muslim balance
One of our commentators sent me a link to this article this morning by Daniel Pipes which reports how muslim populations are “divided by conspiracy and hate”. I thought that some of the reported results were interesting, and at times shocking, so I thought I would go to the original report of the study. And there are certainly some differences in “spin”, even actual numbers.
Pipes says:
In not one Muslim population polled did most people believe Arabs carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US. The proportions range from a mere 15 per cent in Pakistan holding Arabs responsible to 48per cent among French Muslims. Confirming recent negative trends in Turkey, the number of Turks who point the finger at Arabs has declined from 46 per cent in 2002 to 16per cent today. In other words, in each of these 10 Muslim communities, most view 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the US Government, Israel or some other agency. [emphasis mine]
Okay, you might have thought those numbers were actually lifted from the report. I can’t find the raw numbers online, but this is certainly not the way that the researchers elected to describe the results of their surveys (as shocking as they might be):
In one of the survey’s most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries - 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.
The graphs do show that 16% of those surveyed in Turkey believe that Arabs carried out the attacks, but I can find no support for Pipes conclusion (in bold) in the numbers. Significantly, this question was not asked of non-Muslims so we don’t know what the “control” viewpoint is. But some of Pipes’ other analyses are more misleading:
Of all the Muslim populations polled, most displayed support for Osama bin Laden. Asked whether they had confidence in him, Muslims replied positively, ranging from 8 per cent (Turkey) to 72 per cent (Nigeria).
Suicide bombing is also popular. Muslims who call it justified range from 13 per cent (Germany) to 69 per cent (Nigeria). These appalling numbers suggest terrorism by Muslims has deep roots and will remain a danger for years to come.
The report uses different numbers and puts a decidedly different spin on these results:
Confidence in Osama bin Laden also has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years. This is especially the case in Jordan, where just 24% express at least some confidence in bin Laden now, compared with 60% a year ago. A sizable number of Pakistanis (38%) continue to say they have at least some confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs, but significantly fewer do so now than in May 2005 (51%). However, Nigeria’s Muslims represent a conspicuous exception to this trend; 61% of Nigeria’s Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, up from 44% in 2003.
The belief that terrorism is justifiable in the defense of Islam, while less extensive than in previous surveys, still has a sizable number of adherents. Among Nigeria’s Muslim population, for instance, nearly half (46%) feel that suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes in the defense of Islam. Even among Europe’s Muslim minorities, roughly one-in-seven in France, Spain, and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam against its enemies.
I can’t find an explanation for the different in numbers. Pipes says 72% of Nigerian Muslims support Osama, whereas the report says 61%. Pipes says 69% of Nigerians say suicide bombings are justified, the report summary says 46% believe that bombings can be justified often or sometimes. I suspect that Pipes has added on to these figures another category of respondents - those who say that suicide bombing is justified rarely or only in exceptional circumstances. And he has avoided any mention of the fact that these figures are dropping, despite the fact that he felt it significant to list the increasing support for Bin Laden over time.
There is no denying that surveys such as this include some concerning results. But Pipes’ article has distorted the figures and used them to draw his own conclusions. The reporter of the survey indicated positives as well as negatives signs in the data, and certainly didn’t consider that the three main themes of the results in the alarming way that they have been summarised by Pipes. He says “the Pew survey sends an undeniable message of crisis from one end of the Muslim world to the other”. Which might be true, if he were prepared to acknowledge a little bit of balance in his report instead of turning it into a polemic.
What is frustrating about this is that Pew does substantial research, takes the time to analyse their data carefully and then it is transmitted to the national consciousness by someone who picks out the most alarming results while ignoring those that are reassuring. If we are talking about analysing why Muslim people feel isolated, perhaps this sort of reportage could be part of the reason?
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:12 pm
“who cares about my sarcastic embellishments?”
Jesus does, actually.
Matthew 5
21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
On the matter of making an impact… you will notice everyone is posting about your disrespectful language… noone is evaluating the evidence that all Muslims wish to overtake the world, by force if need be. And I don’t believe anyone will engage in any kind of sensible discussion on that topic when you imply anyone who disagrees with you on this is rejecting Jesus.
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
There you go. Bec assumes I hate her or am violent. You think I was emotional or angry at her. Or that I implied anyone who disagrees with me is rejecting Jesus (and I am too lazy to hit page 1 and cut and paste Bec’s words for you here now but do reread at your leisure). Are you also telling me Bec made sensible comments to start with well before I joined the discussion?
How do you know I am not sitting here pressing your buttons and laughing while watching you dance instead of seething with emotion, anger and hate as you imagine?
So let’s spell it out one more time.
Problem: Is Bec’s thesis (not least, the priceless statement “historically, Christians have a far worse record than Islam”) justified?
Hypothesis: No. It’s just Bec’s fear and self-loathing thanks to Iraq (with apologies to CB)
Objective: Determine whether Bec can back up her thesis
Strategy: Challenge Bec (and in a manner that will expose her fear and loathing if it indeed it does exist)
Outcome: Bec cries. The masses revolt and the daggers are out against saint.
Huzzah! Everyone’s a winner!
Next.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Thesis: “Historically, Christians have a far worse record than Islam”
Well, that would be a good question to have a historical debate about, would it not? Crusades, conquest of South America, Spanish Inquisition, Christian slavery etc. vs. Muslim slavery, Muslim wars and modern day terrorism. Neither “institutional religion” comes out squeaky clean in my opinion, but an informed discussion about this would be interesting… especially from those with some historical expertise.
Your hypothesis… that this assertion emerges from Bec’s “self loathing and fear” is quite extraordinary, and you’ve behaved in a way unbecoming to a saint in order to “prove” it.
So…. Bec reacts to being called a fool, a flake, to having no perspective and no judgment, to being filled with self loathing, that she spends her life curled up in foetal position hyperventilating, that she rejects Jesus, etc. etc. Clearly her response proves your hypothesis!!!!!!
It’s not the first time I’ve seen on Signposts the “you’re not interested in following Jesus” bomb lobbed at those with a different opinion. It’s a cheap shot.
No, I don’t have daggers out for you… consider this an invitation to be more like Jesus… to be a bit reflective about what you’re really angry about before letting rip at someone… and to communicate with far greater clarity and objectivity.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Saint…I just don’t know how to engage with you. I don’t feel like you’re interested in conversation, I don’t feel that you’re capable of “listening”. You’ve made up your mind about me, and so I am going to leave. Because I would much, much, rather spend tonight sitting with the memories of the beautiful conversation I just had with an indigenous man who grew up on a mission, who told me a story very different to those you usually hear about the church and Australia’s indigenous people. (Mind you, I struggled to hear it, because I’m so blinded by my fear and self-loathing…) Yeah, I’d rather spend tonight sitting with that story, and his laughter as he shared with me tonight, than I want to sit with the nasty words that I’m seeing posted here on Signposts.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
“How do you know I am not sitting here pressing your buttons and laughing while watching you dance instead of seething with emotion, anger and hate as you imagine?”
Well, neither of those options sound particularly Christ-like to me, so I hope for your sake that you’re not doing either of those.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:01 pm
So what does it emerge from Bec? You’ve claimed ignorance of Muslim history, ignorance of Christian history, barely - of your own admission - read the Bible ( I won’t ask you about prayer or other disciplines, whether you go to church or hang out with any Christians, read any books whatever) so probably ignorant of your own faith, and certainly ignorant of a Muslim’s faith bar what your friend tells you but you are so ready to pass judgment on their histories and pass off their theologies as equivalent, or whatever.
In fact much of what you write is just standard populist clap trap perpetrated by anyone from basket-weavers to the virulently anti religious. Even your list of Crusades, Spanish Inquisition blah blah is telling.
You have displayed absolutely no willingness to inform yourself. Why do you think I didn’t bother posting details of who it was that wrote that extended quote I posted? Is it perhaps because I know no-one is really interested to assess whether it may be something worth reading and those who are (including a few who post on Signposts) have already made an effort to inform themselves by other means? Hec you write research proposals but can’t be bothered informing yourself.
So why would I or anyone else bother to dialogue with you and about what? What would the purpose of this dialogue be? So why are you wasting our time? And why waste our time with you? Might as well swig a few glasses of red and talk about the weather, no? Watch a game of footy and go home.
What is it that you seek? Affirmation that your narrow experience is indicative? Another “oh poor Bec, see how she bleeds”? Well if you are going to be a bleeding heart at least do it properly.
I’m guessing the reason why you are not interested is that it will challenge your perceptions and it will challenge that chip on your shoulder and it might just mean that you just have to leave that security blanket behind - your little prejudices against the church in whatever way you have experienced it - and grow up.
