Madie Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Alirght. I'm a pretty new deconvert. I read this site because it's almost therapy for me. I have to admit--I'm still at church and am slowly breaking the bonds but can't do so immediatley. You guys are the most HONEST and FUNNY group of people I've encountered for a long time -- I'm not use to it. Anyways...this is not so much a rant, but more of something for you all to ponder on. As you know, I'm still at church and under preaching. However, nowadays I am open minded with all that's preached to me. There was a message on "separation" preached. The speaker was drawing an anology on the dangers of being a "friend to the world". He was saying how the Romans use to punish their criminals -- one method was crucifixtion. The other method he mentioned was how the Romans would allow the criminals to go free--BUT--they would bind a dead body to them, so that it followed them around everywhere. The analogy was that if Christians are a friend to the world and they don't separate themselves from the "dead in Christ", than they are like those criminals with a dead body bound to them. While that was being said, rather then feel conviction, I felt as if being Christian was like having a dead body bound to me. You are living in the world but you go around never feeling freedom to enjoy life. And that hit me hard. I've met so many wonderful people that aren't Christians and I really can't see myself separating from them. The message went on to tell us to continue to separate ourselves--but not really explaining how and giving us examples--it was what and not how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dra_Mucd_Uha Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Welcome to the boards It's interesting to see how different perspectives affect how you hear and interpret various things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Welcome Madie, Alirght. I'm a pretty new deconvert. I read this site because it's almost therapy for me. I have to admit--I'm still at church and am slowly breaking the bonds but can't do so immediatley. You guys are the most HONEST and FUNNY group of people I've encountered for a long time -- I'm not use to it. Honest ... of course we are. (And humble) Funny... heck no, we're dead serious. Anyways...this is not so much a rant, but more of something for you all to ponder on. As you know, I'm still at church and under preaching. However, nowadays I am open minded with all that's preached to me. There was a message on "separation" preached. The speaker was drawing an anology on the dangers of being a "friend to the world". He was saying how the Romans use to punish their criminals -- one method was crucifixtion. The other method he mentioned was how the Romans would allow the criminals to go free--BUT--they would bind a dead body to them, so that it followed them around everywhere. The whole "separation" is a bit conflicting too. The Jesus character clearly was a symbol of a person that went to the small, hurt, sinful and not so successful people. He went to the people that (according to the story) did not believe in him. So now the Church wants to turn away from it? Well, that's a great way of following in the footsteps of Jesus, by doing the opposite. Think about it. In the story, Jesus was criticized for going to the sinner and dirty non-religious people. And it was the "perfect" religious who did the critique. The analogy was that if Christians are a friend to the world and they don't separate themselves from the "dead in Christ", than they are like those criminals with a dead body bound to them. While that was being said, rather then feel conviction, I felt as if being Christian was like having a dead body bound to me. You are living in the world but you go around never feeling freedom to enjoy life. And that hit me hard. I've met so many wonderful people that aren't Christians and I really can't see myself separating from them. I can tell what dead body that is tied to your back at the moment... it's the body of Jesus *fucking dead* Christ! (Sorry for my french. I never finished the class because of my inability to learn the correct pronunciation. I'm definitely going to Hell now.) The message went on to tell us to continue to separate ourselves--but not really explaining how and giving us examples--it was what and not how. Examples of "worldly" things: - Praying in public to show how holy you are (pride) - Molesting underage boys while claiming homosexuality is a sin (hypocricy) - Building a huge multi-mega-dollar Church and drive the latest $200,000 Mercedes (greed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Alirght. I'm a pretty new deconvert. I read this site because it's almost therapy for me. I have to admit--I'm still at church and am slowly breaking the bonds but can't do so immediatley. You guys are the most HONEST and FUNNY group of people I've encountered for a long time -- I'm not use to it. So, if you are deconverted why are you still going? Do you have personal obligations or are you still thinking you might want to stay in the religion or is it the friendships (you'll find most of those die if you "come out" so be ready) or is it something else? Some of us are honest and others are funny but I don't think any of us are honest and funny. I do know a few that are scary and pissed. Anyways...this is not so much a rant, but more of something for you all to ponder on. As you know, I'm still at church and under preaching. However, nowadays I am open minded with all that's preached to me. There was a message on "separation" preached. The speaker was drawing an anology on the dangers of being a "friend to the world". He was saying how the Romans use to punish their criminals -- one method was crucifixtion. The other method he mentioned was how the Romans would allow the criminals to go free--BUT--they would bind a dead body to them, so that it followed them around everywhere. Well, I spent about 30 seconds typing "roman bind dead body" into Google and came up with nothing on this. Sounds like a legend to me since I doubt regular Roman citizens would like having criminals