Thanks for replying, runner. I agree that Jesus Christ will rule the earth, and I regard the Christians’ brief as being to herald His coming, to give other people their best chance of recognising Him when He arrives and, in the meantime, to love everyone unconditionally, with special emphasis on the needy. Our evangelising brief has limitations on it, I think – eg our evangelising behaviour has to be consistent with love.

I also agree that, just because we have a secular society, it doesn’t mean that secular humanists should be the only people who get a hearing. We should all be heard.

I’m not sure that secular humanism is any more anti-Christ than any other viewpoint that is not overtly Christian. It’s just a bit conceited in countries like Australia, that’s all. Besides –

i) Jesus was pretty tolerant of anti-Jesus remarks, so He knows the scene and probably doesn’t require us to be more sensitive than He was.

ii) Some Christians occasionally say and do things that Jesus would not say and do.

Perhaps anti-Christ stuff is among the things Our Lord shouldered, along with His cross, so that it’s been/being dealt with by Him and needn’t occupy too much of our time and energy.

Or, if “anti-Christ” includes anything that is wrong or bad – including, say, abortion – then it is among the myriad issues that the community/government has to address. I think we Christians can only participate honourably and energetically in the democratic process and hope for the best.

Evolution. If you’re saying it didn’t happen – and isn’t happening – then we will have to agree to disagree. Mind you, I still believe that life works as if Genesis 1 and 2 were literally true – for example, that we evolved until we took on God’s image. Perhaps God watched us unfold – in a process that seems long to the scientists, but which is nothing to God. I’m sure He was always in control.

Meanwhile, we have a lot of very needy neighbours out there who require urgent attention.

Pax,

Thanks BB, I’m really not wanting to be unfair to Islam, but I can’t avoid seeing it as a danger. I agree that “us whites” also have a shabby pedigree, and that the US has been the spearhead for, say, the last 60 years or so. I agree we should be critical and watchful of the US. I’m happy for everyone to be subject to equal scrutiny - for us to be generally careful, not just careful about Islam. I also agree about Jaw Jaw: it’s why I’m here on OLO, in case some jawing can lead to some agreeing.

Paul L and rache: I know history informs the present and present decisions. In view of what you’ve discussed so far (no resolution in sight that I can see), what do you say we should do? Trust the US implicitly? I suggest not. Trust to luck with Islam? I suggest not. Surely, we need to look critically at both.

Pericles and CJ Morgan, Are you saying Islam does not present a danger to a country like Australia? For instance, do you think the Muslim community in Australia is somehow benign, unlike (it seems) its counterparts elsewhere?

What do you think we (the general Australian community) should do? Be watchful or ignore? Say Yes on reflex to every request for accommodation, or consider such requests (from any source) on their merits?

B_D, I believe you wish to inform and are exasperated, not “fanatical” in a troublesome sense. I guess you know, though, that passion is often alarming and easily misinterpreted. No offence intended: good luck.

Pax,

This present OLO exercise must have just about broken the record for recent historical small-talk, something even the CIA gives reminder of, calling it mostly about Blowback, meaning that over it all, modern war-talk since the two World Wars 1 and 2, wars that were justified, unfortunately has got too much the old colonial smell about it, as proven so much with the presence of Pax Americana in the Middle East right now, calling it fighting for the freedom of the American Way.

Pity there was not more commonsense about it, rather than in old language, heading for much more gunfire, smoke and flame?

Cheers, BB.

PaulL,
Using one group of bad guys to fight another group of bad guys on your behalf might seem like a clever idea but what happens when it's over and you just walk away and expect things to fix themselves.
They also armed the Vietnamese to fight the French but in that instance it was the Vietnamese who betrayed the Americans. Either way it never just goes away by itself.

The radicals I am talking about include the ones the CIA were training and equipping in special camps, like Bin Laden.
I think you'll find his argument wasn't so much that they put bases in Saudi but that they kept them there long after the Gulf War was over.
This whole affair makes me think of a kid who attacks a hornet's nest with a stick in one hand and a can of fly spray in the other - then squeals when he gets stung.
If rose-coloured glasses make the world look more palatable to you, then that's fine but assuming that this is entirely the result of some 1400 year old quasi-religious argument over "hating our freedom" makes the least sense of all.

GOODTHIEF :) should I understand your last remark in terms of Hebrews 10:24? I'll take it that way of course.
But I'm not 'exasperated' nor (in my view) fanatical, my own assessment of my approach is 'colorfully passionate'.
You are right about my desire to 'inform'... very much so. To inform early is much better than just sitting back and waiting for another Cronulla knee jerk event. My objective is to persuade, and to promote changes to "policy". Unfortunately, most such changes are not achieved by the quiet voice of reason, but by the shouted voice of threat.

PERICLES. We could actually make some real progress here. I find it intriguing that you see the media embellishment of a few stab wounds and the mention of torture as being somehow 'whack-a-mozzie' when the far bigger issue of the poor brothers having had their throats cut and killed as somehow....'not' ? Most curious indeed. So.. If I just mentioned "Fanatical Muslims cut the throats of Christians, brutally and cruelly murdering them" is not whack-a-mozzie, but adding "And they were tortured" is?
Now..you have some serious issues of basic understanding of reality there old son.

The media embellishment adds nothing to the horror of the murders. How much 'more' will readers hate Muslims for 'adding a few stab wounds' than for 'cutting their throats'? Can you quantify that?

Next..I suppose you will be saying 'Mentioning' such reports just feeds hatred? as IF.... the world does not already know of these things. You also forget that most people who are likely to really 'hate' are not those who will hate over 'Christians' being killed in Turkey but by bashings like Maroubra.

PATTERNS.... that, is why such events must be mentioned.. until people realize that if you don't control both immigration of Muslims and totally stop the aid from wealthy Oil states in building overbearing 'dakwa' oriented infrastructure in Australia, then the price you pay might just be most costly than you can afford or your society survive.

goodthief, your questions are ever-so-slightly loaded, but fair enough for all that. Here goes.

>>Are you saying Islam does not present a danger to a country like Australia?<<

At this moment - despite the efforts of Boaz and his team to stir up animosity in the general populace - I see any danger to this country to be at a very low level. We might see the odd religious fanatic occasionally, but less frequently, and with less impact, than we see, say, a Hoddle Street, or a Port Arthur, or a Snowtown, or a Queen Street, or an Ivan Milat.

>>For instance, do you think the Muslim community in Australia is somehow benign, unlike (it seems) its counterparts elsewhere?<<

"...somehow benign" would appear to be a fair description. Despite, again, the provocation from our own Christian jihadists.

>>What do you think we (the general Australian community) should do? Be watchful or ignore?<<

It's a little difficult to do the obvious - ignore - because of the noise created by the Boaz's amongst us. So I tend to be watchful, and try to dampen down Boaz's rabble-rousing as much as I can each time it rears its ugly head.

>>Say Yes on reflex to every request for accommodation, or consider such requests (from any source) on their merits?<<

I think we should carry on doing what we seem to be doing so effectively, which is to consider each request on its merits.