Martyrdom

[antifundie]

So, the crazy email thread got to to thinking...what is UP with Martyrdom?

(I'm talking about dying for your beliefs, not dying in war, or protecting others, etc.)

Like, I think about the early Christians who were martyred, and I think maybe it wouldn't have been so bad just to, I don't know, eat the food offered to idols or say the emperor was God, you know?

I guess I really don't think Jesus/God would care that much if you crossed your fingers and lied to save your life.

I say this as somebody who considers herself a Christian--I could see dying for a family member or to protect somebody, but not *just* for Jesus, you know?

Thoughts? Opinions?

[xDreamerx]

You know, I have thought about this as well, and I would have just said I was whatever faith they wanted me to be so I could stay alive. After all what use are you to anyone if you're dead? I mean that in terms of practical terms, to your family and so on but also in selfish terms. You can't do anything or have any influence on events if you're dead. You can't further the causes you believe in if you're dead.

I can only really talk about the Tudor period in England, because it's the period I know best. Thomas More and John Fisher were considered Martyrs and made saints by the Catholic church for refusing to recognize the Act of Supremacy. When Mary I ascended the throne she executed Lady Jane Grey. Most people assumed it was because she took Mary's rightful place, but it wasn't. Mary was willing to let her live, if she converted to the Catholic faith. Jane refused. Thomas Cranmer was martyred by Mary for being a heretic. It seems extreme and silly to us but you have to consider the culture. It was hyper-religious and people truly believed those things to be true. They literally believed they would suffer damnation and hell for not being of the "true" faith, and both Catholics, Reformers and Protestants considered their faiths to be absolutely true. It wasn't just politics for these people; it was reality. More's family tried to persuade him to swear an oath of loyalty to the King and to validity of his marriage and the act, but he would not.

Personally, I feel Katherine Parr, Henry VIII last wife had a level head on her shoulders when it came to this issue. She kept her religious opinions secret until after Henry died and was able to publish books about her opinions. Sir Richard Rich, another person of note swam the religious tides. He began as a fierce Reformist and took on the opinions of whoever reigned, until Mary when he professed Catholic beliefs. It is hard to say whether he truly believed as she did or if he was being pragmatic once again.

[lovefromgirl]

Agreed on all counts. I don't care how poetic it is to die for one's principles. Said principles have no hope if all of their adherents get themselves killed. Someone has to be left alive to make change happen.

[uber frau]

Death is a promotion in Christian culture. No matter how sad or painful the death, it's all worth it when St Peter hands you your harp and halo. (Apparently).

[ladypuglover]

It wasn't for the cause but because they truly believed that their immortal souls would be punished for all of eternity. If you believed that you will suffer for an eternity for doing somehing you believe goes against your beliefs would you do it? Or if you would be rewarded for standing by your beliefs in the afterlife by doing what you believe is right, even if you are going to die. Fear is what ruled them, not reason.

ETA I also agree it could be a deep love for Christ. And yes, love can make you willing to choose death over denying Him.

I don't know what I would do if that was me in such a place. I would like to say I would risk death but I don't know.

[maybeizfundie]

Or love. Depending on the person and your perspective of them.

There is definitely honor for the martyr in Christianity (one who dies for their belief *not seeking the death or harm of anyone else in the process*). But I don't believe all acceptance of martyrdom is or was out of fear.

I don't know that I would have the guts to be a martyr. I'd choose "running away" if I had a choice. :D But at the same time, I understand the why behind their willingness. Jesus isn't "just Jesus", in Christian doctrine.

[liltwinstar]

Wasn't it Peter or Paul who said something about not eating things offered to idols? Something like that - point is, not Jesus.

Anyway, what I never quite figured out is - ok, you deny Christ and therefore your life is spared. Then later, you could repent of that, right? And become a good Christian again. I know the saint stories are full of "warnings" where people tried to do that but then were killed anyway and thus they didn't have time to repent, but I don't know, it seemed like an option to me.

At the risk of being a heretic (heh), I do sometimes wonder how many Christian martyrs there *actually* were. Since the stories are - ahem - embellished in a lot of cases, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers of them were as well.