roaming around free plus the extra benefit of corpses being dragged around with them. Think about seeing that at the mall. Who's really being punished there? I'd be interested in any pointers if this was a real method of punishment though. The analogy was that if Christians are a friend to the world and they don't separate themselves from the "dead in Christ", than they are like those criminals with a dead body bound to them. While that was being said, rather then feel conviction, I felt as if being Christian was like having a dead body bound to me. You are living in the world but you go around never feeling freedom to enjoy life. And that hit me hard. I've met so many wonderful people that aren't Christians and I really can't see myself separating from them. The message went on to tell us to continue to separate ourselves--but not really explaining how and giving us examples--it was what and not how. Isn't the reverse also true? If you don't separate from the church aren't you carrying a dead body around unable to enjoy life? When you're in the church who are you living life for? You or god? God. So you're living your life for someone else. Is "feeling freedom to enjoy life" as you put it? Living life is living your life for you. As many of us found out that didn't make us degenerates when we deconverted. We didn't suddenly start eating babies (we did that before ) or anything. We were "us" without the guilt "overhead" of the religion. We lived life for ourselves and not "god." That's freedom. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Hi Madie! The speaker was drawing an anology on the dangers of being a "friend to the world". He was saying how the Romans use to punish their criminals -- one method was crucifixtion. The other method he mentioned was how the Romans would allow the criminals to go free--BUT--they would bind a dead body to them, so that it followed them around everywhere. I remember hearing this story. The criminal would have a dead body bound to his back, and it would eventually kill him as the body decomposed. I never knew whether this was true or not, as a Christian I never bothered to check it out. The earliest source I've come up with so far for this teaching, is from a sermon entitled "The Fainting Warrior" by C. H. Spurgeon. "It was the custom of ancient tyrants, when they wished to put men to the most fearful punishments, to tie a dead body to them, placing the two back to back; and there was the living man, with a dead body closely strapped to him, rotting, putrid, corrupting, and this he must drag with him wherever he went. Now, this is just what the Christian has to do. He has within him the new life; he has a living and undying principle, which the Holy Spirit has put within him, but he feels that every day he has to drag about with him this dead body, this body of death, a thing as loathsome, as hideous, as abominable to his new life, as a dead stinking carcase would be to a living man." The Fainting Warrior I agree with the others; I became free when I tossed off the dead body of Jesus and the church! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Did some more searching and found a commentary on Romans 7 that claims the punishment of binding a dead body to a criminal was recorded by Virgil and Servius. "Having long maintained a useless conflict against innumerable hosts and irresistible might, he is at last wounded and taken prisoner; and to render his state more miserable, is not only encompassed by the slaughtered, but chained to a dead body; for there seems to be here an allusion to an ancient custom of certain tyrants, who bound a dead body to a living man, and obliged him to carry it about, till the contagion from the putrid mass took away his life! Virgil paints this in all its horrors, in the account he gives of the tyrant Mezentius. AEneid, lib. viii. ver. 485. Quid memorem infandas caedes? quid facta tyranni? MORTUA quin etiam jungebat corpora VIVIS, Componens manibusque manus, atque oribus ora; Tormenti genus! et sanie taboque fluentes Complexu in misero, longa sic morte necabat. What tongue can such barbarities record, Or count the slaughters of his ruthless sword? ‘Twas not enough the good, the guiltless bled, Still worse, he bound the living to the dead: These, limb to limb, and face to face, he joined; O! monstrous crime, of unexampled kind! Till choked with stench, the lingering wretches lay, And, in the loathed embraces, died away! Pitt. Servius remarks, in his comment on this passage, that sanies, mortui est; tabo, viventis scilicet sanguis: "the sanies, or putrid ichor, from the dead body, produced the tabes in the blood of the living." Roasting, burning, racking, crucifying, etc., were nothing when compared to this diabolically invented punishment." http://www.gospeljohn.com/ac_rom7.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Vergil's Aeneid is set just after the Fall of Troy, so it's centuries before the founding of Rome. It's all legend, basically, like the Iliad. Vergil's description of the Etruscan tyrant Mezentius tying prisoners to dead bodies was a legend even in his own time. It might have been done... it was not a normal Roman punishment. In any case, this practice as described in the poem did not involve letting the prisoner go free. Mezentius had the prisoner tied to a stake face to face with the dead body. Roman citizens were not crucified, by the way, or otherwise mutilated in their person under Roman law. corrupt emperors might do stuff on their own, as did the corrupt governor of sicily, Verres, who was prosecuted for it. The Romans had many punishments. Their system of law was very complex and well regulated. Madie, the preacher you heard certainly doesn't have independent evidence about Roman law. He just is getting this from some commentary. Your pastor has an incredibly uninformed notion of what the Romans actually did. It is certainly not the case that they only had two punishments! Your pastor's whole sermon amounts to saying that you should just live with your head in the sand and your mind switched off, dominated by groupthink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts