The Persecution Principle

[Pastor_Chick]

THE PERSECUTION PRINCIPLE

Two elements are always essential in order to have a persecuting power; and these two elements united always make a persecuting power. But if either of these is taken away, the power as a persecutor is destroyed.

* 1. The power must be religious or it will not persecute. A government which is in no way connected with religion will never persecute.

* 2. It must have power to enforce its religious positions,-- to punish what it considers to be heresy,-- or it cannot persecute. Methodists, Baptists, or any other church of the land is a good example. They may issue decrees and pronounce penalties, but they cannot enforce them.

This was the condition of the Papacy before 538 A.D. But when the bishops of the Roman Church became "head over all the churches" and "true and only corrector of heretics," the Papacy came into existence as the ruling, controlling power-- the head of the beast. It was given existence or life as a head by the existing government, the powers that be, the government of the empire granting it the authority to define and correct heresy. What made the Papacy a persecutor? Briefly answered, it was religion by law, or power to enforce religious decrees and to punish heretics, or those who disobeyed these decrees.

Thus-- The Persecution Principle.

[fccool]

So, you would not call USSR communism a persecuting power then?

[Pastor_Chick]

So, you would not call USSR communism a persecuting power then?

I merely believe what the Word teaches about it. What I have posted is the pioneer SDA position from the 1800s.

If you wish to analyze "USSR communism," perhaps you could open a discussion on that.

Honestly, I do not see "USSR communism" becoming a threat to Adventism. In the USSR, the Seventh-day Adventist Church holds legal registration #2, just following the Russian Orthodox Church (#1).

[Light Fox]

Well, actually the USSR has not existed since 1991; so there's certainly no danger of it becoming a persecuting power. Perhaps you are thinking of legal registrations in Russia instead?

As far as fccool's question, I think that's an interesting one with a fairly straight-forward answer. The USSR persecuted people based upon their religion, yes.

Why did they do this?

Because the USSR was what is called an "atheist state." In an atheist state, the government makes an official declaration avowing the religion of atheism, and requires its subjects to conform to that ideology or be persecuted as 'heretics.'

The simple fact is that atheism is a religion as much as Hinduism, Christianity, Paganism, or any other. A religion need not have rites or ceremonies; it need not acknowledge any deity whatsoever. A religion simply constitutes the view one holds of deity - whether it be what specific deity created the world, or none at all.

By taking a definite stand against any god, and avowing atheism (the decided viewpoint that there is no god), the USSR as a state took a decidedly religious viewpoint. The government was influenced by this view of eternal matters, and forced others to conform to it or suffer persecution.

I notice he never said that a government must be connected with a church or organized religion - simply religion. I think that is reasonable from an objective standpoint. No government persecutes over religion without having its own views about religion it seeks to impose, or being controlled by some religious organization with its own views it seeks to impose.

[John317]

The simple fact is that atheism is a religion as much as Hinduism, Christianity, Paganism, or any other. A religion need not have rites or ceremonies; it need not acknowledge any deity whatsoever. A religion simply constitutes the view one holds of deity - whether it be what specific deity created the world, or none at all.

By taking a definite stand against any god, and avowing atheism (the decided viewpoint that there is no god), the USSR as a state took a decidedly religious viewpoint. The government was influenced by this view of eternal matters, and forced others to conform to it or suffer persecution.

I agree with you. Your observations are definitely worth posting again.

An atheistic, commmunistic state cannot allow any power to rise above it or to grant rights in the place of the state or party. We see the same thing today in China, where the government withholds the right of the freedom of religion.

[Pastor_Chick]

"Q", thanks for the correction, and I should have said Russian Federation instead of USSR.

Maybe not watching TV since 1987 has had its effect. I did not achieve Internet connection until 1996, and I missed out on years of historical developments.

Thanks again.

[fccool]

Quote:

Because the USSR was what is called an "atheist state." In an atheist state, the government makes an official declaration avowing the religion of atheism, and requires its subjects to conform to that ideology or be persecuted as 'heretics.'

I think the above is the fundamental ignorance of both actual history and context of the revolution. Likewise it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is, and especially the materialism brand of atheism that was directed to in USSR.

It's sort of the statement that I hear quite often, but realize that it rather a generalized and heavily slanted image of USSR coined as an exaggeration by CIA propaganda machine.

Neither Marx nor Lenin thought that forceful persecution of every believer is a valid way. Many churches were operational throughout the history of USSR, likewise many mosques and synagogues remained open. Anti-religious bias was due to historic observation of organized religion to be a controlling force that was used by the oppressors by the oppressed.

The main goal of the Marxism was not oppression of people. It never opposed true religion. Both Lenin and Marx derived their religios views from a book written back in the days... called "The Essence of Christianity", which basically centered around the religious projection of positive aspects of self.

Engels actually viewed religion as positive for humanity.

Marxist ideology opposed perversion of religion that was used to oppress the masses. When mixed with statist mentality, you get a brand of religious de-regulation... but it's not much different than let's say USA jailing all of the Japanese and driving them into concentration camps during the WWII.

Both were trying to maintain power and avoid ideological subversion. I think that religious views of atheism and materialism are rather a reactionary byproduct ... and were thought as a pragmatic alternative.

Neither Lenin nor Marx could be described as atheists. They took on atheistic pragmatism as a way to run a state, but I would not attach it as their personal view. I.E. in Lenin's words “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

This brand of atheism did not result with supposition of ontological reality. It resulted directly as a distrust of Statism brand of Christianity that was coined in order to maintained power of the state-church. It was rejection of false religion for the sake of no religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism by nature is anti-religion... I.e. it is NOT-religion. It's a philosophy, and perhaps and ideology. It is not a religion.

[Pastor_Chick]

So, you would not call USSR communism a persecuting power then?

Is this "bait to debate?"

I hold to my original points regarding "the Persecution Principle." The SDA pioneers, of course, were focused on the fulfillment of Rev. 13 prophecy in the United States. The "old world" was not a concern for them, and it need not be for us.

(What was that "help" you were willing to offer?)

[Overaged]

These two "principles" still exist; and grow in strength and practice almost daily. That "deadly wound" is almost healed.

[Pastor_Chick]

These two "principles" still exist; and grow in strength and practice almost daily. That "deadly wound" is almost healed.

Please give some examples of how these two principles "grow in strength and practice almost daily."

Which "deadly wound" is almost healed?

Thank you for your input.