Jenny Brockie kept up her high standard with the last show of yhe year last week about Muslims. What a diverse audience! There even was a brave Anglican Rev. Gentleman there to try to hold the high moral ground, without “letting his slip show”.
One might well say what an unruly, arguementative, diverse mob these Muslims are.There was at least one Iman there, but he was quiet and certainly not aggressive or spitting hellfire and damnation. From the very vocal lay Muslims there I got the message that Islam catered for the individual. The Imans were more for consultation on the Koran and Sharia law.
My feeling is that this is another winner for the progress of Islam in the world to-day. The other winner for Islam is undoubtedly their ability to populate rapidly and happily.
On the other hand the traditional
or conservative Anglican might prefer humans to be born robots with the Bible as an operations manual. The Pastor or Presbyter would only need to deliver a Bible based sermon to activate. No feedback involved.
I believe God made us individuals and we must follow our faith around that fact.
Thanks for that reference to Jenny Brockie, Doug, I don’t follow her program and didn’t know it was on.
JENNY BROCKIE: I want to comment from Mark Durie, because you are an Anglican Vicar and you’re a theologian, is that right? You talked about the west having battered women’s syndrome in relation to Islam. What do you mean by that?
MARK DURIE, THEOLOGIAN: When someone comes under abuse or attack a characteristic response is to blame yourself, especially if you are locked into a relationship of being attacked regularly, and making apologies for your abuser. It actually affects Christians living in Islamic circumstances more, and one Palestinian Christian spoke about that problem of needing to defend Islam in order to protect yourself. Some people in the west have responded to the terrorist attacks by trying to look for everything that is positive in Islam. I think that was a strong response after 9/11, was to try to reach out as positively as possible. But in the end, there are some disturbing messages in the Koran, there were declarations of war against non-believers, there’s a declaration that Islam should be triumphant over other religions, the problem is this is not just in the book, but preached throughout the Islamic world that are preached, we in the West hear about that.
On the other hand the traditional
or conservative Anglican might prefer humans to be born robots with the Bible as an operations manual. The Pastor or Presbyter would only need to deliver a Bible based sermon to activate. No feedback involved.
I believe God made us individuals and we must follow our faith around that fact.
OK, if that’s the way it works, I want to tell God a few things. I have my own brain, so why should I have to read a silly book that’s 2000 years old and written into a culture I don’t quite understand? I have my own faith, so what’s all this business with God’s son dying in my place? I didn’t tell him he had to do that!? I mean, why can’t he just listen to me? I’m a nice enough guy, he didn’t really have to go and do that now did he? I mean, seriously! In this age of political correctness, how on earth am I going to tell people that God sent his son to DIE for them? Are they really that bad? Hmmm, listening to my heart, I don’t think so.
Yep, listening to my own heart, I’m just a nice guy who’s largely been misunderstood by anyone that says otherwise. I’m after a God that doesn’t demand too much, that doesn’t send his SON into the world for any reason whatsoever, and doesn’t really tell me what to do. I just want a nice warm cup of tea. Not scolding hot. Not too sweet, or too bitter. Just right. I mean, it’s only fair. Oh, and while we’re ordering our gods, can I have a side-order of fries with that?
G’day Ros, I really don’t see any point to the confrontational approach of Rev. Durie. The Muslims are here to stay and they will be significant players in our culture.
As with competing sporting codes or competing artists, they do not generally attack each other. That is left to the press or historians to judge and “expose”.
It is often said about competition “bring it on ” and I basically agree with that. I think Ethics, for example, should be allowed as competition to religious instruction in schools. There is nothing wrong with Christinity. It is natural and doesn’t need special protection.
I don’t understand much of what Doug is saying here, but:
As with competing sporting codes or competing artists, they do not generally attack each other.
You kidding? Sport - we go hammer and tongs when it comes to League diehards vs AFL diehards. Singers - Guy Sebastian was apparently bullied at the ARIA Awards recently. Come on!
OK, if that’s the way it works, I want to tell God a few things. I have my own brain, so
]
Arthur, Thanks for your comments. They make me feel recognised now after trying in the forum for years. Recognised as a stirrer or reformer that is. There have been many famous stirrers over the centuries. Most were not understood at the time. The most famous stirrers were IMO Jesus and his disciples who all (execpt Jesus ) died achieving not very much as far as they knew. And the Clerical Elite at that time could not engage in any dialogue with stirrers. The stirrers were heretics, blasphemers etc and definitely not understood.