When I went to Russian Orthodox Church, they would talk about the "New Martyrs of the Communist Yoke" as if all Russians killed under Lenin and Stalin were killed for being Russian Orthodox. I realized later that a lot of them were political prisoners, not religious, so maybe the Church...inflated the numbers a bit.

[deelaem]

It wasn't for the cause but because they truly believed that their immortal souls would be punished for all of eternity. If you believed that you will suffer for an eternity for doing somehing you believe goes against your beliefs would you do it? Or if you would be rewarded for standing by your beliefs in the afterlife by doing what you believe is right, even if you are going to die. Fear is what ruled them, not reason.

Very well said.

[maybeizfundie]

I'm curious about the source for the statement that stories were embellished?

Also, it's not something that happened only in the past--the possibility of violent death because one is a Christian is still extant in some parts of the world today.

[Alecto]

There was an interesting Explainer on Slate today about Christian martyrs, specifically

Islam supposedly offers virgins to martyrs in the afterlife, but do Christian martyrs get anything special? Yes—they jump the line on Judgment Day. Several early Christian theologians opined that those who died because of their faith would be the first people resurrected when Christ returned. Some disciples were so convinced of this teaching that they sought out burial plots near martyrs, in the hope that the proximity would somehow accelerate their own resurrection.

http://www.slate.com/id/2299983/

[hilbilly_hippy]

if i had a choice between being shot point-blank, or denying Christ, i'd be shot...but i'm weird

[antifundie]

If I may, maybeizfundie, I don't presume to speak for LTS, although she is my sister.

In any case, I don't think either of us have proof of embellishment, but I would guess that some of the stories we heard of heads miraculously re-generating, and the extreme similarities of many of the stories does make one wonder.

I do absolutely believe that there were Christian martyrs in the early years of Christianity, I just wonder if the stories were repeated a lot, and grew in importance, you know?

[liltwinstar]

My point with the embellishment is that a *lot* of the stories I heard about martyrs included things that either the writer couldn't know or that wouldn't happen outside of a miracle. For example, in many of the stories from early Christianity the writers say things like "As saint so-and-so was burning/being dismembered/torn on the rack, he/she saw visions of Jesus/angels/heaven" Well, maybe the saint was seeing visions, but how would the writer know that? Granted, there are stories like the Three Holy Children in the book of Daniel who were in the flames but weren't burned - but that was observable by outsiders. The writers can't be in the victim's head.

Secondly, I heard one just yesterday in a book I'm listening to on my ipod. A saint was a hermit, and he lived in a remote monastery. The Romans got mad at him for being a Christian so they dragged him to town and beheaded him. He was mad that he was taken from his monastery, so as the story goes, he picked up his head, put it back on his neck, and walked back to his monastery to die in peace. Another story (that of St. Mary of Egypt) says that she lived in the desert for 40 years, drinking nothing at all during that time and eating only two loaves of bread. Again, not really possible - even Jesus Himself didn't do that!

Finally, a lot of the "virgin martyr" stories seem written to titillate more than anything else. They talk about these women - often very young girls of 12, 13, etc - who are sworn virgins but then who are dragged out in public and forced to disrobe. Of course, the writers of these stories spend a long time praising these girls' bodies in ways that are creepy at the very least, before having them dismembered but sort of dwelling on the dismemberment - a breast cut off, the blood, etc etc. It's sort of like legal/religious slash porn or something.

I'm not saying that I doubt that there are martyrs for Christianity. I know there is a historical record of people being fed to lions in the Roman days, beheaded, shot, stoned, crucified, etc. I know even in more modern times people are executed/persecuted for their faith (say, Christians in China). I guess my point is that the individual stories that I heard in church seem quite far-fetched to me, so it makes me doubt the validity of the whole genre.

[ladypuglover]

My point with the embellishment is that a *lot* of the stories I heard about martyrs included things that either the writer couldn't know or that wouldn't happen outside of a miracle. For example, in many of the stories from early Christianity the writers say things like "As saint so-and-so was burning/being dismembered/torn on the rack, he/she saw visions of Jesus/angels/heaven" Well, maybe the saint was seeing visions, but how would the writer know that? Granted, there are stories like the Three Holy Children in the book of Daniel who were in the flames but weren't burned - but that was observable by outsiders. The writers can't be in the victim's head.

