Channel: Home | About

Perspective




Leave her alone! ...She's a human!

Okay. So her name isn't Britney, it's Paris. And she's not getting a hundred million from big granddaddy "Warbucks" Hilton... she's only getting FIVE million. So, what must that have felt like... to know that "life as she knew it" was essentially over (unless she got up and went to work)? Was it a nauseous feeling like a swift kick in the gut? Did she wail as she did when carted off to jail? Or was it an explosive breath-stealing shock.....?

........BANG! BANG!!

...one shot to the chest and another to the throat? Life ebbing away in pools and rivulets; seeping into some anonymous filthy street in some backwater Pakistani city called "Crazy"?

How tragic. How completely and utterly tragic! To have all her hopes and dreams for the future cut so tragically short! Robbed of everything that matters by a madman devoid of any sense of humanity....

No her name's not Britney. OR Paris. Her name was Benazir... Her name is Martyr.


42 Comments:

  1. Ms.Green said...
    But most Muslims would denounce this, right? I mean, most Muslims are moderates and don't approve of such things, right? So I wonder, did this bomber get his 70 virgins? Was the PM considered an infidel?
    Eric said...
    Better yet, Bhutto was also a martyr. So what reward does she get (assuming she's muslim... I honestly don't know)? An eternity of perpetual virginity servicing the man who killed her?

    Don't sound much like heaven for her.
    Anonymous said...
    Benazir Bhutto was islamic so the bomber that killed her probably won't be considered a martyr by most religious muslims.

    I'm sure such religious people as EL and Ms. Green understand that each faith has leaders with differing beliefs on controversial subjects. All leaders and followers being well-meaning and earnest in their beliefs event though they conflict. I'm sure you only adopt this pose of labeling all muslims with that faith's most repugnant and violent creeds to spark debate and discussion right.

    You aren't really uncaring bigots are you?
    Ms.Green said...
    Hi, Bent. I think you'll find that it's not Muslims that we are "labeling", it is the religion of Islam itself.

    All men, whether Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, whatever, are in need of a Savior. Christ is the only Savior.

    Islam offers no Savior. Islam offers hate, forced submission, and murder.
    Anonymous said...
    Ms. Green your spirit may need a savior. To assume that your spiritual solution is perfect for everyone else though is a hubris of monumental proportions.

    Each person's individual faith is as valid and every others. Each religion has it's apologists and pet scientists. There are no conclusive proofs for any religion.
    Anonymous said...
    The problem with the argument that "each faith has leaders with differing beliefs", is that radical Islam believes there should be no other faith but their own. Not all leaders are well meaning. Unlike our Western world where we ostracize those radicals who step over the line of common decency, Islam allows their culture to breed terrorists.
    Ms.Green said...
    "Each person's individual faith is as valid and every others. Each religion has it's apologists and pet scientists. There are no conclusive proofs for any religion."

    You defy logic with your statement. Christianity claims that Jesus is the only way. Islam claims there is only Allah. Atheism says there is no God.

    All cannot be valid and all religions are not equal.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Re, "radical Islam believes there should be no other faith but their own."

    So does Ms. Green. That makes her a radical. That makes her dangerous -- and that's why I oppose ALL fundamentalists.
    Eric said...
    "So does Ms. Green. That makes her a radical. That makes her dangerous."

    So does Eric. So does every missionary risking their lives to carry the Gospel to the "unsaved".

    And so does Jesus. The Pharisees and the religious certainly thought he was a radical. So radical in fact they deemed him dangerous... too dangerous to live. So they killed him.

    Interestingly enough you yourself have, at your own place of profundity, reveled and gloried in just how radical Jesus was. So, he was radical AND dangerous? To some people yes... the ones who wanted to kill him.

    Islamists are no different. They Claim to have THE form of godliness exclusively through their Qur'an, but they deny the very power that makes men Godly. And they seek to kill anyone who does not believe as they do. Christ did not do this. Christians do not do this.

    A snake is a snake and is not offended by being labeled as such. Why then does the fox take offense? Why are YOU offended by an accurate label applied to killers masquerading as godly men, defending them at (seemingly) every turn? And taking every such turn as an opportunity to castigate fellow Christians for calling a snake a "snake"?

