be anti-American and say I'm sick of American ignorance coloring peoples perception of what it is to be christian, but that would be going to far, so I won't. However, the number of times I see a whacko raving, and people referring to him as "fundamentalist" drives me insane! It IS a relative term. Like IDEALIST. What are your ideals? Idealism isn't wrong. Religion, faith, ideals, fundamentalism, intolerance. All relative terms. Any benefit or damage to an individual or society is found within the CONTENT of those beliefs, not simply having beliefs. Otherwise it's a deification of moderationism.

I understand why the generalization upsets you, Yorick. After all, I consider myself to be a "fundamentalist Christian" too. I'm also one of the few I've seen (even on the Christian board I linked earlier) that will boldly say I believe the entire Bible IS the literal and inerrant Word of God. So it bothers me too when a term like "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" is used to describe the actions of a radical sect - since it seems to give the implication that ALL "fundamentalist" follow or agree with their views and actions.

But we have to realize that generalized labels will always be used by people to define certain groups - especially when the person using the label doesn't belong to that specific group. Those outside the group don't know or see the distinctions (or boundaries) that members of the group use to differentiate among themselves. Your example of all Americans being referred to as "Yanks" by those from other countries is a perfect example. Most of us in the South certainly consider the distinction between "Yankee" and "Southerner" to be important, but I can also understand why that distinction wouldn't be important at all to someone from London, Paris, Rome or Sydney.

I also agree completely with John D. Harris. Any label is only as offensive as you allow it to be.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I understand why the generalization upsets you, Yorick. After all, I consider myself to be a "fundamentalist Christian" too. I'm also one of the few I've seen (even on the Christian board I linked earlier) that will boldly say I believe the entire Bible IS the literal and inerrant Word of God. .

You're awesome, and I'm glad you exist.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I understand why the generalization upsets you, Yorick. After all, I consider myself to be a "fundamentalist Christian" too. I'm also one of the few I've seen (even on the Christian board I linked earlier) that will boldly say I believe the entire Bible IS the literal and inerrant Word of God. .

You're awesome, and I'm glad you exist. [/QUOTE]Awwwww shucks. You're gonna make me blush. [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Just remember, mate, words only have the amount of power we give them. I had to take a break from C.E. to relearn this lesson and to regain the proper perspective. I know it's a cliche', but it really is true - "Nobody can make you become angry...you have to choose to become angered by their words. Certainly there are words, phrases or labels that each of us take more personally than others, but in the end, it is our individual choice to become angry or not.

[Memnoch]

Thanks for your last comment Cerek. It's all about perspective. We as mods have to practice it every day - we have to put our little pet hates and such aside to maintain an unbiased viewpoint. It's not always easy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just a note that this thread seems to be veering towards crossing the moratorium line - the last few posts, while having been conducted very civilly, set off some warning bells in my head. Call me paranoid, but I don't want religion to become THE topic of discussion here - not at this point. Be careful, and use your judgment. Thanks guys. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]