Which is worse: Not acknowledging a God given position of a person or giving to a person a title or acknowlegement that ONLY belongs to God?
The second. Atheists don’t believe in a god, but some do indeed elevate people into what others would call a ‘godlike’ position, and that is just wrong. We have seen this with such people as Muhammed, Stalin and some other undesirables. Of course, the people will say they are not doing such a thing, but one only has to look at their behavior if someone bashes their god-man.
The first situation is a slight, and if the man has enough personal fortitude they will prove themselves as a leader rather than forcing someone to follow them.
Now, we must look at such people as Stalin and Muhammed. No one is still killing others in Stalin’s name, but they have been doing that since Muhammed’s time. The same with such people as Hitler who also elevated himself into a godlike position.
Most of the deaths incurred to the people, other than Muhammed, were done during that person’s lifetime. For Muhammed, the deaths are still being incurred. And it is due to his god-like status in islam even though they will deny it due to their ‘sin’ of shirk.
Interesting perspective. Thank you. BTW, I pretty much agree with you. It’s very dangerous to elevate people to godhood like positions. Don’t the N Koreans do the same with their leader?
Yes, I think that most communist leaders do that, and the people just follow along. Much of it is out of fear, and there are too many that do it willingly, and carry out the god-man’s demands (killing, terror, etc).
Stalin went through and destroyed much Christian symbols and replaced it with his own likeness, and then the media helped him along.
Hitler did the same, and he even replaced (killed) many Protestant ministers and replaced them with his own men.
All of them control the media.
In Muhammed’s time, poets were the ‘media’ of his time. And he had a few poets killed, one was a young woman, and another was an old man. Muhammed wished they were dead, and his band of followers willingly carried out his wishes.
There are many similarities between all these men and also a few more such as Mao and Chavez and Castro.
I even see something similar going on in the USA, but it is a bit different. Our Congress is trying to shut up the media (anyone who disagrees with the ‘ruling party’ right now), and also give more control to Obama over the internet. I don’t know how that is going to play out, but we will see. It doesn’t bode well what they are doing though.
57 people looked at this thread. Is it a difficult question?
I would suggest that the first is a sin of disobedience in violation of the Fourth Commandment. The second violates the First Commandment , rejects God and thus all the commandments. This is the sin of Satan and the ultimate sin.
The latter may be the unforgivable sin, since by rejecting God it closes the door to seeking forgiveness.
Just my :twocents:. I don’t have any source or citation for this.
The second. The first often turns out to be man-made anyway - IOW, a variant of the second. But the second corrupts faith at the root, and allows no end of blasphemies.
How does one take the title of Vicar of Christ then?
I always wondered about that.
Vicar of Christ is a man made title reflecting a God given position (In the Catholic view).
Did Christ ask for Peter to be called this?
Read what I said again.
I’ve got one for you:
Paper or plastic?
Just joshing. It is thought provoking but I can’t make decide.
The second is worse in my opinion, and I think reflects Catholic thought (idolatry is worse).
probably the second is worse, but thankfully the Catholic Church doesn’t do this
Now we’re getting somewhere. Thanx.
Keep up the interesting comments.
It will depend on the context. Abortion, which is rampant in the West, and in many parts of the world, is an example of the first. The right of the unborn child to live, granted by God, is not acknowledged. Compared to that, I don’t know that calling some clown like Kim Jong II “Father of the People” is any worse.
I think it’s a case of situational ethics. Both are wrong. But since there would be a number of different situations in each category, some more serious than others, it would be impossible to make a blanket judgment.
–noun 1. Church of England. a. a person acting as priest of a parish in place of the rector, or as representative of a religious community to which tithes belong. b. the priest of a parish the tithes of which are impropriated and who receives only the smaller tithes or a salary. 2. Protestant Episcopal Church. a. a member of the clergy whose sole or chief charge is a chapel dependent on the church of a parish. b. a bishop’s assistant in charge of a church or mission. 3. Roman Catholic Church. an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop. 4. a person who acts in place of another; substitute. 5. a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God’s vicar on earth.
How does this constitute* giving to a person a title or acknowlegement that ONLY belongs to God?*
HAHA yeah, I said that it’s a man made title reflecting a God given position, then he/she asked if Christ ask for Peter to be called this. :rolleyes: Slower reading helps sometimes.
Exactly. God is nobody’s vicar. God is God. The word “vicar”, meaning a representitive or deputy, necessarily means something far less than God. The pope is Christ’s servant, as Eliakim was the servant of the king in Isaiah 22, but the king gave Eliakim “the keys to the kingdom” as Jesus gave His keys to His servant Peter:
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a** father **to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
- Isaiah 22:20-22
Note that it says that Eliakim will be a* father *(papa or pope) to the house of Judah.
As you know, the parallel New Testament passage is this:
And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
- Matt 16:19
I always enjoy your posts, Joe.
So, you are saying a substitute for Christ can be had, and you are saying this title came from someone who was not Christ. So, Christ did not feel the need to have Peter called this, but somehow it cropped up.
When did the title come about?