    Jesus did indeed say "Judge not..." but Jesus also said, through the power of the Holy Spirit, "He that is spiritual (a man with the Holy Spirit residing in him) judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

    Jesus said he didn't come to judge (and he didn't) but if he did judge (and he did... often) his judgment was true. For a man who didn't come to judge, he sure spent a lot of time judging the Scribes and Pharisees.

    If I judge Islam as lacking compassion, respect for human dignity, and the true spirit of worship; of God almighty and His son Jesus Christ, my judgment is true. Not all Muslims are killers, but all Muslims are lost and on their way to hell.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Re, 'So does Eric. So does every missionary risking their lives to carry the Gospel to the "unsaved".

    'And so does Jesus.'

    Yes.

    Radical.

    It'a all a beeyotch, ain't it?
    Eric said...
    That's not how I would describe it.

    The problem we have here is as Ms Green and MSU Gal have stated. Islam, in spite of all those Muslims who insist their religion fosters peace, nonetheless foments, incites, exports, and praises hatred of and upon infidels. Any nail that dares stand above the crowd-- like Ms Bhutto in the sunroof --gets hammered down by those who find such nails offensive. For anyone to say, 'not all of Islam believes like this' misses the very real point that even if only 10% of Muslims worldwide believe the Qur'an when it says killing Jews and Christians is a 'good' thing, there's still 100 million Muslims who want to see Jews and Christians dead. And contrary to Bent's assertion that ALL religions/faiths are equally valid, it comes down to what one believes in their deepest of deepest cores... our very consciences. Is it right to murder someone because of "what" they are; Jew, Christian, Hindi, Muslim?

    The only honest answer here is an emphatic "NO." On that basis alone, there is one religion-- at least --that is NOT 'equally valid,' and that religion is Islam.

    Separate yourself from the argument for a moment and look at it in terms of logic... leave your heart out of it. If the advocation of murder, for any reason, is wrong, then Islam is not equally valid with other religions. I know of no other religion that teaches what Islam teaches. In contrast, no other religion, with the exception of Judaism, teaches that there is a single God, whose name can be known, who desires to be known, and who will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. Islam doesn't even teach that.

    Christianity and Judaism differ greatly in terms of how salvation is obtained, the fulcrum being the man Christ Jesus Himself, the son of the living God... "Before Abraham was, I AM." But Christianity has never taught a single follower of Christ to murder another living soul... for ANY reason.

    Islam, on the other hand, teaches that it is fine to kill Jews and Christians, and anyone else who in not a Muslim. Islam teaches that it is okay to lie to ones enemy to gain an advantage against him. Islam teaches revenge. In contrast, Christianity teaches sufferance.

    The saddest part in all this is not that Bent finds fault in Christianity so much so that he sees the need to defend the indefensible, but rather that men and women who actually call themselves 'Christian' feel the need to wag their fingers at brethren who point out the obvious flaws of a religion that is 100% false, by virtue of the fact that Muslims DO NOT believe Jesus of Nazareth is truly who he said he was.

    And this is what Bent, I think, takes issue with the most, that Jesus is the ONLY path available to salvation. For him, all religions and faiths are equally valid. But logically speaking, with so many divergent beliefs and philosophies they cannot ALL be equal.

    Getting back to the topic, Ms. Bhutto died for a cause she genuinely believed in. She had to know that she would most likely die should she return to Pakistan, but she went anyway, because there was that smidgen of chance, however slight and finger-nail thin, that she might pull her nation out of the third world and into a new dawn of reason. A new world where women aren't treated less than cattle... forced to wear body sacks, however brightly colored or embroidered-- a sack is a sack is a sack is a gilded cage by any stretch of logic.

    But now she is dead, and Pakistan is in chaos. It wasn't Christians who killed her, it was Muslims. The same religion that hung a pregnant woman in Iran last month for desiring reform. The same religion that cut off the heads of three Christian school girls on their way home from school. The same religion that shot school children and teachers in the back as they fled from their school in Beslan. The same religion that allows families to kill their daughters if they in any way dishonor the family... like being raped. The same religion that stones women still for crimes against them, rather than anything they themselves have done. Christianity does not do these things. Islam does. Islam is not equal to at least one religion: Christianity.

