Muslims demand cross be removed from Swiss flag

[junobet]

On 29.1.2016 at 5:03 AM, thereselittleflower said:

I think there has to be balance here.

I think there are absolutely muslims who want to live peaceful with us are are absolutely horror stricken revolted by by ISIS and want nothing to do with it and hold that ISIS has hijacked the muslim faith, and is harming it greatly.

At the same time, there is ISIS and they are all throughout Europe now, and they do mean to kill you and pretty much everyone in Europe and they probably have the means to do so.  Europe has a duty to defend against this.

This is a very hard, if not impossible situation.

 

 

 

I think we agree with each other. Except maybe that I’d say you overestimate the presence of ISIS:

Of course I may just be extraordinarily devious, but I can think of many ways in which I could cause havoc if I wanted to. I wouldn’t even need a gun or explosives. So – assuming that ISIS-sympathizers aren’t any less devious than I could be – the mere fact that there is so little terrorism in Europe tells me that we can’t have that many ISIS-supporters in our Muslim population.

There is no such thing as 100% safety. If it’s not ISIS, it’s other nutters that may want to shoot down entire cinema-audiences. It’s important to have good police-work and it’s important not to be ruled by fear: “Keep calm and carry on!”

 

[gdemoss]

On 1/29/2016 at 3:08 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Yes, our word martyr come from a Greek word 'martyros', which means 'witness'. Acts 22:20, Paul talks about God's witness (martyros - martyr) Stephen. People sometimes say that Stephen was the first martyr of the church. When they do that, they do not mean he was the first witness, but the first to die for the cause.

In Rev 12, we see:

"And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death."

That word 'testimony' there is related, a witness is one who testifies, and the Greek word is  'martyrias', these are the people who were willing to die for their testimony.

In Rev 20:4, we see:

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

There we see Christians dying in the tribulation for their 'testimony', their 'martyrian', so it is not hard to understand how the Greek word for witness, was transformed in English to mean one who dies for a cause.

I believe it is this modern English understanding of the word 'martyr' that people are using, not it's basis in the Koine Greek of the Bible. Language changes, and generally here, we speak in modern English.

Even my dictionary of modern english agrees with that which I have said about the word.

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 hours ago, gdemoss said:

Even my dictionary of modern english agrees with that which I have said about the word.

And so do I, but most modern dictionaries do not have just one definition, that being of being a witness.

For example, Mirriam- Webster says:

Full Definition of martyr

1. 1:  a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

2. 2:  a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

3. 3:  victim; especially :  a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life — A. J. Cronin>

4.  

By the way, I did not make the word VICTIM to be in red, the online dictionary did. My point was that words mean, what they mean, in the context of their use. When we see the word "martryr" in the Bible,  it likely means 'witness'.

However, the context of this thread was about people dying for a cause. The first use of the word in the thread, was:

"Then there is a higher, some would say heroic,  loving of self which is the sacrificial giving of our lives as martyrs."

The next use was :

"But we must define what the martyrs are for......    For the gospel, I would agree, but for some rag head killing my kids and grand kids......    no martyr's for me."

The third uses was:

"If I were a christian in an Islamic country and became a christian and lost my life for being a christian by not turning away from God would be for the Gospel....   if there was not anything I could do about it but stand for what I believe....

But if there is something you can do about it and don't then you are not a martyr, but a fool.    and I don't use that word loosely."

So you see, the context here was not mere witnessing, but loss of life.

 

[gdemoss]

8 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

And so do I, but most modern dictionaries do not have just one definition, that being of being a witness.

For example, Mirriam- Webster says:

Full Definition of martyr

1. 1:  a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

2. 2:  a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

3. 3:  victim; especially :  a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life — A. J. Cronin>

4.  

By the way, I did not make the word VICTIM to be in red, the online dictionary did. My point was that words mean, what they mean, in the context of their use. When we see the word "martryr" in the Bible,  it likely means 'witness'.

However, the context of this thread was about people dying for a cause. The first use of the word in the thread, was:

"Then there is a higher, some would say heroic,  loving of self which is the sacrificial giving of our lives as martyrs."

The next use was :

"But we must define what the martyrs are for......    For the gospel, I would agree, but for some rag head killing my kids and grand kids......    no martyr's for me."

The third uses was:

"If I were a christian in an Islamic country and became a christian and lost my life for being a christian by not turning away from God would be for the Gospel....   if there was not anything I could do about it but stand for what I believe....

But if there is something you can do about it and don't then you are not a martyr, but a fool.    and I don't use that word loosely."

So you see, the context here was not mere witnessing, but loss of life.

 

I agree with what you have said.  My addition was simply a rabbit trail from the topic of martyrdom because of the over eager use of the term being meant to die for a cause.  My point was that it is better to be a living martyr than a dead one.  Jesus said no one could take his life.  My question is does that apply to us by extention?  And if so shouldn't we choose to live for Christ rather than die?  It is something I am trying to work out.  There is a time coming when people will again live 1000 years.  What are your thoughts Omega?

[gdemoss]

By the way here is a more extensive definition of martyr.

mar·tyr

  (mär′tər)

n.

1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.

2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

3.

a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.

b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs

1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.

2. To inflict great pain on; torment.

---

[Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Late Greek martur, from Greekmartus, martur-, witness.]

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

martyr

 (ˈmɑːtə)

n

1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) a person who suffers death rather than renounce his religious beliefs

2. a person who suffers greatly or dies for a cause, belief, etc

3. a person who suffers from poor health, misfortune, etc: he's a martyr to rheumatism.