Yep at some time, you will have to say, yes this happened to me, but it is not the end, and neither will it be the last, but here I am, stronger, wiser, more mature, and by His grace I will perservere because His promises are true, and I look forward to being complete and not lacking in anything (that would have something to do with the Epistle of James if you ever cared to read it) thanks be to Christ.
Maybe then you could look forward and outward with hope, joy and faith; instead of downward and inwards constantly writhing in pain, running off to cry: help! someone on the internet dared challenge me AND they used the F word and I don’t mean foetal position. You no longer become the self proclaimed saviour of the world (earth calling Bec: that job’s been taken and has already been done) but a channel of His grace to others (I won’t ask you to read Job)
But it’s really difficult isn’t it, to let all that go. I mean, what would there be to rail about? How on earth could Bec get any attention? Where would Bec go and who would she be if she didn’t have her pain and her baggage?
I’m guessing that God intended Bec to be a woman of real substance not some wet fluff ball.
And given that He gets very jealous of those whom He loves, me thinks that while you persist with this line, there will be a few more hard times ahead for you.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:07 pm
And yes Janet let Bec answer that.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:14 pm
*sigh* Oh Saint, now you’re looking…really silly. When I said I didn’t read my Bible, I was being sarcastic.
What do you want, Saint? A reference from my fundamentalist pentecostal friends verifying that I not only read my Bible, but have Christian books, pray, go to church regularly, and in fact don’t even mind the odd Youth Alive rally? ‘Cos I can go and get them now, I live with two of them…mind you, I’ll have to step over all the naked boys and the beer bottles to get to them, but I’m sure I can find them if I can just drag myself away from the porn on my computer for long enough.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:31 pm
now I’m laughing…Saint, if only you knew what I did for a living…yeah, I’ve got a really big chip on my shoulder. Oh, and my life is just soooooo shit right now. Yeah, God’s really putting me through the ringer…
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Nope don’t want a reference or even need one. Don’t even need to hear the stories you so preciously guard. I have you yourself and you: so happy clappy a couple of comments made you cry.
My guess is you’re a lawyer.
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:13 am
Oh great, more nasty sarcasm from Saint. Clearly, you’re very saintly.
Saint, I’ve seen righteous anger before, and what I’m seeing here isn’t it. What I’m seeing here is an anger and a desire to hurt that is barely mitigated by the fact that it’s presented in text. The only reason I keep reading this thread is out of some perverse curiosity, and it’s not doing me any good. You already know I’m a lawyer, but you have no idea what that means - but I love my job, and I have really pressing stuff to do today. I’m going to do my best to not come back to this thread - in fact, I’m wondering whether I should read or post at Signposts at all anymore. Vigorous debate is one thing, but nobody deserves to be the subject of the kind of abuse you’ve been hurling around.
I hope you have a good day, Saint, and that you can find something more productive to do that write cruel, pointless posts on a blog.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:44 am
So let’s review.
Bec posts one, two, three, four comments espousing her ignorance of Christianity, Islam and their respective histories making some outrageous claims like this:
And this:
Yes it’s essential to justify this but not if it’s a statement made by Bec
But of course Bec can sit here glibly claiming ignorance of Islam such that she can believe what another Muslim says - it’s important to remember that.
Because Bec does not need to justify this.
Or this:
It continues:
Notice that when Bec espouses a view, her own uninformed and narrow view, she never has to justify anything. But it’s very important, very important mind that YOU justify your view when you disagree with hers.
Lawyering par excellence (with apologies to decent lawyers out there)
Notice too the standard trendoid issues:
Stolen generation - check (never breath about health, housing, social crisis in rural communities or let her tell you about Aboriginals who have been NEVERTHELESS GRATEFUL for being raised in loving Christian families and are critical of traditional Aboriginal culture)
Women - check (but never even cast a glance over to what women are suffering anywhere from the Congo to Pakistan. You’d think a lawyer, any sort of lawyer with a feminist slant, would be interested in institutionalised discrimination against women particularly when it comes to violence such as rape.)
People of other faiths - check (but make sure you denigrate Christianity…don’t stand up for Muslim women suffering at the hands of Muslim mullahs… standard reference to Hitler)
Got any Palestinians and asylum seekers in your list their darl?
Claim bleeding heart status.
The clincher: Bec’s history of the world is YOUR history folks.
Er no, Bec’s history of the world is imaginary. It’s based on a bunch of story telling. Of her own admission she knows nothing more than that.
Bec gets challenged.
Bec runs off to cry, cry I tell you.
Switch to drama queen:
Saint didn’t cloak anything in Christian labels. Bec got the same saint treatment as any other drama queen.
If I am meant to believe her - and seriously who would - she wants dialogue (fast becoming another word like ‘journey’ and ‘resonate’)
To Bec, “dialogue” means sitting around in a circle telling each other how you know nothing about anything (a bit like a po mo Bible study). Just as long as you listen to Bec’s stories, and agree with Bec and let her tell you how much you are full of hate, are angry, are emotional, whatever.
Bec doesn’t just write history, she also rewrites your inner life.
Bec gets told she’s full of bullshit.
Suddenly the Bec who is on the brink of existential extinction from all that world saving burden carrying (save her Janet, save her!), transforms herself after a glass of red and obligatory beautiful conversation into the world’s most carefree woman threatening a Signposts walkout or something.
This is your queue folks to feed Bec’s inner child: oh no Bec, please don’t go…but if you really cared for Bec you’d tell her to grow up.
Oh I think this has been a rather productive thread for me. Met all my objectives.
The growing up part however, is one of yours.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:20 am
Apart from the fact that I’ll never understand how christians justify that kind of personal demolition job on someone that they have no accountable personal relationship with, there’s something else really sad about this conversation. Saint, you actually had some really good things to say about Islam in your initial post which needed to be put on the table for constructive debate, but because you chose to turn the whole thing into a diatribe against bec, the real issues we should have been discussing got completely lost in transit. Something that happens amazingly often when people attack the person instead of the issue ..
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Blestpickle:
What are you saying? No one can criticise anyone unless they have an accountable personal relationship with them? Do I get an exception for oh, Kim Jong-Il?
And apart from the fact if Jesus was judged by most contemporary Christian’s expectations of Christ-like behaviour, he’d fail. So would John the Baptist and every OT prophet before Him. The Church Fathers. Jerome Luther. Calvin.
Not looking good there.
If you think this was a personal demolition job on Bec, then I really don’t know what parallel universe you live in.
Bec runs around claiming physical and verbal violence and hatred yada yada. She probably believes herself to be oppressed. It’s all about her. About her chip on her shoulder about Christians, organised religion, church, something. (Oh drama: “I cried because I realised - again - how much I would like to walk away from Christianity, were it not for Christ.”)
In the meantime, while everyone is stroking Bec’s ego, those who really are the victims of violence, abuse whatever, do not get their voices heard and have their stories drowned out by the Becs of this world who are too busy attention seeking.
And those who are oppressed (and that would be oppression noone born and raised in Australia today would ever even be able to imagine, so I get extra suspicious when anyone claims oppression here) have the severity of their situation and the magnitude of the injustices against them, cheapened and denigrated and minimized by hyperventilators like Bec.
This is why the Becs of this world need to be called to account (and why they are generally so ineffective)
A constructive debate requires that parties are at least marginally informed or at least be willing and able to be informed and have or develop the critical tools to assess what’s on the table.
Fancy that, I thought part of a debate was assessing the validity of someone elses claims, perhaps even asking them for the basis of their claims. Still, do go read the first 15 or so comments on this tread and tell me who lost it in transit and made it all about them. Hint: I don’t think I joined the conversation until about comment 20 and then I was just obliging their wish.
There has been nothing to stop you or anyone else from taking up the issues Blestpickle. Never has, never will be. If you really subscribe to the person vs issue delineation and were really interested in or concerned about the issue you would have, here or elsewhere.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Saint, I never said Christians hadn’t done good things. Read post 34 again. I know the church does good things - I work in the South Pacific, and one of the reasons I have strong connections there is exactly because I’m comfortable in church and know the church does good things. The point is that the church has also done bad things. This is why I don’t feel there’s any point in engaging with you and going to the trouble of responding to your posts in any depth - I don’t feel you’re able to “hear” what I have to say.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
If I can start the obvious Saint has made a lot of good points but has a short wick at present.
I cam empathise with his frustration and the criticism levelled at him by Bec which after all has been levelled at me.
however in this case Saint has originally given a well written piece on this topic and I am a bit perplexed in how anyone could be in doubt in what Saint is saying.
I am afraid what has happened is that Bec has problems with engaging where absolute values come in.
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
No Homer, I thought Saint’s original post was very good - though it was mostly the work of someone else, not Saint. If you read my response you’ll see that. It’s the subsequent posts that I have a problem with.
Saint has some very good points - it’s just that you have to wade through a lot of filthy language and stupid accusations to see them.
Please show me where I demonstrated “problems with engaging when absolute values come in”. I have plenty of absolute values - one of them is that murder is wrong, so it’s little wonder I get angry when someone accuses me of approving of suicide bombing.
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
why on earth would anyone read what Saint is saying when he’s shown his absolute disrespect for the people he’s saying it to.
if you know that what you are saying is hurting someone, then don’t you stop - if only out of pure compassion and respect for a fellow human being? don’t apologise if you think you’ve done nothing wrong, but don’t keep doing it… Bec has shown she’s willing to keep talking about the issues. Attack a person’s arguments, don’t attack them. no matter what your intention is, saint, it looks pathetic, small and nasty… and, disappointingly, that cancels out everything else of worth that you might be saying.
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Oh Homer please don’t tell me I have short wick or that I am frustrated with Bec. I usually have a hard time suppressing laughter when I read what Bec writes (and I have the proof); I really don’t want to choke on my coffee reading you as well.
Bec:
I did. But it sounds like whatever good thing it was is secret women’s business. Pity you can’t hear the beautiful sound of my laughter.
The guy who wrote that would turn in his grave. You couldn’t even read the excerpt I posted closely enough to see the word “darkness”.
Now you tell us you are :comfortable in church” - meaning what? I reckon you are only comfortable being associated with the people who indulge you your warped theology or who don’t know better to pick you for a flake, thereby providing you with a massive stroke to your ego. So comfortable in fact that you are ready to flee at the drop of a hat:
You are a fool, Bec, a fool because you lack the intellectual virtue and probably also moral virtue to really speak with any wisdom on this subject. Others may separate “the person from the issue” but I don’t necessarily do. Sometimes the person is the issue. If you have a problem with that, then you better pick up your Bible and read.
If I use strong words on you Bec, it is because you are dull of hearing. But even those words aren’t going to register. You are happy to call evil good, good evil, equate evil with good no doubt because you want Babel like diversity, not understanding that Babel was God’s judgment for disobedience not a geography lesson. Your whole foundation is quicksand. You blow about following everything that’s new, or trendy, or tickles you ears. Fluff in the wind. Which is why your only response is to keep lawyering away.
Either find out whom it is you claim to follow or go follow someone else Bec. Because not many of us recognize the Jesus whom you claim to know. Go swan around like a prima donna in the Pacific sea of faith. Please my dear Greeny-Gaia-Umma-po-mo-goddes, be my guest. You could be you own trinity: godess-princess-drama queen. You could even wear a sexy red veil. Don’t cry now when you find out you can’t.
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Though you grind a fool in a mortar,
grinding him like grain with a pestle,
you will not remove his folly from him.
- Prov 27:22
Don’t worry Cheryl. Bec is safe and will be back to plague you with her folly another day.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Saint, what is it that you want?
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:48 pm
When I read Saint’s post, there was so much I wanted to write, so much anger - Saint, you are pushing me so hard. But I couldn’t do, it for these words kept running through my head. They’re ancient words, words too beautiful to be diminished even by the many cheesy weddings they’re badly read at, or the cheesy cards with curly font…Saint, please read them - I know you’ve read them many times before, but please read them, and I’ll pray that they reach out and touch you and soothe whatever it is in you that leads you write such things…
*********************************************************
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 pm
oh, one final thing…Saint, I did see the word “darkness”. I just saw a lot of other stuff too. It’s a very considered position, and there’s a lot of stuff in there I agree with, and some I’m not sure about.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Bible lessons from Bec.
Perhaps Bec, you should first consider something else that Paul wrote, that gives an insight into his prime motivation, because you can’t separate Paul the man, his life, his mission, his theology any more you can that of Jesus’ person and work or even yours.
What’s he saying?
There is only one gospel. One way to God. No unitarian universalism here. No comparative religion studies here. It’s one way, God’s way. It’s God’s good news not yours.
All counterfeit gospels arise from within the church, all are distortions which sound periously close to the truth and are promoted in-house by people who call themselves Christians. Most Signposters know that better than most. They carry the scars to prove it.
To turn away from the gospel is to desert the one who called you by the grace of Christ. Yep it’s not just doctrinal it’s personal, because it concerns a person: Christ. It’s very personal to God, because it’s about Christ His Son.
What’s more, following a false gospel, is not just turning away from God but also putting yourself under His curse, and as such you stand to be eternally condemned. Not just the people who preach a false gospel are cursed, but the people who follow it.
That’s the difficult doctrine of the love of God.
Better find out what that gospel is, the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, revealed through Christ, preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds, expounded by the Fathers. Better get to know the Christ in whom you believe. Better find out about the first part of the golden rule: Love God, love others. Love because He first loved you. Notice who’s first. Notice who defines what love is because He IS love.
So there you have it: pervert the gospel and both Christ’s glory and yours and others’ salvation is at stake. Which is why the servant of Christ, the one who follows Him, doesn’t seek to win men’s approval, but God’s. Please Him, you will please others who also desire to please Him. And piss off everyone else.
I don’t want anything from you Bec, because no words I or anyone else says will get through your skull much less your heart. And because it’s not about you - much as your world always revolves around you.
It’s about the people who genuinely want to follow Christ but whom you and others like you confuse and deceive with your politically correct diversely trendoid love-is-a-warm-puppy-you-
must-accept-every-perversion-and-be-nice-to-everyone bleeding heart false gospel.
I want to warn them off the gospel according to Bec.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Saint:
“I don’t want anything from you Bec, because no words I or anyone else says will get through your skull much less your heart. And because it’s not about you - much as your world always revolves around you.”
Well that says it all really, doesn’t it? Isn’t it God’s will that all men (and women!) be saved? And do you not believe in the mystery and the power of the Holy Spirit to move people? Do you seriously believe I am beyond redemption?!!
October 24th, 2006 at 8:06 am
[B]How dare you throw around such filthy, ugly words and LIE about me? Where’s the Gospel in that, you angry, bitter, self-righteous Pharisee?[B]
Nowhere - NOWHERE - have I said that there is more than one gospel, that there is more than one way to God, or advocated a unitarian universalism. For God’s sake - and believe me, I do not take God’s name in vain here - there is a difference between treating people with basic human decency, and between denying the Gospel!!
Saint, you have not only been obnoxious, but you are now telling viscious lies about me. Thankfully there’s an entire thread so that anyone with half a brain can read the whole thing and see for themselves whether what you’re accusing me of is true.
October 24th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Saint,
The more you write on this thread the more you diminsh yourself.
I urge you to consider apologising and moving on to some other topic.
October 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Saint,
they just do not understand at present.
We can only pray they understand sometime in the future however you have been intemperate
October 24th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Hoorah, Bec makes one salient point. But can’t connect the dots that the reason why I say nothing I say gets through her skull is because that’s God’s job not mine.
But here is yet another demonstration of your incoherence Bec (and look that word up in a dictionary before you start hyperventilating). On the one hand, in your understanding, God is competent enough to deal with you, but according to your version of history as you have expounded on this thread, He’s really not managed to achieve anything through the lives of other Christians except oppression, global warming and whatever else is running through your head. In fact it’s got a worse track record than Islam (remember these are your words).
When it’s about you, God is fabulous. When it’s about anyone else God’s a failure. Which makes it very convenient for you doesn’t it?
I do believe a a few people have pointed out to you you sometimes fail in basic logic, can’t deduce or infer, have a problem with absolutes. You’ve already told us too you skim read. Embellishments and accoutrements, distortions and omissions are also false gospels Bec.
Phil, yes I know I am overindulging you as host. And it’s a pity that this medium is such that even if I threw in a pile of emoticons people would still insist I have written this in anger, with hate, I am emotional, I have a short wick, am diminishing myself, whatever.
Be my guests everyone. I accept that as a consequence of using this medium which is why I have not “demanded” apologies from any of you. I can also assure you that I have not shed a tear, or wavered in my faith because of your false accusations, and I would still buy you all a beer, or for Bec, a glass of red. My conscience is clear in that regard.
So for what should I apologize? Having an opinion about Bec like you all have about me?
For not, as Bec is wont to do, prefixing my comments with “with respect”?
With respect, Bec, most of what you wrote on this thread is bullshit.
With respect, Bec, you are very incoherent.
And with that I will move on to another topic.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Saint, I repeat
- I have never denied that Christians do not do good things. I was merely trying to point out that life’s not as simple as Christian = good, Muslim = bad. You’ve assumed I was saying far more than I ever have.
- You still haven’t explained how it is I’m spreading a false Gospel. Which makes you incoherent and full of bullshit.
Don’t flatter yourself, Saint - you made me cry, but that’s no mean feat when I have PMT, and you certainly don’t have the ability to make my faith waver!!