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 27th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I really liked theory number 2, I’ve developed it over quite a long time Janet and now to ahve you come along and transfer your own reasonableness on to the rest of us…well it’s just not christian, or islamic, not even buddhist.
Saint is an imbecile but my name calling does;lnt help, butr then it wasn’t meant to - it was meant to push saints buttons to see if her would come back at me..a male…just as he did with bec…a female. He didn’t, thus substantiating in my mind my original imbecile theory.
Anyway - I’m out
October 27th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Saint is a lot of things but an imbecile he most certainly isn’t.
He is quite frustrated that people can’t see the obvious though
October 27th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
There is no need to apologise Bec. You are under no obligation to dialogue with anyone but I do note (a) the common denominator is still you #87
and (b) your tolerance #90 (yes feel free to ban me Phil, Dan)
Stay well Bec.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Ah Greg. If you would prefer that I just ask you to step outside then next time you’re in town mate, give us a hoy. I reckon it would take me less than a few minutes to sort you out. Bring witnesses.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Saint, you refer to “the agenda of this world”. What is “the agenda of this world”?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Out of the bun fight emerges a possible interesting discussion topic… how “tolerant” should Christians be, and what should they NOT tolerate?(But maybe in a week or two when the dust has settled.)
October 27th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
how many times is tolerant mentioned in the bible?
October 27th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Sanders, in a nutshell I was referring to all the -isms and similar, like environmentalism, feminism, consumerism, multiculturalism, and also to our political, civic whatever systems.
Environmentalism for example: also a current trend in churches (because you see we must always follow the world’s agenda instead of listening to what God is saying at this moment, oh wait didn’t we have the ecology and conservation movement not so long ago?). It might sound harmless and even good (and some would cry Biblical!). However, the underlying idea behind most environmentalist movements, groups, philosophies is a view of creation and man’s relationship to creation which is diametrically opposed to God’s view. And they would therefore lead to a far different end. But what too many Christians do is say, hey that sounds good and off we go (I am necessarily oversimplifying here). At the same time Christians look to them to solve the problems of the world (politics is an obvious one there) and forget how it is that God is involved with His creation, and working within it to bring about His purposes.
One book, now dated and maybe not directly related (but am too tired to think of a better one now) is Craig Gay’s The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It’s Tempting to Live As If God Doesn’t Exist. You may not agree with his conclusions, and yes it’s American centric, but his practice of dissecting and identifying some of the underlying ideas behind many aspects of modern society (eg politics, technology etc) is something we all should be doing, and not, as what many of us are wont to do, blindly just subjugated our faith to those ideas.
Hope that helps.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Actually that wasn’t a good explanation but until I finish two more documents for work that’s the best you’ll get tonight.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Saint, I won’t dispute that Christians of all persuasions jump on bandwagons. However, if you only read from the Christian Evangelical Right you will miss the deep theological roots that underpin much discussion on justice and the environment.
For one example… Greenpeace emerged out of Quaker theology and practice. Check http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/vrml/rw/text/ztextonly.html
A concise overview of the historical discussions about the environment that have gone on through the World Council of Churches can be found at
http://www.warc.ch/pc/rw943/02.html (and you can track down further detail about the various discussions that went on can be tracked down from these clues.) There have been many papers written by fine theologians on the environment and related subjects.
I gather Bec has studied theology in Melbourne, and has no doubt been influenced by the writings of the late Athol Gill… he always comes up as an interesting read. I gather she has some associations with Urban Seed, which has been shaped by the views of Tim Costello.
I could go on and on (I won’t) but it cannot be assumed that people with a different view from you (1) have major personality defects or (2) are stupid.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Janet I gather, actually I know without a shadow of a doubt, that you have no idea what’s on my bookshelves nor what I read. And I have not seen much evidence of theological underpinning in what Bec writes on Signposts certainly not on this thread.
However as self-proclaimed friend of Bec, who is well versed with her history and bookshelf (skim read no doubt) why don’t you go and explain to her, off blog her deep theological roots, to this statement she made on another thread. Forget that Bec went to a theological college, it not only illustrates my point perfectly, it saddens me immensely.