The Clerical Elite also had a bumpy ride. Moses had the crazy idea that the Levites would ” carry the can ” for God like a clergy Royalty. They didn’t last long and were even replaced by women for a period.
Now Dave, although not Clergy Royalty, is on their side because he said he taught scripture to the young ones at his church. I cannot understand his post:-
It seems like bits of Daniel translated into Greek, then Chinese, then Serbian and back to Australian via a Centrelink computer. As Clergy he can do this, but I alas am just an honest layman. No religious organisation that I know of boasts a democratic stucture.
Doug,
Your opening post on this thread seemed to suggest that you liked Islam’s ‘democracy’. You liked the way they cater for the individual. You liked ‘consultation’ on the Koran. You believe God made us individuals and we must follow ‘our own faith’ around that fact.
Well, in one sense, yes, I believe in the sufficiency of scripture, and the ‘priesthood of all believers’, and the responsibility of individuals to honestly practice what they read in the bible. But the difference between you and me is that I believe the bible IS scripture! I don’t believe that ‘we must follow our own faith’.
We must follow THE faith, THE way, THE truth, THE life that is in Jesus. We are ultimately responsible to how we interpret THE truth, but we are not, ever, to make that truth up according to ‘being an individual’. That would deny there being an objective reality to God, that He IS some things, and IS NOT other things. Asserting I can make up my own faith defies the laws of logic. God either exists, or does not. There is either ONE God, or many, or none. I don’t know of any other possibilities. But our discussions must always be about what we think objective reality IS, not what my feelings about it ‘would have it be’. We cannot ‘follow our own faith’ for that would be self deception. That is what I was trying to get to by flippantly comparing ‘ordering our gods’ to ordering some burgers. And fries with that please.
PS: I don’t know how you feel ‘recognised’ by Arthur who was basically disagreeing with you when you said:
As with competing sporting codes or competing artists, they do not generally attack each other.
Arthur was just pointing out that they fight like cats and dogs. Casting yourself as a poor misunderstood stirrer finally vindicated by Arthur ‘recognising’ you just seemed a bit strange. But hey, I’m not trying to attack you personally, but I just think you may have misunderstood Arthur’s intention.
Dave In the case of both you and Arthur we are using basically the same arguments. Just interpreting them or using them differently.
If you believe in God as the creator, beyound human comprehension etc , then faith gets stronger every day , every minute. Faith does not depend on history or eyewitnesses. It is so easy, so nice to think of God in your image of God , but you must not.
In Arthur’s case, the only sport I know where people deliberatly sledge their opponent is professional boxing. I sure there are exceptions and Arthur is free to find them to suit his argument.
If you believe in God as the creator, beyound human comprehension etc , then faith gets stronger every day , every minute. Faith does not depend on history or eyewitnesses. It is so easy, so nice to think of God in your image of God , but you must not.
Why? Why not weaker, because I can’t know him because he is so beyond human comprehension? And one day I wake up and realise the way I’m using the word ‘faith’ (in this context) is based on mushy subjectivism. It means ‘believing something without evidence’. It means feelings. It is about as fickle and compelling as “last night I had a dream about a big side order of fries”.
Paul’s use of the word faith is in contrast to works. He has nothing against evidence or knowledge, or studying whether or not a belief system is consistent!
EG: Acts 17
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Paul commended them for that! They were eager… but they still had to check it out!
The disciples of Jesus rocked the ancient world because instead of a dream, they had an eyewitness account.
They rocked up to a new area and said: “I knew a man who said he was the Son of God, who was executed in my place for my sin, and then rose to new life to prove it was all true! I SAW THAT! And I’m prepared to die for that!”
And historically, 11 of them — as far as I can tell — were executed. Not just because of their beliefs, heaps of people have died for a variety of silly ideas and beliefs. But they died for their eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus rise from the grave.
That was, and is, and will always be one of the prime differences between valid, authentic Christianity that ‘lays it’s head on the chopping block of history’ (as historian John Dickson would say) compared to the vague, fluffy headed subjectivism of ‘my faith feels right to me.’
If faith does not depend on history, then it cannot depend on the new covenant. It cannot depend on the surety we have in the promises God made to certain people at certain times in certain places: it cannot depend on Jesus reconciling us to God and it cannot depend on his promise to send the spirit as a guarantee of our inheritance in heaven.
Yep, as Paul said, “if Jesus didn’t rise from the grave we are to be pitied more than anyone”.
(Lankshear paraphrase version).
The New Testament firmly lays itself in the crucible of history as a set of statements about things that happened. Once we are convinced they happened, we can trust in God for our relationship with Jesus. Faith is not a word about irrational beliefs, but trusting in the character and promises of the God because we are rationally convinced He interacted with us in history.
Hebrews does talk about faith being the conviction of realities we cannot *see*, but it isn’t really focussing on how we get to that point. The rest of the New Testament does. The 4 Gospels are written, as Luke says, that we might be convinced of the reality of the things that happened.
Not only that, but the bible just plain scoffs at our ability to reason this stuff out for ourselves. See the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians. We need the revelation of God, in the gospel.
But Doug portrays accepting all of this as being a programmed robot because we didn’t figure it out ourselves. There’s nothing ‘robotic’ about accepting reality, and responding to it rationally and wisely.
Dave, I’ve been thinking about your ” have fries with that” approach to Christianity and the future of the world with or without oil. So if I could borrow from your illustration, I will expand on what the “that” is IMO . (as a poor layman of course).
“That” is the old Testament which is the basis, the forerunner to the NT and Christianity. There were no miracles to be witnessed and recordeed, no living messiah who was crucified and rose again to life on earth and heaven. Ther was was only God believers who had “conversations” with God or Gods’ angels. Note that SAint Paul, although a contempory of Jesus and his disciples, was converted by an experience with God on a road to Damascus.
My point being that it is the memes and genes that God created in us that eventually lead us to God. And a faith that can only get stronger. In contrast a faith that is based on believing the supernatural is bound to be fickle. One of my sons when only 5 yrs old was determined to believe in Santa Claus as real. It was one of my most annoying and difficult jobs as father to explain what is folk or fable and what is fact.
This illustates to me that the desire to believe in God is built into us by the creator. In a sense Jesus , Gods’ son, supplied an update and other technicalities.
My point being that it is the memes and genes that God created in us that eventually lead us to God.
Then you’re reading a different OT to me. Everything is about God’s reaching down to us, not our wonderful rational reaching up to God. Everything is about God picking a nation “not because they are strong” but because God decided to glorify His name. Every hero in the bible (apart from Jesus) seems to have their faults. Joseph is the lying trickster, Noah saves us from the flood and his then rolling around drunk and naked, Sampson can’t keep his pants up and King David arranges the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. The very name Israel means ‘struggles with God’!
Israel keeps wandering from the way, not figuring it out and wandering into it. Kings and Judges shows cycles of JUDGEMENT, a Saviour (Joshua, Sampson, etc) sent from God, national repentance, national restoration, and then the nation falls back into the same old rubbish and then are judged again. Rinse and repeat a dozen times until the BIG judgements of the exodus.
So you’ll have to look elsewhere for you ‘meme’s and genes’ concept, the OT doesn’t support it I’m afraid.
I don’t know how anyone can read the Old Testament and get the message that it’s all about how WE find OUR way to God. It’s an affront to the bible, an affront to comprehension, and an affront to common sense and our experience of the world. It just doesn’t happen. If anything, we run kicking and screaming from God, looking for ways to offend him, searching for alternatives to the one way spelt out by God. It was spelt out in his word, by the Word of God, Jesus himself. And we spit on that and say “Thanks but no thanks, I’ll figure it out for myself”. I’m telling you Doug, that ain’t going to go down well with the God I know.
How’s it going to go down with the ‘god’ you know? And if us human beings are so good at figuring this stuff our in our meme’s and genes, how is it that you and I disagree? Why aren’t we automatically coming to the same agreement about external reality?
In a sense Jesus , Gods’ son, supplied an update and other technicalities.
If you had any idea of the bible’s claims for itself, you’d know what patronising gibberish this is to THE only reliable source of information we have about God. This is not my opinion, this is what any reasonable comprehension exercise of the scriptures would come to.
Dave, Yes we do disagree a lot. Obviously that is how God made us. So vive the difference but not the intolerance of other peoples opinions and experiences. The Bible has 143 uses of the word “seek”, mostly in this vein"If you seek Him, he will be found for you” 2 Chron 15:12 So your argument about “how We find our way to God ” goes down in flames.
It does seem your focus is more about mission to the young ones, while I am more concerned about the secular adults rediscovering the church.
As for “patronising Gibberish”, that is just fundamentalist rubbish and I can’t be bothered with that.
That’s a little unfair Doug. “Fundamentalist” seems to be a word that we use about people we don’t like. It is unclear, and conjures images of the strict, anti-science creationists which I am not.
If you could define what you’re having trouble with, that would be very helpful.
I am sincerely trying to understand your position, and why you look down on Sydney Anglican’s so much. I am, after all, responding to your opening post.
As you probably know, the reason I used strong terms like “patronising gibberish” about your opinion on Jesus merely being an ‘update’ to our own spiritual journey and already obtained knowledge is that I hold the bible to teach the reality of Sola scriptura.
That is, without God’s actions and word in sending His Son into the world and being THE WORD we wouldn’t have a hope of getting right with Him, or much of a clue about our situation before Him in the first place. With most people it seems that in spite of having access to God’s written word the bible, they’ll choose another way, another belief system, another god, or another philosophy.
Both the bible and experience indicate that people don’t naturally seek God out themselves. Those verses in the bible that commend seeking God are commending seeking Him through the means HE has established. Not making a wooden idol and lighting joss-sticks to it. Not going on an “Eat, Pray, Love” sentimental self-indulgent ‘escape’ to get to know the ‘inner light’ or whatever other rubbish that movie portrayed. Not making it up as you go along!
We have to approach God His way, on His terms, or we are lost.
Firstly, there are a huge number of miracles recorded in the OT. I don’t see how you can say there aren’t. They cluster around the times of Moses and Elijah/Elisha, but there are many at other times too.
Secondly, if the “memes and genes” would have done the job, why the Damascus Road experience? Romans says that we can know about God by looking at the world and ourselves, but only that the creator has mighty power. To have our sins forgiven, be reconciled to God and the Spirit come to dwell in us we need to have the specific knowledge of who Jesus is and what he has done. Even if the “memes and genes” create a desire in us for God (something which the Bible consistently denies, like in Genesis 8:21, one of the earliest verses and the least likely place we’d expect it to come seeing as all the sinful people have just been killed) it is only through the written words of God that we can be saved.
Dave The Ark of the Covenant is lost and destroyed, the tablets with the 10 Commandments were all smashed Alexandria library was destroyed. Why do you think? Could it be that people, although agreeing with the 10 commandments etc , did not agree to some human using them as a badge of authority and instrument of oppression.Why was the Bible translated into so many languages? Because the people wanted to fit it into their lives, not have it enslave them and take away their INDIVIDUALITY.
It is very easy to make an idol out of something. The difference can be very fine.
But Gods wrath is nothing if not brutal. eg the slaughter of a large part of Moses’ followers because of their idol worship.
Making an idol of the Bible must be a great professional problem for the religious. Witness the split between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox interpretations of the Bible over the Trinity. Irrepairable damage over something most of Gods’ people don’t understand or need.
Doug,
If I tell you I’m running a graphic design firm and to be my mate you should avoid talking about football for any longer than 60 seconds, does it sacrifice who you are to become my friend? All you are doing is accepting certain truths about me, and that I like and dislike certain things.
God has told me that He is the King of the universe, and I am to come to Him on His terms… through trusting in the death and resurrection of His Son. I haven’t sacrificed my individuality by accepting the truths God has shared with me about Himself. I’m just accepting reality, as God tells me it is.
Why do you think? Could it be that people, although agreeing with the 10 commandments etc , did not agree to some human using them as a badge of authority and instrument of oppression.
1. Prove the tablets and / or ark were even there in the first place. It seems guessing the location of the ark is not limited to Steven Spielberg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant
2. Just because some people might try and make school an instrument of oppression doesn’t make education bad. Just because some Priests and Pastors molest kids doesn’t make all Pastors paedophiles. And just because some insecure or attention seeking people try to use the bible as a weapon, it doesn’t prove or disprove anything inside its covers. Try and figure out what you’re fighting. Is it objective truth about God, or is it some authoritarian view you have of church?
Why was the Bible translated into so many languages? Because the people wanted to fit it into their lives, not have it enslave them and take away their INDIVIDUALITY.
All the better to understand the truths inside for themselves, not twist those truths to fit their individuality. The ‘enslave’ word here is a bit harsh. Jesus came to set us free, and bring us into right relationship with God. He gives us a new heart that starts to desire the things of God.
Not twist the truth and change it according to our own preferences. Otherwise we’re back to denying objective reality, and trying to order up a ‘god’ as we see fit. Fries with that?
While the opening post tries to present Muslims on the same quest as us, as they all ‘seek god’ in their “memes and genes”, Pakistan courts have sentenced a Christian mum to death for ‘blasphemy’.
By Rob Crilly in Islamabad and Aoun Sahi in Lahore 5:36PM GMT 09 Nov 2010
Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.
Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.
Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.
I got the message that Islam catered for the individual.
They’ve certainly provided this mother with everything she needs, a couple feet of rope ought to do it.
But if I state the fact that the Bible presents itself as the authoritative, inspired, sufficient word of God, then I’m one of those robotic Sydney Anglicans, or possibly into an “instrument of oppression”. How’s that going in the real world? Historically the spread of biblical Christianity has resulted in unparalleled freedoms. It’s a mixed history as the role of Christianity is often confused with the role of imperial European colonisation. Europe was exploding onto the world stage, that was inevitable. I’m just glad Christianity went with it, and, for the most part, eventually tried to ameliorate some of the imperial effects of European colonisation.
The situation in Pakistan for Christians is indeed very difficult. As it is in many other Muslim nations (and some non-Muslim nations.) The case of the woman being sentenced to death for blasphemy, although one of the worst, is not atypical.
Yet we in Australia largely turn a blind eye (or at least a helpless shrug) to these abuses. (Can’t we at least impose a sporting boycott?? Why are we playing cricket with Pakistan? Or India, for that matter?)
Moreover, a UN vote is coming up (soon? don’t think it’s happened yet?) which ostensibly supports religious freedom, but will, if passed in effect legitimise these kinds of abuses. Will search out the particulars if anyone is interested.
It is very important that we be clear-sighted about these things. That is why I highlighted Mark Durie’s comments above. (#1)
JENNY BROCKIE: I want to comment from Mark Durie, because you are an Anglican Vicar and you’re a theologian, is that right? You talked about the west having battered women’s syndrome in relation to Islam. What do you mean by that?
MARK DURIE, THEOLOGIAN: When someone comes under abuse or attack a characteristic response is to blame yourself, especially if you are locked into a relationship of being attacked regularly, and making apologies for your abuser. It actually affects Christians living in Islamic circumstances more, and one Palestinian Christian spoke about that problem of needing to defend Islam in order to protect yourself. Some people in the west have responded to the terrorist attacks by trying to look for everything that is positive in Islam. I think that was a strong response after 9/11, was to try to reach out as positively as possible. But in the end, there are some disturbing messages in the Koran, there were declarations of war against non-believers, there’s a declaration that Islam should be triumphant over other religions, the problem is this is not just in the book, but preached throughout the Islamic world that are preached, we in the West hear about that.
Whether Mark Durie was wise to make these comments in that particular forum I don’t know, but I think what he says is essentially true of many Westerners. I had myself likened this attitude to Stokholm syndrome, but perhaps battered women’s syndrome is a better description.
.........
As for an individualised God, that makes about as much sense to me as an individualised gravity, or pi, or speed of light. There is only one truth, but many lies (and also many misunderstandings).
Doug, do you really think ‘Bible-believing’ Christians are like robots? Why do you think that? Jesus didn’t die for any robots, but for lost people who are made in God’s image, and whom he calls his brothers and sisters.
[ Edited: 15 November 2010 11:15 PM by Ros Burgess]
But if I state the fact that the Bible presents itself as the authoritative, inspired, sufficient word of God, then I’m one of those robotic Sydney Anglicans, or possibly into an “instrument of oppression”. How’s that going in the real world? Historically the spread of biblical Christianity has resulted in unparalleled freedoms. It’s a mixed history as the role of Christianity is often confused with the role of imperial European colonisation. Europe was exploding onto the world stage, that was inevitable. I’m just glad Christianity went with it, and, for the most part, eventually tried to ameliorate some of the imperial effects of European colonisation.
Then you’re reading a different OT to me. Everything is about God’s reaching down to us, not our wonderful rational reaching up to God. Everything is about God picking a nation “not because they are strong” but because God decided to glorify His name. Every hero in the bible (apart from Jesus) seems to have their faults. Joseph is the lying trickster, Noah saves us from the flood and his then rolling around drunk and naked, Sampson can’t keep his pants up and King David arranges the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. The very name Israel means ‘struggles with God’!
Israel keeps wandering from the way, not figuring it out and wandering into it. Kings and Judges shows cycles of JUDGEMENT, a Saviour (Joshua, Sampson, etc) sent from God, national repentance, national restoration, and then the nation falls back into the same old rubbish and then are judged again. Rinse and repeat a dozen times
(My bold) And this: (#16)
That is, without God’s actions and word in sending His Son into the world and being THE WORD we wouldn’t have a hope of getting right with Him, or much of a clue about our situation before Him in the first place. With most people it seems that in spite of having access to God’s written word the bible, they’ll choose another way, another belief system, another god, or another philosophy.
Both the bible and experience indicate that people don’t naturally seek God out themselves. Those verses in the bible that commend seeking God are commending seeking Him through the means HE has established. Not making a wooden idol and lighting joss-sticks to it. Not going on an “Eat, Pray, Love” sentimental self-indulgent ‘escape’ to get to know the ‘inner light’ or whatever other rubbish that movie portrayed. Not making it up as you go along!
We have to approach God His way, on His terms, or we are lost.
[ Edited: 15 November 2010 11:33 PM by Ros Burgess]
.........
As for an individualised God, that makes about as much sense to me as an individualised gravity, or pi, or speed of light. There is only one truth, but many lies (and also many misunderstandings).
‘Muslim diversity’ seems to be forcing Christians out of Iraq. I’m just trying to reconcile this…
One might well say what an unruly, arguementative, diverse mob these Muslims are.There was at least one Iman there, but he was quiet and certainly not aggressive or spitting hellfire and damnation. From the very vocal lay Muslims there I got the message that Islam catered for the individual. The Imans were more for consultation on the Koran and Sharia law.
with this…
Christians are fleeing Iraq, saying they are being ethnically cleansed by Islamic militants.
Ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians - like all Iraqis - have been caught up in the sectarian violence.
But in the past two weeks a series of horrific attacks have Iraqi Christians packing up and leaving like never before.
At St Ephraim’s church in the Jordanian capital, Amman, the Syrian Orthodox mass goes back to the earliest years of Christianity.
Half of the liturgy is still delivered in Aramaic - the language spoken by Jesus.
This is where the Christian faith has its deepest roots. But the congregation is desperate to leave the Middle East.
The congregation is made up mainly of Iraqi refugees, and the most recent arrival is Susannah.
Two weeks ago 50 people were massacred at her church in Baghdad. Days later she picked up her baby son and left.
“We put up with so much,” she said.
“But after the attack on the church, we were much more scared.”
The two cousins of another congregation member, Nijem Abdallah, also died in that church.
He and his family might have been among them too.
“They came into my shop and demanded I give it to them,” he said.
“So I did. Then they followed me home and demanded a $1,000 a month or they would kill me and my son.”
‘Something ghastly’
Mr Abdallah says the men were from the Mahdi Army, the military wing of one of the main power blocs in Iraq’s new government.
He says he spoke to his brother in Baghdad two days ago, who told him that Christians are now finding posters on their houses, telling them they have three days to get out.
These exiles in Jordan paint a frightening picture of a country where open season has been declared on Christians, even on children.
Two girls at the church, whose mother has been missing for two years, are now being cared for by another woman who arrived in Jordan nine months ago after her husband was kidnapped and murdered.
This has been going on for seven years, ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but historian Dr Raouf Abu Jader says the horror of the past two weeks has taken things to a terrifying new level.
“Killing, shooting has been common in the Middle East for many generations,” he said.
“But that you go into a church, that has only worshippers, women and children, and start shooting haphazardly, is to my mind, something new, something ghastly, something unacceptable.”
Two weeks ago, Al Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq issued a statement saying all Christians are now legitimate targets.
Most of these exiles have applied for refugee status and just want to get out of the Middle East for good.
And there is a real concern that the centuries-old link to the earliest years of the Christian faith could be broken forever.
[null]Jean Pakter Dies at 101; Women's Health AdvocateNew York Times[{}]Abortion was still illegal during Dr. Pakter's early years in public health, and she had the task of compiling reports about the commerce in abortion. These reports provided some of the few reliable estimates in the country about the number of women ...
[null]Is the Church Becoming Less Catholic?New York Times[{}]That said, there is more to the Catholic Church's position on abortion than Maureen Dowd cares to acknowledge. The church views abortion as the murder of innocents and thus as an absolute evil, so “absolute intolerance” is not an inappropriate response ...
[null]Does It Mean Anything that a Record Low Are 'Pro-Choice'?New York Times (blog)[{}]Asked to pick one of the two labels applied to the abortion debate, a full 50 percent said they were pro-life, whereas only 41 percent said they were pro-choice, down from the previous low of 42 percent recorded in May of 2009. Republicans are the most ...
RSS Feed