    You want radical? How about defending the truth of Christianity against the lie of Islam. Sadly, America is not going to do it, for the very same reason-- however you rationalize it --that most Christians today won't do it.... because their faith goes no further than the bible in their hand; they do no hide the word in their heart, nor is it truly welcome in that deepest of deepest cores. There is no light in the window, so to speak. Most professing christians are still stumbling around in the dark.

    Which is why there is so much sympathy and defense for Islam here in America, and around the world.
    Neil said...
    EL, Ms. Green and MSU Gal - good points. We were debating at ER's about a pluralistic post and your points would have been valid there as well.

    It is intellectually bankrupt to say that all paths are equally valid or that they all lead to Jesus.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    LOL. It is NOT intellectually bankrupt. What a hoot. It is only doctrinally bankrupt in a very fine sense -- and in a sense that I say GOOD!

    Y'all keep trying, in vain, to make the extraordinarily INCLUSIVE Gospel something very selfishly EXCLUSIVE, which is very not-Christlike by definition.

    Sigh. Man.

    Y'all, it's not a club, it's not a religion, and it's not a dichotomy.

    The broad way is the one that anyone thinks they can figure out!

    The narrow way is the one that says: I. don't. know. And I. might. Be. Wrong.

    Oh.

    I might be wrong.
    mom2 said...
    The narrow way is the one that says: I. don't. know. And I. might. Be. Wrong.

    Oh.

    I might be wrong.>
    :-) Do you reckon? ER, that is a new interpretation of the narrow way for me. I have to go with John 14:6
    For us that have been in church all our lives, we might be able to avoid the confusion of some liberal interpretations, but to try to clearly explain the narrow way to new believers so liberally, can cause them to stumble is my fear. The gospel gets more complicated than it need be. It seems easy to understand John 14:6.
    Ms.Green said...
    ER said: "The narrow way is the one that says: I. don't. know. And I. might. Be. Wrong.

    Oh.

    I might be wrong
    . "

    ER, you speak more like an agnostic than a Christian. I can only conclude by your own words that you are not trusting in Jesus Christ for your salvation - and are not sure yourself what or who you should trust in.

    You are on the broad way, ER. I say that in love, not as an insult.

    BTW - Since you called me dangerous, I'm curious...what have I done, or am doing, or will do, that you feel is so harmful? In other words, what is your definition of dangerous?

    ER said: "Y'all keep trying, in vain, to make the extraordinarily INCLUSIVE Gospel something very selfishly EXCLUSIVE, which is very not-Christlike by definition."

    The Gospel is only inclusive in the sense that whosoever repents of their sin and trusts in Christ shall be saved.

    It is exclusive in that Jesus Himself said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

    And lest you want to start a discussion about what the will of the Father is, you need do nothing but read John 6:40.
    Anonymous said...
    You're wrong EL when you say Christianity hasn't taught violence. The bible is chock-full of verses telling christians to hate and murder others of different faiths. Modern day christians simply ignore those verses. The Islamic religion hasn't progressed to that level where it's adherents can ignore those inconvenient verses.
    Anonymous said...
    For my money one of the best dialogs ever about faith vs. unbelief occurred between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan. It was an in-depth verbose letter exchange series that explored both men's views. Read it here.
    mom2 said...
    I know that because of my age, I have been reading the Bible longer than Bent and I know nothing about it teaching Christians to be violent toward other people of other beliefs. In reading Bent's comments, it doesn't appear that his unbelief has made him a happy man. Maybe, he should spend more time really searching to understand Jesus and His great love for us.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Ms. Green:

    "ER, you speak more like an agnostic than a Christian."

    I think an honest doubting Christian actually can be described as an "agnostic Christian."

    "I can only conclude by your own words that you are not trusting in Jesus Christ for your salvation - and are not sure yourself what or who you should trust in."

    I have no idea where you get that. You're wrong.

    "You are on the broad way, ER. I say that in love, not as an insult."

    Wrong there, too. Probably. Yet I trust in God through Christ and in God's love for me.

    Why you're dangerous: See above. You simply can't judge someone's status with God based on a few words on a blog. It can't be done. That you think you can is the worst form of pride. Your brand of Christianity is an insult to the Cross. And I say that in love.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Mom2, are you, like, 200 years old or what? Again with the reference to your allegedly advanced age! I don't get it.
    Ms.Green said...
    I have no idea where you get that. You're wrong

    Wrong there, too. Probably.

    As I said, your own words tell me you are not sure of your salvation. I’m not judging your heart. I’m making an observation based on your own words. You are judging me sir.

    The Bible says we can KNOW we are saved. By your own admission, you aren’t sure. Thus my conclusion.

    I find it ironic that Christianity’s biggest critics, who constantly quote “Judge not”, are so judgemental.

    BTW, “agnostic Christian” is an oxymoron.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Then Thomas was an oxymoron.

    Give me a break. The Disciples themselves doubted and they were blessed with the very Presence of Jesus Christ in the flesh, as it were.

    I was raised having "you can KNOW" beaten into my head with a Scofield Reference Bible. Bull. Knowledge is one thing. Trust is another. Keep your knowledge. Knowledge is not redemptive.

    Oh, you absolutely can count me among the critics of Christianity. The religion, left and right, that has grown up around the Cross will burn off like every other bit of wood, hay and stubble.
    Eric said...
    Sorry Bent, the Bible does not teach Christians to hate or do violence. The Bible IS chock full of historical examples of such, but Jesus said we are to follow HIM: His commandments, His sayings. And not once did He tell any of His disciples to hate or do violence.

    The strongest thing He DID say was,

    "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them." --Mark 6:11

    ...no hint of violence or hate.

    In response to violence, injustice, and persecution He told us to 'turn the other cheek,' 'give up our coats in addition to our shirts,' 'walk a mile more than demanded,' and most importantly he told us to 'pray for our oppressors/persecutors.'

    Nothing violent in that at all. Even when Peter took it upon himself to cut off a temple guard's ear, Jesus rebuked him saying, "...all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." --Matthew 26:52

    You are confusing Old and New Testament again. And before you say Jesus came to FULFILL rather than destroy the Law, consider this:

    The Law of Moses, in terms of the Tabernacle, all its furniture, stations, and method of worship have their fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. Stoning rebellious children is not part and parcel with that. Were it to be otherwise Jesus could not have allowed the adulterous woman to walk away uncondemned. He would have broken the Law and thus committed sin Himself. And had He sinned, His body would still be in the grave, and no one would have ANY hope of salvation... contrary to what ER believes, but not at all contrary to what the Bible actually teaches.

    What really drives all this home is a tidy little list of those who will NOT inherit the kingdom of Heaven:


    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:

    Fornicators
    Idolaters
    Adulterers
    Effeminate
    Abusers of themselves with mankind
    (Homosexuals)
    Thieves
    Covetous
    Drunkards
    Revilers
    Extortioners



    Galatians 5:19-21
    They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God:

    Adultery
    Fornication
    Uncleanness
    Lasciviousness
    Idolatry
    Witchcraft
    Hatred
    Variance
    Emulations
    Wrath
    Strife
    Seditions
    Heresies
    Envyings
    Murders
    Drunkenness
    Revellings



    Revelation 22:14-15
    Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are:

    Dogs
    Sorcerers
    Whoremongers
    Murderers
    Idolaters, and
    Whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.



    there's a little repetition there but all in all there's a whole gamut of behaviors and actions that, if not covered by the blood of Christ, will exclude even the most saintly of people who engage in such from the blessings of Heaven. Truth be told, the list is merely a signpost for those along the "Broad Road." One that says, "You Can't Get There From Here!" As Jesus told Nicodemus... Ye must be born again..." The blood of the Passover Lamb must be applied to the lintel and posts of your heart. Without that blood the angel of death will claim you, and you will not see Heaven.

    As there are only two places to which a human soul CAN go, Heaven therefore is much much preferred over the relentless, eternal torments and agonies of hell.

    The choice is yours to make. It has always been your choice to make. And God will abide by whatever you decide.
    Ms.Green said...
    There is nowhere in scripture that says Thomas was an agnostic, and the words “doubting Thomas” are not in there either. That sort of negates that.

    Thomas was a doubter until he met the risen Christ, at which point he said “my LORD and my God.” I believe that is the point at which he was saved.

    Since you don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God,and you decide yourself what is and what is not from God, I don’t expect you then to believe 1 John 5:13, which says “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” Notice it does not say that ye may “be pretty sure”, or that you can “probably know”. It says, that ye may KNOW.

    I KNOW I am saved and going to heaven because it’s not up to me – it’s up to Jesus Christ. I’m willing to bet my eternity on it, because I know my Lord is not a liar. You admit that you think you may be wrong, but that you are probably right.

    I'm glad I'm not where you are. It's a very shaky place to be with eternity hanging over your head.
    Neil said...
    "The bible is chock-full of verses telling christians to hate and murder others of different faiths."

    Bent, could you share some of those verses with us?

    I'm familiar with the one-time, one-place commands for the Israelites to clear out the promised land, which had been inhabited for 400 years by spectacularly evil and unrepentant people. And they were to defend themselves from enemies. But that is about it.
    Anonymous said...
    Ms. Green you may be older than me. You might not. But the big difference is that no matter how often you've read the bible, you have never read it with a questioning mind. You never asked yourself if it makes sense logically. If the reality described in those pages is synonymous with the reality presented to you daily with your other 19 senses.

    For the bible to be a flawless communication from the creator of the universe then its words must mesh indivisibly with the reality of the universe. Otherwise one of the two is a lie. Are the stars in the sky wrong? Are the mechanisms of biology and physics lies?

    For that is the test I apply to all religions. I know nothing of gods or creators or afterlives. Such knowledge is beyond humanity's current space-time perception. Knowledge of the physical world though is in our grasp.

    Many centuries BC civilizations knew the earth to be a sphere. So the bible talking of foundations and corners of the earth is idiocy. This is only the easiest proof that the bible was not written by a creator who knew the truth of physical reality.

    You have built a tower of "knowledge" on a shaky foundation. You have taken the words of talented centuries-dead authors to guide you in this modern era. Open your heart and mind to seek true spiritual peace. Not this false arrogance. It is a shell that keeps you in fear of fellow humanity in all our wondrous colours and variety. A true religion of peace would not be based on fear and judgment.
    Anonymous said...
    EL there are passages where Jesus himself advocates killing disrespectful children. Its right after he suggests you pluck out your own eye. Then of course there's the famous verses of tribulation of the unrepentant in Revelations. Nice peace-loving cheerful stuff. And all this is based on the Old Testament where the Hebrews made war on just about everyone.

    Christianity is just about as peace-loving as Islam. Both religions have verses in their holy books telling believers to go out and slay the heathens. Both books also happen to have verses about violence to anyone regardless of faith that doesn't fit the proscribed societal molds. Christians just ignore those verses though they are still there in the bible.

    Previously you have said every verse has multiple meanings for different times. What do the verses like Exodus 21:15 have to say today? or 2 Chronicles 18:22?

    I love your little lists of those who aren't cool enough for god's afterlife club. Do you think pastors are encouraged to pray daily to be more butch? O how does the exclusion of the unclean affect pregnant women. The old testament said they were unclean after delivery (7 days for a boy, 14 for a girl - love that godly gender equality). Then the revelations list seems to set against Lassie, Benji, and Old Yeller. I never knew Jesus was a cat person.

    When I see a christian I very seldom see someone that looks peaceful. I don't see someone who loves their neighbor. I don't see someone who turns the other cheek.

    The only muslim I have ever known was centered and kind, understanding and forgiving. I knew Mariam Yunus from kindergarten to 12th grade and never once saw here proselytize her religion or disparage the christian majority in our school. She gave a much better reference for her religion, by living kindly, than you or Ms. Green do through all your violent/judgmental/condemning attitudes. I have seen the same websites and newspaper articles and videos that EL has about fanatical muslims, but because I knew Mariam first, I classify those violent/angry voices as the minority in islam. And when I look at global survey polls and statistical reporting I see that my opinion is true.
    Anonymous said...
    One of the best known verses Neil is about killing witches. The catholic church took right to that one didn't they? You might easily dismiss all the one-time, one-place commands to murder men, women, children, and cattle, but again the christians of the middle ages felt the desire to follow those commands all over again. And even today aren't those the verses EL uses to justify support for Israel? Believers in bible inerrancy use those verses to justify violence again and again at other faiths. For God must be unchanging and if he told us to kill all men, women and children back in the time of Moses, surely it's opinion and command hasn't changed since then.

    P.S. Notice I used the pronoun "it" for god. That of course is the pronoun that should be used for something that created the universe. That the bible uses a masculine pronoun throughout is only another simple proof of its errancy.
    Ms.Green said...
    BenT, your rather long post makes a lot of false assumptions about me, which doesn't help your credibility. I was a hard core agnostic for years and most of my Christian friends gave up on me ever getting saved. I've been on both sides of the argument on whether or not there is a God, and whether or not Jesus is really Who He said He was. So nothing I've heard you say so far is not something I've either thought or said myself at one time.

    Your misinformation about what is in the Bible and what it says tells me that most of what you say comes from sources other than the Bible itself. For instance, in Job 38:6, which I'm guessing is one of the passages you are referring to that use the word "foundation" and "corners", the Hebrew word which is translated "foundation" means "a founding" or the "act of laying a foundation". And the "corner stone" is translated from words meaning a firmness or strength ( see Psalm 144: 12 where it speaks of daughters being "corner stones". There is nothing in this passage that goes against science.

    And in fact, Isaiah 40:22 tells us the earth is round - long before science discovered that fact.

    If you really want to have an honest discussion about Scripture, please state a specific passage that you feel is either incorrect or contradictory either to other passages, or to science or the world around us.

    As for the fear and judgment remark, I fear very little if anything in this life and nothing in the next. I have no reason to. My future is certain and secure. I have a God Who loves me and has promised me abundant life and eternity with Him.

    I don't judge people's hearts, which is forbidden by Scripture. But judging certain actions as sin is not forbidden, but is actually acceptable and commanded in some cases.

    So, where are your specific passages that you want to discuss?
    Ms.Green said...
    What do the verses like Exodus 21:15 have to say today?

    So you think it's ok to kill your parents?

    And I'm not sure what your problem is with II Chronicles 18:22. Can you give us some insight?
    Anonymous said...
    I meant to point to 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 where God and Israel make a covenant to kill everyone who won't convert. But there are all sorts of verses like that in the old testament. My question is if the verses about the abomination of homosexuality are still applicable then why not these commandments. Fundamentalist christians are only waiting for charismatic leaders to lead them to war again. EL in fact makes a point that Jesus confirms all the laws of the old testament.

    I also pointed to 2 Chronicles 18:22 because it's pretty plain that God created/sent a lie to test Jehosephat. This runs counter to modern fundamentalist theology that god can not lie. So one of the two is in error. Either the bible is errant or fundamentalist theology is errant.

    So two refutations of the bible. I can keep going if you want. Like I said the bible is chock-full of violent scripture. If you don't see the contradictions... If you can paper over all those immoral verses, then I have to assume you aren't reading with a critical mind.
    Anonymous said...
    I believe that whatever I beleive may not be the best fit for everyone. In fact my beleifs are only right for me. How can I tell someone with different experiences what to beleive about their relationship with the cosmos? And as long as no one attempts to force their beliefs upon me I should challenge no one else's personal spiritual beliefs. It's sort of a modified version of the golden rule: Do/Believe what you will. Harm none.

    When I die I hope to be remembered as someone who smiled often and laughed spontaneously. I see EL almost everyday and I do not think he takes such joy in life. I do not remember him seven years ago being so somber and angry, and what I think has changed him so has been a growing christian fundamentalism.

    I have to think there is something spiritually wrong with someone who holds such anger and fear and judgementalism inside them. Ms. Green encourages EL's slide into fanaticism, and that certainly can't be a good recommendation for her.
    Anonymous said...
    The above link has nothing to do with me! My word! Notice it begins in "Michael's" post!
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Re, "I don't judge people's hearts, which is forbidden by Scripture."

    Ha ha ha. You earlier came to a conclusion, based on my words, about my heart:

    "I can only conclude by your own words that you are not trusting in Jesus Christ for your salvation - and are not sure yourself what or who you should trust in."

    I freely admit that, right or wrong, I judge you to be EATEN UP with false pride. Sorry.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Ah. Once again, a devil, manifested by "Michael" above, points out that as far as I am from Eric and Ms. Green and others -- and I AM far from y'all but under the shadow of the Cross, whether you think so or not -- there is stupidity daring to think it rises to the level of evil walking the blogosphere.

    Pbbth. Get thee behind us. Yer a bad joke, "Michael."
    Eric said...
    There's a lot to be said for comment moderation. The biggest drawback however is the loss of conversational spontaneity... One thing I'd love to see in Blogger is the ability to block specific users and/or apply comment moderation to individual posts rather than the blog entire.

    Thanks Bent for the "all bold" comment. I may not have noticed Michael's link otherwise.
    Ms.Green said...
    "Ha ha ha. You earlier came to a conclusion, based on my words, about my heart:"

    As I said, your words told me that you were unsure of your salvation.

    And words do mean things. They tell what is in a man's heart.
    "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."

    Or is that another one of the verses you don't believe in?

    "I freely admit that, right or wrong, I judge you to be EATEN UP with false pride. Sorry."


    No need to apologize. I'm not offended.
    Neil said...
    Bent, you might be interested in this link - http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm

    The Bible is not a science textbook, but skeptics do like to take verses out of context or deliberately misinterpret them to dismiss it.

    I've heard people criticize the Bible for using terms like "sunrise" and "sunset," since we know the earth goes around the sun. But do these people think those on the Weather Channel are idiots for using the same terms? The Bible uses figures of speech just like other literature does.
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Re, "unsure of your salvation."

    Ms. Green, I will meet this and raise it.

    I am not unsure of my salvation, within the context of the fundamentalist Bible-worshiping tradition in which I was raised.

    I doubt that context. I doubt the need for salvation, as you understand it. I doubt sin, as you understand it and as I was taught it. I do not doubt humankind's need for God. I do doubt that sin is anything more than incomplete creation. As such, I believe that those who receive God's grace get it in order for them to become as complete as God intended them to become. And I am very close to believing that all will receive God's grace because GOD IS LOVE. And I do not doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is at the center of that completion -- was at the center of the completion in faith for those who sought God but lived before his life, death and resurrection, as they relied on the promise, or at least the need, for God to DO SOMETHING; and I do not doubt that Jesus is at the center of completion for those who at present, and in future, seek God and their own completion as part of the Creation. All of which requires faith -- that God is, in fact, completing his Creation, through Christ, one person at a time.
    Eric said...
    You do realize that had you uttered that last comment in the presence of 15th century inquisitors you'd be burned at the stake as a heretic, right? How fortunate for you we are not so barbaric these days!

    Oh, wait! Sorry. Murdering a million and a half unborn children a year? That makes us MORE barbaric than those charming pastoral days of fifteenth century Europe. Ah, yes... those were the good ol' days!
    Erudite Redneck said...
    Why in the world would I care what the Inquisitors would have thought?

    How fortunate for the Gospel that the burning of "heretics" is over, for now -- but believe you me, I keep my eye peeled on the fundamentalists of our day who would dare deny me God's grace! I will do all I can to deny them temporal power.

    How awful for the Gospel that the notion of heresy still exists -- as if what we BELIEVE affects God's love for us.

    Orthodoxy: an anti-spiritual, carnal, political example of "the winners write the history books."
    Marshal Art said...
    "... I keep my eye peeled on the fundamentalists of our day who would dare deny me God's grace!"

    Don't trouble yourself. They can't deny you what they don't have the power to give. All anyone ever does, perhaps clumsily, is to state that your own actions or beliefs might impede your progress toward what I hope is your desired destination.

    "...as if what we BELIEVE affects God's love for us."

    It doesn't. But it might affect His final judgement.

Post a Comment