4. facetious or derogatory a person who feigns suffering to gain sympathy, help, etc

vb (tr)

5. (Ecclesiastical Terms) to kill as a martyr

6. (Ecclesiastical Terms) to make a martyr of

[Old English martir, from Church Latinmartyr, from Late Greek martur-, martuswitness]

ˌmartyriˈzation, ˌmartyriˈsation n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

mar•tyr

 (ˈmɑr tər) 

n.

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or suffers on behalf of a cause.

3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering.

v.t.

4. to make a martyr of, esp. by putting to death.

5. to torment; torture.

[before 900; Old English martyr < Late Latin < Late Greek mártyr, variant of Greekmártys, witness]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

[gdemoss]

And what is suffering?  Do we not suffer the sin of others against ourselves for their salvation as did Christ for us?  Does that mean we must die doing it?  Please help me to articulate the possibilities in this for it can be directly related to the OP.  Maybe our perception of Martyrdom is skewed and we are more bent on dying for Christ than living for him.

[OakWood]

On 29/01/2016 at 1:07 AM, junobet said:

 

Thousands and thousands of human beings, created and beloved by God in His image, died a horrible death in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with even more dying or being born deformed to this very day, just to win a war that was already won.

And you think dropping those bombs was a good idea? Oh my.

Yes, it was a good idea... tragic maybe.... but sometimes things are necessary in war. Over 200,000 died as a result of the atom bombs. Over a million would have died if the war had not been stopped. The Japanese were brutal.

Of course, most of the dead who experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent, but civilians are always casualties of war. Blame the Japanese government - they started the war.

But people who think like you are victims of moral relativism. There is no right and wrong in your eyes. As far as you're concerned evil is the same as good. You can't distinguish between good and evil. You don't know the bad guys from the good guys. I'm not really interested in your vacuous empty-headed pacifism. Pacifists are on the side of the enemy and they allow evil to flourish.

[hmbld]

4 hours ago, OakWood said:

Yes, it was a good idea... tragic maybe.... but sometimes things are necessary in war. Over 200,000 died as a result of the atom bombs. Over a million would have died if the war had not been stopped. The Japanese were brutal.

Of course, most of the dead who experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent, but civilians are always casualties of war. Blame the Japanese government - they started the war.

But people who think like you are victims of moral relativism. There is no right and wrong in your eyes. As far as you're concerned evil is the same as good. You can't distinguish between good and evil. You don't know the bad guys from the good guys. I'm not really interested in your vacuous empty-headed pacifism. Pacifists are on the side of the enemy and they allow evil to flourish.

Interesting.  Japan's leaders attacked us, in the end we dropped two atom bombs on civilians, in order to save lives.  If this is indeed so noble of the "good guys", why don't we continue this practice?  Is anyone who is against dropping an atom bomb on a civilian city to be labeled a pacifist?  If your "not really interested in your vacuous empty-headed pacifism", then why respond at all?  Seems your interested enough to what, let anyone who disagrees with you to keep quiet?  Maybe the bombs did ultimately save lives, at least that is what our history books want us to believe.   Actually, the bombing raids on Japan had actually crippled their resources, and General MacArthur felt air power alone would cause them to surrender, as in July 1945 the U.S. intercepted a cable which stated Japan wanted to end the war.  Maybe the U.S. just wanted a return on its investment in the bomb, and wanted to showboat its weapon?  At any rate, I am always confused when people dismiss unnecessary civilian casualties caused by "us", but are up in arms when "they" gun down civilians.  The U.S. may do a lot of good around the world, yet not all of its actions are honorable.  

[simplejeff]

54 minutes ago, hmbld said:

The U.S. may do a lot of good around the world, yet not all of its actions are honorable.  

If it's the beast, or helping the beast,  then it's all been a sham.

[OakWood]

1 hour ago, hmbld said:

Interesting.  Japan's leaders attacked us, in the end we dropped two atom bombs on civilians, in order to save lives.  If this is indeed so noble of the "good guys", why don't we continue this practice?  Is anyone who is against dropping an atom bomb on a civilian city to be labeled a pacifist?  If your "not really interested in your vacuous empty-headed pacifism", then why respond at all?  Seems your interested enough to what, let anyone who disagrees with you to keep quiet?  Maybe the bombs did ultimately save lives, at least that is what our history books want us to believe.   Actually, the bombing raids on Japan had actually crippled their resources, and General MacArthur felt air power alone would cause them to surrender, as in July 1945 the U.S. intercepted a cable which stated Japan wanted to end the war.  Maybe the U.S. just wanted a return on its investment in the bomb, and wanted to showboat its weapon?  At any rate, I am always confused when people dismiss unnecessary civilian casualties caused by "us", but are up in arms when "they" gun down civilians.  The U.S. may do a lot of good around the world, yet not all of its actions are honorable.  

That's just an inane reply. "Why don't we continue the practise?" What a stupid question. Under the circumstances it was estimated that close to a million lives would be lost if the U.S.A. launched a full invasion of Japan and that would be mainly Japanese citizens more than allied troops. So, yes, Japanese lives were taken into consideration too.

As for intercepting a cable saying that Japan wanted to end the war well Emperor Hirohito wanted to keep fighting even after the first bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima!

At the end of the day, even if the atom bombs were a mistake, they were done through honest intentions. It's not as if the U.S. dropped the bombs for the sadistic fun of it. But you make it sound as if both sides were as bad as the other. If I remember my history, Japan invaded Pearl Harbor. I don't recall the U.S.A. starting the war.

As for me not being interested in vacuous empty-headed pacifism, it doesn't mean that I can't reply to it, if only to show others just how stupid and dangerous it is!