Then go and speak to whoever has been giving Bec pastoral care and ask him/her what they do for a living, because the only theological underpinnings I can see here is Days of Our Lives.
Bye bye Janet. Have fun with Greenpeace.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I don’t believe I’ve proclaimed my friendship with Bec… I’ve never met her. I’ve gathered these ideas from reading Signposts.
Greg, you were asking for more theological discussion a while back… are you interested in picking up the “theology and the environment” discussion reflected in the WCC debates?
I’d really better get back to my essay.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Yes Janet, Bec has already pointed out that you have never met, but I also thought you were one who wanted to know my emotions when I write. I guess you didn’t feel me sista.
I notice that you suffer from a bit of cognitive dissonance and self loathing: where have I said or implied that people who have a different view to me have a personality defect and/or are stupid. Not worried it might be you?
Even the brightest, bubbliest little buttons with Colgate smiles can be foolish and incoherent. Plenty of intelligent people spout bullshit. Which is why I am a bigger fan of intellectual virtue than intelligence. But hey, why should I expect you to read what I write much less use a dictionary?
Help me out here, do you misread what people write because a) you can’t read b) you skim read c) you do read but the author is dead and only you know what s/he means d) it doesn’t matter what the author means or intends it’s always about you or e) you are trying to give me further evidence that tolerance and truth are mutually exclusive concepts?
And Greg if you do take up Janet’s offer, please tell us - in view of her previous comment - how it is that Greenpeace (is that Greenpeace Inc.? Greenpeace Fund Inc.? Greenpeace Foundation? I’ve lost track) is founded on “Quaker theology and practice”. After all, it promotes civil disobedience which is, supposedly eschewed by Quakers, and demands, hey even uses standover tactics to force people to take its political…er…philosophical…er…”prophetic” stance. Has it merely lost its connection with Quaker practice? Or is it precisely because it was founded on Quaker practice?
Please also explain to me if there is any connection between Quaker theology and the whale, because you see the whale is supposed to be my brother. My brothers look like big hairy guys to me. Is it possible perhaps that Quaker can also stand for quackery?
And that’s just for starters. I could go on about the World Council of Churches No One Goes To Any More much less the World Alliance of Fairies and Cranks but I am sure you would get the picture by the time you explore that.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:58 am
I am also a fan of intellectual rigour… which is one of the many reasons why I object to your use of slander and sarcasm… it’s the laziest way to argue.
Extrapolate claims… that’s another lazy strategy. My counter to your assertion in 98 that Christians jump on the environmental bandwagon because they are “following the world’s agenda” was that some of the roots of the environmental movement emerged from theology.
Instead of countering this with historical argument, you parody: “explain to me if there is any connection between Quaker theology and the whale, because you see the whale is supposed to be my brother. My brothers look like big hairy guys to me. Is it possible perhaps that Quaker can also stand for quackery?”
You can claim it’s funny… but “intellectually virtuous?” No. I did not claim the Quakers approve of everything Greenpeace has ever done.
I claimed there was a body of theological work that had been done over time over about the environment which is the driver behind SOME of the activity in churches on environmental issues, and pointed to WCC meetings where this work had been discussed. No, don’t follow up on the work or the papers presented… just lampoon the WCC instead… (why not go further… they arm terrorists, they are the work of the antichrist… heard all that before too).
Go on…. keep sliding away from discussion of issues by attacking persons, by exaggeration, by lampooning, by deflection. Hilarious. Just don’t attempt to claim the intellectual high ground.
Minds are best broadened in dialogue… even the Scriptures themselves hold apparently conflicting views in tension. Dialogue gets killed when sarcasm gains the upper hand. A forum at its best is a safe place to put even half formed ideas out on the table for discussion… your current approach to others kills this possibility. “I notice that you suffer from a bit of cognitive dissonance and self loathing” Ha, ha, ha. I’m underwhelmed by your intellectual rigour.
Well if your aim was to get rid of me, you’ve achieved it… I’m “over and out.” (Hip, hip, hooray) I know full well you’re smart enough to lampoon me further… and not wise or godly enough to restrain yourself in Christian charity. Enjoy yourself.
October 29th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Just so people on this thread know, I did *ONE*, yep that’s right, *ONE* whole subject at theological college. I intend to do more, but to say that I have theological training is a joke, to say the least.
Saint, you really should shut up, for your own sake more than anyone else’s.
October 29th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
slan·der (sla(n’d?r) pronunciation
n.
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
sar·casm (sär’ka(z’?m) pronunciation
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See synonyms at wit1.
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]
***
One of the reasons some people have problems dialoging with people like you and Bec, Janet is that it is always subjective.
You would demand that people listen closely to you (which as I said, is not exactly easy with the absence of visual clues) and yet
(a) when someone does read (and question) your words closely you object rather than correct or clarify or
(b) you fail to return the favour and consistently twist peoples statements into something else (usually something about you and personally offensive to you)
You made a claim that I think people who disagree with me have a personality defect and/or stupid. Now you tell me I use slander and sarcasm. Leaving aside the oral bit, and who felt whose “reputation” was injured (it certainly wasn’t me) it’s an interesting exercise to go through this thread and check out the false statements alone about others.
I asked you do you misread what people write because a) you can’t read b) you skim read c) you do read but the author is dead and only you know what s/he means d) it doesn’t matter what the author means or intends it’s always about you or e) you are trying to give me further evidence that tolerance and truth are mutually exclusive concepts?
I’m beginning to think the answer is all of the above.
In #98 I said
Notice I said ‘most’ and am talking about environmentalist movements, groups, philosophies here.
In #100 you said:
OK let’s forget the Catholic etc contribution to justice for the last 2000 years, we have a “much” to refute my “most” and one example of Greenpeace emerging from Quaker theology and practice.
This claim presupposes that Quaker theology and practice is orthodox i.e within the general bounds that Christians of all traditions call orthodox (I mean we only have a 2000 years of great Christian theologians, churchmen/women, saints etc to go by) and that the theology and practice underpins it in some way.
My reply in #103 questioned that assumption about Greenpeace (Inc? Pty Ltd? Ministries Inc.?) based on two bits of evidence: a key Greenpeace practice and a key Greenpeace philosophy.
The questions suggested that
a) the foundation may not be Quaker much less Christian given the practice of - not “passive resistance:” but active civil disobedience (never mind endangering life, defacing public property etc etc) and/or
b) if Greenpeace nevertheless emerged from Quaker theology then perhaps Quaker theology is rather non-Christian because it’s end point as expressed in Greenpeace is a view that the whale is my brother (and yes I will lampoon that view to my heart’s content)
In other words either Greenpeace’s foundaton in Quaker theology/practice is questionable or perhaps Quaker theology/practice itself is questionable
In #104 you say:
This is somewhat different from your previous claim. In any case I was questioning the assertion that Greenpeace emerged form Quaker theology and practice which I assumed was an example of one movement of the few(#98 me)/many (#100 you) that did not have a view of creation and man’s relationship to creation which is diametrically opposed to God’s view.
They were not unreasonable questions because they are part of the same set of questions I would use to evaluate all that discussion at the WCC, not that I expected you or Greg to answer them. If you had answered them it would also given me an insight into how you “theologize” for want of a better word, and what criteria you use to make your claims.
Surprise surprise Janet, I just ask questions without reasons.
But again this was more for those who have bothered to read this (and I know some people are)
For the record I did look at your links yesterday even if I was not unfamiliar with your claims. Next time I will remember to copy my PC logs or browser history or something so you can check the dates and times and see that they are to your liking. Sorry I don’t have time to give you a reading report.
Your links were to Greenpeace archive and the WARC, and I lampooned both the WCC and the WARC. Weren’t the WARC’s feelings hurt too? And if you get upset about that, remember that wit (even in its lowest form) is not a word associated with me in real life. I say so on my blog.
This “dialog” was a distraction while I was doing work work at home; blogging is only a hobby to me, so I am sorry to tell you all that I was not angry, frustrated, emotional, transfering the deep theological roots (so deep they are unfathomable, invisible and unrecoverable!) of my inner child onto you all or whatever else I was supposed to be, only genuinely saddened by Bec’s comment about marriage above.
But I was distracted.
October 29th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Saint, you’re welcome to explain why it is you so strongly disagree with that comment about gay marriage. I think there are reasons to oppose ‘gay marriage’, and I would staunchly defend the right of every community of faith to refuse the use of their building, or to object to their ministers performing religious marriage ceremonies. BUT I simply do not understand why Christians have a problem with civil ceremonies for gay people.
Please note that I have NOT said that I support gay marriage, I have questioned an argument frequently raised.
October 29th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
I was actually saddenned by the comments you made about how you viewed your own marriage Bec.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Oh, well…given that you’re not (a) marrying me, (b) invited to the wedding, (c) part of our lives, I don’t really care at all what you think of my views on my own marriage!!
October 30th, 2006 at 10:23 am
BTW, I’ve re-read my comments again, and I stand by them. I suspect you are reading my comments through such an anti-Bec lens that you assume the worst of all of them. You can write more if you wish Saint, but you have well and truly crossed the line many times on this thread - I absolutely will not let you cross the line as far as my pending marriage goes. That’s for me, my partner, our communities and God. I am not interested in what you have to say on the matter, and if I had any control over this blog, I would exclude you from having any say on this matter.
This, Saint, is a line that you must not cross.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I agree that those sort of comments are just personal flame throwing. And comments which, I might add, are irrelevant to the topic of this conversation.
I have been re-reading this thread in it’s entirety this morning and I think that this conversation has had its day. Some have commented on several times that they no longer wish to continue this conversation and I don’t blame you. I was tempted to close comments on this thread, but I will leave them open. If you wish to continue what has become (and perhaps always was) a personal flame war, then you may do so. However, so far the tone has been declining rather than improving (having started in a fairly inauspicious manner to begin with).
I suggest that it is time to walk away and take some deep breaths. I am sure that these issues will be revisited on other threads.
October 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Dan and Saint, I sincerely apologise for becoming sarcastic and making a discussion personal. It’s the low road, not the high road… I don’t believe it’s the way Jesus calls me to behave.
Saint… I resolved to myself after my last post yesterday I wouldn’t read anything else you posted here… I decided it was doing no good for my soul. If you’ve been cutting toward me, I forgive you, if you’ve been apologetic, I accept it. I pray God will bless you richly either way.
Bec, I have grown in my appreciation of your strength of character through this thread. It’s easy to get hostile when under attack… you’ve shown yourself yet again to be better than that. If you’re worried about Saint carrying on about your marriage I’ve found a very simple solution… skip over his posts. (Having resolved to do this I’ve found I’m not even a bit curious… I can live without Saint’s opinions… I’m sure you can too.)
I had a profound spiritual experience last night… I felt overwhelmed with the love and joy and peace of Christ, and I ended up praying for Saint for… gosh… it would have been an hour and a half or more. I prayed for him to know the same love of Christ, the same peace, the same grace, the same humility of spirit, the same simplicity, the same joy that overshadowed me.
I prayed from Ephesians 4 for Saint:
1 … I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
I’ve also been reflecting today that I’ve been tempted to act like a smart alec… and I am truly sorry, for this is not God’s way. I’ve been reminded of the passage in I Corinthians 1:
10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20Where 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? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
I resolve to follow the foolish way of Christ… which is about becoming a servant for the sake of His body and the world He came to save. There is more that unites us than divides us.
Grace to you all!
October 30th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Dan,
My thanks to you and Phil for indulging us with a place to hang about on the web. My apologies for not opting out of this thread sooner as I said I would. I broke my word in that regard.
Janet,
I have started replying to your last post for three times now, but you know what? I can’t.
Want to know why?
What a load of crock! The only response I have is to laugh.
So here it is Janet, uncensored and uncut.
You apologize to me for something about which I haven’t been offended and forgive me for something of which I haven’t repented.
And then in the next breathe tell me you will ignore my comments in future because they are bad for your soul while telling Bec again about “Saint carrying on about your marriage” (!)
Holy cow woman, what am I supposed to make of that??!!
I doubt that either you or Bec would know what it was that saddened me (but it was such a carry on on my part though.)
In fact, I know you don’t.
Neither of you asked; neither of you were obligated to ask; I gave a clue and left it for Bec’s invitation to ask. Notwithstanding her first wrong assumption, and my clarification, she did not ask. Both she and you could have - actually given Bec’s response, you should have just ignored it too.
Bec just assumed something (predictable: it was all about Bec Bec Bec) and off she goes and off you go and they’re racing.
Man on man, I will hand it to you. My sides are hurting.
But that Janet, and similar instances on this thread, is perhaps why you (and Bec) have taken this so personally and why I have gotten under your skin, and you haven’t worried me or hurt me or angered me or frustrated me or anything in the slightest.
And here you are writhing as to how to respond and then give me this oh but I am going to rise above it all, and just take a little swipe at saint. Aren’t I just precious? Aren’t you precious too Bec? (Yes Bec is, I’ve noted a couple of mentions of my name elsewhere)
Get. Over. Yourself. Woman.
If you had said, gee saint I guess occassionally I read too quickly and missed that bit or read that wrongly I would have said yes, thank you we all do, and we would have moved on.
You chose what you want to read and respond to, as do I. You chose how to respond as do I. You chose what you want to take offense to as do I.
The only difference between me and you I suggest, is that my boundaries are not drawn so closely around me and I don’t draw your boundaries so close around you as you do.
I have no personal animosity towards you, never have, and don’t intend to have in future.
I do not wish you any ill or harm, however forgive me if it sounds too horrid to you if I say I don’t think about you any further than just what I do when I have been on this thread.
I will not be avoiding reading your comments in future nor will I stop listening in on conversations here whenever I drop in or even participating (subject to Phil and Dan’s discretion of course).
This thread has not changed anything from my end, nor has it changed my regard for you or for Bec or Laura or Greg or Homer or anyone else.
So I won’t be thanking you for apology or forgiveness Janet because it really wasn’t necessary and it was neither.
I will however thank you - sincerely - for praying for me. May the grace peace and joy of Christ always be with you.
Prayer of course, always changes us.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:23 am
Saint,
I don’t know what you were referring to in your comment about marriage, and I don’t want to. Why? Because all your prior posts lead me to believe that your comments would be hurtful and potentially damaging. So is this all about me? You bet it is, and I see nothing wrong with that - you’re making a comment about MY views on MY marriage (the word “our” doesn’t apply here since my partner is sensible enough to steer clear of this blog!) If I had any inkling that you had wise counsel to offer, perhaps I would have been interested in hearing it - but your behaviour on this thread previously suggests otherwise.
That’s the sad thing, Saint - you have conducted yourself in a manner that has made people clam up, and you’ve missed opportunities for building relationships and having conversations that you mightn’t find elsewhere.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:42 am
I really do think we need to abandon this thread as ther is nothing healthy for any of us going on here. Saint just accept that egven though you may fell you aren’t being particualrly poisenous, the way you say what you say is being received as poisenous. Accept that, re-read your posts and if you see anything you need to adjust do so.
I am sorry for what I wrote - it is not becomgin of a christian to speak that way to anyone - least of all another brother in christ. Janet and Bec you are both way better than I am. Dan…you’re a lawyer…there’s no need to say anymore.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:46 am
As a point of interest, are you a committed Christian Saint? Your name suggests the Christian part, and your writing suggests a degree of committment to something, possibly your ego.
Some patronising advice for your Saint, give yourself a few more decades of maturation and you’ll grow out of this phase.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:45 am
Yes, you’re right Greg.
Note to self…Must. Stop. Reading. And. Responding. To. This. Thread.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Women really should konw their place!
October 31st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Hey Bec, you could always follow my fine example and skip over Saint’s comments (my personal version of taking a breather without abandoning Signposts)
Greg… that is wickedly, laugh out loud, hilarious.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I thought it might add the required level of levity to this thread - it was heading toward the brain explosion zone!!!