Secondly, I heard one just yesterday in a book I'm listening to on my ipod. A saint was a hermit, and he lived in a remote monastery. The Romans got mad at him for being a Christian so they dragged him to town and beheaded him. He was mad that he was taken from his monastery, so as the story goes, he picked up his head, put it back on his neck, and walked back to his monastery to die in peace. Another story (that of St. Mary of Egypt) says that she lived in the desert for 40 years, drinking nothing at all during that time and eating only two loaves of bread. Again, not really possible - even Jesus Himself didn't do that!

Finally, a lot of the "virgin martyr" stories seem written to titillate more than anything else. They talk about these women - often very young girls of 12, 13, etc - who are sworn virgins but then who are dragged out in public and forced to disrobe. Of course, the writers of these stories spend a long time praising these girls' bodies in ways that are creepy at the very least, before having them dismembered but sort of dwelling on the dismemberment - a breast cut off, the blood, etc etc. It's sort of like legal/religious slash porn or something.

I'm not saying that I doubt that there are martyrs for Christianity. I know there is a historical record of people being fed to lions in the Roman days, beheaded, shot, stoned, crucified, etc. I know even in more modern times people are executed/persecuted for their faith (say, Christians in China). I guess my point is that the individual stories that I heard in church seem quite far-fetched to me, so it makes me doubt the validity of the whole genre.

But you gotta admit the headless hermit sounds really cool. I've met a few old dodgers grouchy enough to pull that off if they could.

[debrand]

Wasn't it Peter or Paul who said something about not eating things offered to idols? Something like that - point is, not Jesus.

.

Paul said that it was all right to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols because the idols weren't real. But he warned that if doing so caused your brother or sister to stumble in their faith, not to eat the meat in front of them. That sounds pretty pragmatic.

Meat that had been previously sacrificed to idols was less expensive, I've read, than other meat. As many Christians were poor or slaves, it made sense to not take away a source of food for them.

[debrand]

The early Romans must have thought Christians were crazy. You could practice any religion in Rome but it was considered patriotic to burn incense publicly to the emperor. Not doing so was akin to not saluting the flag or spitting on a veteran. To make it worse, Christians believed that the old gods were demonic. Can you imagine a new religion that taught that Christianity was either false or that Jesus was actually a demon that had fooled his followers?

Christians were put to death in horrible ways but so were a lot of people in the Roman period. What I've heard is that the numbers of Christians who were killed has been exaggerated. I found a thread on another board discussing the issue but I don't know how reliable that it is. I only link to it to show that there is some discussion as to whether the number of people died was purposely increased

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm

Again, I don't know how reliable this link is but this site says:

According to recent research the total number of Christian “martyrs†is only around 3000, and ca 1500 of these from the first three centuries. This is approximately the same number at the average number of Jews the holy Church killed during a year in the Middle Ages, - or sometimes, on just one single day (Deschner 1986). Most of the Church martyrs and martyr stories are holy forgeries and blatant lies

http://www.bandoli.no/tolerance.htm

[JesusFightClub]

The concept makes sense to me in a political context and a religious context (tho am not religious). There are some things which are just not negotiable for you as a person. Like, just can't be done. I suppose if you're religious, there are even more things.

For me, the nearest is crossing a picket line. I know that's not like being tortured and killed but I could never, ever do it. My union strikes a lot and I have struggled for money so if I'd crossed the line I'd know exactly how much I could be bought for...the price of that day's wages. And I'd know forever, no matter how many good things I did for the union after, that I was a scab.

Some things can't be lived with and some things can't be made up for.

[VodouDoll]

For me, the nearest is crossing a picket line. I know that's not like being tortured and killed but I could never, ever do it. My union strikes a lot and I have struggled for money so if I'd crossed the line I'd know exactly how much I could be bought for...the price of that day's wages. And I'd know forever, no matter how many good things I did for the union after, that I was a scab.

Some things can't be lived with and some things can't be made up for.

I see what you mean here. I was raised that you never ever cross a picket line. It's morally wrong. If I ever did it personally, it would mean that I've abandoned one of my core beliefs. That would be hard to live with.

[liltwinstar]

I can def understand the picket line analogy - I certainly understand having strong convictions and being willing to suffer to uphold those convictions. But if there was someone with a machine gun there who said "cross the picket line or I'll kill you" would you still not cross the picket line? I guess that's where I see the martyrdom thing.

I used to be so scared that I'd have to be a martyr - of course, it didn't help that the churches we were in would talk about how "persecution is coming" and so forth and would give tips on how to survive jail time, etc etc. The stories of the Reformation, Counter Reformation, and Inquisition were particularly terrifying to me, because some of those people were killed just for being the wrong kind of Christian. As a kid the thought that I could be killed for being the wrong kind of Christian was really terrifying.

[JesusFightClub]

Very interesting question liltwinstar. I've been out to the shops and thinking about it (I have the day off). Have seen many a strange thing on a picket line, but never a bloke with a machinegun thankfully. However I know terrible things happen to union organisers in other countries.

Like VodouDoll, the impulse is so strong in me never to cross I can't picture myself ever doing it. If there was a bloke with a machinegun, there's an additional complication which is that we're probably in a revolutionary situation, and it would be my duty even more NOT to go in. I'm thinking something like the government was intimidating striking workers, pickets.

But I am very conscious that just because your duty is to do or not do something in such a serious situation, I've never been faced with it and I can't tell. I've had comrades grabbed and hit on the line, there's been instances people drive their car at you and stop just at the last minute but the worst I've ever got aside from (non physical!) threats from management is abuse off scabs, and I give that back with credit. So I suppose my answer would be "I hope I would not." (I don't think I'd be a very productive worker even if I did!)

That's horrible to scare a kid the way you describe, and I feel sad that you had to deal with that. Being a kid should be a time when you feel protected, not afraid of martyrdom. That's a decision an adult may make, but not for a child to even have to consider.

[booksnbeats]

I can def understand the picket line analogy - I certainly understand having strong convictions and being willing to suffer to uphold those convictions. But if there was someone with a machine gun there who said "cross the picket line or I'll kill you" would you still not cross the picket line? I guess that's where I see the martyrdom thing.

Yeah, but when would this ever happen? It's so rare that you get a clear chance to choose between black and white, good and bad, with regards to your beliefs. The real world is much more complicated. (Crossing a picket line is a good example, but what if you're the sole earner and have kids to feed--at that moment, crossing the picket line would implicate more than just your personal convictions.) That's why I think these kinds of "gotcha" martyr questions are pointless. They remind me of when that girl at Columbine was touted as a martyr because Dylan and Eric asked her if she believed in God and then shot her, but then it turned out that never even happened. I guess I'm also irked because I used to think about martyrdom a lot when I was a child. I would make myself sick reading those martyr stories and forcing myself to imagine being tortured and killed. I also hated having to meditate on Jesus being killed during the Stations of the Cross because I was so squeamish.

[liltwinstar]

I'm thinking about my picket line question more (and I agree with booksnbeats that these kind of questions are kind of ridiculous, since these situations don't occur that often in life, thank goodness) - BUT, ok, if there was a labor dispute so bad that people where there with guns I guess I would see that as more of a war-like or revolution-like situation - where yes, you yourself could possibly be killed for a cause. The cause would be making life better for your fellow workers, though, yes? So in that case, it's not really "martrydom" it's more like our conception of soldiers who fight for the liberty of others. You're dying for the greater good of humanity, in that case.

With dying for a religion - that seems like a different case somehow. You're not dying for the good of humanity. In the Christian view Jesus already did that, for one. But basically you're dying becasue you won't renounce your personal beliefs - and I suppose there is honor in that. But, you're not dying to make the world a better place. Historically, Christianity (or Protestantism) became legal in various countries/empires because it became politically expedient for the ruler of the country or empire, not necessarily because of a change of heart after seeing lots of people die.

Anyway, it gets complicated. I'm of Armenian descent, and there was a genocide in Armenia starting in 1915. Men (including my great-great-grandfather) were beheaded, there were death marches, women were crucified, etc. It was horrible. The Ottoman Empire (at least marginally Muslim, if memory serves) were the major perpetrators of the genocide. Armenians are Christians by culture, at least, and I'm sure there were many who were devout Christians (as was my great grandma). But does that mean that all Armenians killed were martyrs for Christianity? Not necessarily.

Lots of food for thought here :)

[JesusFightClub]

I'm thinking about my picket line question more (and I agree with booksnbeats that these kind of questions are kind of ridiculous, since these situations don't occur that often in life, thank goodness) - BUT, ok, if there was a labor dispute so bad that people where there with guns I guess I would see that as more of a war-like or revolution-like situation - where yes, you yourself could possibly be killed for a cause. The cause would be making life better for your fellow workers, though, yes? So in that case, it's not really "martrydom" it's more like our conception of soldiers who fight for the liberty of others. You're dying for the greater good of humanity, in that case.

With dying for a religion - that seems like a different case somehow. You're not dying for the good of humanity. In the Christian view Jesus already did that, for one. But basically you're dying becasue you won't renounce your personal beliefs - and I suppose there is honor in that. But, you're not dying to make the world a better place. Historically, Christianity (or Protestantism) became legal in various countries/empires because it became politically expedient for the ruler of the country or empire, not necessarily because of a change of heart after seeing lots of people die.

Anyway, it gets complicated. I'm of Armenian descent, and there was a genocide in Armenia starting in 1915. Men (including my great-great-grandfather) were beheaded, there were death marches, women were crucified, etc. It was horrible. The Ottoman Empire (at least marginally Muslim, if memory serves) were the major perpetrators of the genocide. Armenians are Christians by culture, at least, and I'm sure there were many who were devout Christians (as was my great grandma). But does that mean that all Armenians killed were martyrs for Christianity? Not necessarily.

Lots of food for thought here :)

There is so much. I'm finding it absolutely fascinating. Also your family history. I've heard about the genocide and I'm hoping it's not tough for you to think about it now. (I know even when one doesn't know the person, but it's family, that's horrible to imagine).

Booksnbeats is right, there's a danger in assuming these point blank situations. (Though I disagree with her on crossing the line, even as a sole earner, being acceptable for a number of reasons, I am reluctant to take the thread in that direction. Maybe I will start one in chatter).

You've clarified for me the central point, I think. We do, on the left, sometimes speak of martyrs but it is slightly weird. Normally people might say fighters or soldiers. Martyrdom is not the same thing. I hadn't actually framed it correctly.

So do you feel it's slightly selfish to "be a martyr?" Or do you see it as just misguided? Or...?

[liltwinstar]

I guess I don't know how I see the religious martyr question. To me, it seems ridiculous that a God who supposedly died for humanity would then require humanity to die for Him, you know? That makes no sense to me. So, I don't want to say that it's selfish, necessarily, just that it's sad, I guess.

I understand that there are martyrs of faiths other than Christianity - such as Jews during Nazi Germany and the middle ages in Europe, etc. But since my experience is with Christianity and veneration of Christian martys, that's what I think of when I think of martrys. I guess I just don't really understand how martrydom fits with the teachings of Jesus.

Also, it seems that venerating martrys just gives fodder to the power structure of religion, while not actually benefitting humanity.

(wrt the genocide question, no it's not hard to talk about. It happened almost 100 years ago, so to me it's just history with a personal connection. It's strange, though, because of course I think that it never should have happened since people should not be treated that way. On the other hand, if it hadn't happened, I would not exist, and that's a weird thought)

[antifundie]

JesusFightClub, I can talk about the genocide as well--LTS and I are sisters and grew up in the same situation, etc.

It is weird (now) to think about how my family suffered--it's the stuff you read about his history books, but both my great-grandparents were survivors, and frankly, in the case of my great-grandfather, I don't know how he did. The story is that all the men and boys were rounded up, and were beheaded and thrown into the river, but my great-grandfather survived because he convinced them he was Kurdish, not Armenian. I don't know more details than that, but how horrible, you know?

In any case, it's made the family VERY herd-like. As in, if you move 10 mins away from the "family neighborhood" you've pretty much moved to the other side of the world. This used to drive me CRAZY, until I read some family history and realized it probably springs from being separated forever from your loved ones. It's been a lot easier to deal with since I realized that.

Oh, and the food? AMAZING. :)