ASSIST News Service – November 13, 2010
Iranian Pastor Accused of ‘Thought Crimes’ to Die by Hanging
By Michael Ireland
TEHRAN, IRAN – An Iranian court has passed down a death sentence on a Christian pastor, who was found guilty of so-called “thought crimes.” According to www.presenttruthmn.com, the official verdict has now been delivered in writing to Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, stating that he is to be hung for the crime of apostasy. Spokesman Jason DeMars of Present Truth Ministries, says: “There are 20 days to appeal the verdict, and Youcef’s attorney is now beginning the process of the appeal.”
The prayer burdens surrounding this development are many, DeMars said in an e-mail to ASSIST News Service. “Please pray for Youcef, that God would grant him peace and strength in this hour, that God would move on his behalf, and that he would be delivered! Pray also for his wife and children; this is extremely difficult for them. “We are trusting our great Lord to give her the peace that comes only from the True Comforter. Pray that the church in Iran would stand strong, that their faith would not be shaken, but that their eyes would remain fixed on Christ. Pray also for the local officials in charge of this case in Iran, that their hearts would be changed, and that they would experience salvation in Jesus Christ,” he said.
DeMars concluded: “Brothers and Sisters, it is critical that we intercede constantly on behalf of our brother Youcef. I trust that, as the Lord leads each one individually, Youcef will be lifted before the Lord continually with prayer and fasting. ‘The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,’ (James 5:16).” DeMars, in calling Christians around the world to pray for Pastor Youcef, also cited William Branham, who said: “Prayer changes things. Prayer is the most powerful weapon that was ever put in the control of human beings. There’s no atomic bomb, or no hydrogen bomb as powerful as prayer.”
** Michael Ireland, Chief Correspondent of ANS, is an international British freelance journalist who was formerly a reporter with a London (United Kingdom) newspaper and has been a frequent contributor to UCB UK, a British Christian radio station. While in the UK, Michael traveled to Canada and the United States, Albania,Yugoslavia, Holland, Germany,and Czechoslovakia. He has reported for ANS from Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Israel, Jordan, China,and Russia. Michael’s volunteer involvement with ASSIST News Service is a sponsored ministry department – ‘Michael Ireland Media Missionary’ (MIMM) – of A.C.T. International of P.O.Box 1649, Brentwood, TN 37024-1649, at: Artists in Christian Testimony (A.C.T.) International where you can donate online to support his stated mission of ‘Truth Through Christian Journalism.’ If you have a news or feature story idea for Michael, please contact him at: ANS Chief Reporter
Another example of how theocracies are a terrible system of government; Iran.
Bang on when it comes to Islamic theocracy.
What theocracies do you know of that have worked? Christianity has had 2000 years to work on it and hasn’t got it to work yet, or else there would be a working example to point to.
A Bear,
Not that I was going to bother responding your hastily generalized premises again…but since you waste no opportunity to be insensitive toward someone in this pastor’s grievious situation, I’ll bite.
But instead of sending five lines of “blah, blah, blah” back to you, I’ll answer your question with a rhetorical question: What examples of Kant’s ‘catagorical imperitive” ethic and Rousseau’s ‘social contract’ democracies have “worked” (as you put it)? Every example of ‘democracy’ in the modern world is chalk-filled with unworkable factors, unworkable scenario’s, and unworkable people.
RRC; Modern western democracy as imperfect as it is still works better than any other system that has ever existed. The fact there are periodic elections provides flexibility to improve our governments and to adapt to changing circumstances.
Where is there or has there been a theocracy you believe to be superior to democracy?
btw, what did I write that was so insensitive that made you threaten to bite me?
A Bear,
First, you have stated:
Modern western democracy as imperfect as it is still works better than any other system that has ever existed.
“…[T]hat has ever existed?” — I don’t accept this as factual on its own. This is something you are making up.
Second, you have stated:
Where is there or has there been a theocracy you believe to be superior to democracy?
I don’t accept the premise here that “A Bear” or “RRC” have the ethical qualifications or jurisdiction to evaluate a theos (Grk.) who would actually be the true God and Creator and would directly rule a particular culture – past, present, or future. That God is never in the court dock of A Bear’s opinion, by definition.
Third, I’m putting the philosphical underpinnings of “modern western democracies” on the dock for testing, expressed in the definitive works of Kant and Rousseau. I’m hoping you’ll “bite” on that and defend them because that is the crux of the matter.
RRC;
Firstly, if you disagree with me about the superiority of democracy, give an example.
Secondly, do we have the right to question the ethics of a god or gods? Is it OK for me to question the ethics of the god of the Aztecs that demanded bloody sacrifices by the thousands every year? Isn’t it immoral NOT to judge evil and “put it on the court dock”.
Thirdly. I wouldn’t defend Kant and Rousseau because I largely disagree with them and they aren’t good spokesmen for humanism or democracy. You might get a “bite” if you trolled a #6 Bertrand Russell near the surface though.
A Bear,
Maybe your reading too fast? I don’t understand why you don’t comprehend my straightforward statement that already answers your “”firstly” and “secondly” questions.
I’ll re-state it another way:
1. Your “firstly”: I don’t accept your PREMISE that you are qualified to arbitrate over the superiority or inferiority of the true and living God (and anything or realm He rules), and whom actually created and predestined ‘A Bear’ from womb to tomb.
2. Your “secondly”: Yes, it’s “okay” for A Bear to question the “ethics of an Aztec god”. Why? –because he didn’t stick around to save the Aztecs from extinction, did he?. If he actually still exists, for the sake of argument, he is a covenant-breaker. Or, in terms of logical law, he is in self-contradiction. Therefore, A Bear can question his ethics all day long. But the whole problem with you bringing in the Aztec god, here, is it is irrelevant because I framed the debate to be about, I quote myself “a theos (Grk.) who would actually be the true God and Creator”. THIS MEANS NO AZTEC GOD, A Bear, is relevant.
3. Kant – Yes, Kant must be debated. You brought up the term “modern” – that automatically means Immanuel Kant, by definition – because, he gave birth to that word by attempting to sew up the “irreconciliable differences” of the British empiricists and continental rationalists. He allegedly saved the modern era, or otherwise called the Enlightenment, from internal philosophical implosion and despair. You brought “modern” up as your given presupposition. That presupposition of yours needs to be tested with an internal critique BEFORE we proceed with the ethical or practical questions of democracy. You don’t just get that as a freebie, with me.
4. Russell – I’d give you my “Why I’m Not a……..Bertrand Russell Fan” speech, but that’s just going to get you started again on more freebies.
RRC;
3.Kant-No, Kant kant be debated. He wasn’t crucial to the “enlightenment” neither did he settle the rift between the mystic and the common sense schools of metaphysics.
I’m puzzled as to why you give Kant the importance you do and even more puzzled as to why you would expect me to defend him.
3.4Russell- ‘A History of Western Philosophy’ addresses the question you seem to be alluding to .
Set aside your dislike for the ” Why I’m not” book and read “Political Ideals” or “Human Society in Ethics and Politics”.
Kant is irrelevant.
A Bear,
The fact that you are so sure of yourself that you, A Bear, can make metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical assertions regarding “modern western democracies” betrays your pretense of being some kind of neutral, scientific evaluator. Your pretense needs to be challenged.
I agree that Kant didn’t actually “settle the rift”, as you put it. But your operating pressupposition in your original assertions DEPEND UPON Kant settling them.
Yes, Kant was all important to modernity (or the Enlightenment) because he “saved science” from David Hume’s hard hitting consistent empircism which gave no legitimacy to the inter-connectivity to the “facts” of sense perception. And, he argued for a way that Cartesian rationality can escape being lost to mere illusions. Therefore, Kant IS the man who saved the Enlightenment (or modernity).
Therefore, if A Bear’s going to make modernist assertions and hypotheses, he’s going to have to deal with his modernist epistemological presuppositions being put through an internal critique. If you can escape reducio ad absurdum, then we’ll talk theocracy.
I’d recommend laying off Russell until you settle the modernist epistemology question. Otherwise, Russell will just lead you down a rabbit trail to nowhere.
I’ll leave you with a Bible verse, my friend, from St. Paul:
19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1 Corinthians 1:19-20 (New International Version 1984, ©1984)