Dear Polycarp,

I'm going to give you a quote from someone
who is better qualified than myself. It's
Dr Paul Collins, a graduate of Harvard
Divinity School and the Australian
National University, he is a former priest,
historian, and broadcaster.

In his book, "Believers," Dr Collins tells us:

"Forgiveness can seem like weakness, especially
within an extreme terrorist context where the
"lex talionis" is seen as justified and
even exalted by some Muslims as an aspect of "Jihad."

This confronts the Christian with the question of how
we should respond to outrages like the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on New York, and the Bali, Madrid and London
bombings.

Should we turn the other cheek? What would that achieve?
Personally, I think it would achieve a lot more than
the so-called "war on terror."

Only a truly superior statesperson would have shamed and
isolated the terrorist by saying "I forgive you."

This would have had to have been accompanied by
intelligent and astute diplomatic and political work
to isolate the terrorists and by appealing to the vast
majority of sensible, civilised and peaceful Muslims.

Sadly we are not governed by such intelligent political
leaders."

If only we could learn from our mistakes in the past.
If only we could accept the "unpalatable truths."
However, the human trait seems to be - to only see things
that we want to see.

It's an interesting point Foxy.. the idea of forgiveness from a Christian viewpoint.

I still think it goes like I said from our Lords words in my last post.

"Repent..then forgive"....

But lack of forgiveness does not mean lack of love... the love I'm talking about here is Agape love.. which does not rely on the behavior or qualities of the object of that love. It depends only on the subject..in this case God... and those of us who love him.

"For God so loved...." you know the rest of John 3:16

He came.. gave Himself.. for our sins WHILE we were enemies.

Remember.. Paul was an adamant enemy of Christ pre conversion. Christ's death was for him also. But had Paul died in sin, prior to faith in Christ he would have faced judgement like any other sinner.

I think this is the most difficult aspect of the Christian faith to take hold of for the unbeliever. They cannot understand how a person can condemn sin, or injustice, or evil, but still hold love for the perpetrator.

That's how God works...its how we SHOULD work and indeed the closer our walk with Him.. the more we WILL reflect this core truth.

This is the absolute nub of Beliefs....and Behavior.

Regarding terrorists, my view is the law will take it's course. The law is formed by our own choices through democratic processes, and we all participate in that. This is why I myself am very active in providing information (again.. often unpalatable) to assist in making what I believe to be wise long-run choices and laws.

If the murderers of Brit Lapthorne are arrested, I would not forgive them unless they were truly sorry. Even then, they would remain in the clink for a longggggg time. The staggering thing about Gods love though, is that even such horrible people can be saved....but only by grace.

Dear Polycarp,

Thank you for being so open and honest
with me.

Take care.

cont'd

A few final points I'd like to make, and
then I'm out of here...

Tor Hundloe tells us that:

"We all came into this world as
"blank sheets," as every child does,
but then from an early age, we are
taught our various idealogies.

If we are willing to label Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot and Idi Amin as sub-human zealots -
why not those who preach reliious hatred
against others?

Today's fundamentalists (be they Muslim or Christian)
were taught to be bad people, yet they believe they
are good people...In this context... they are acting
rationally according to their beliefs..."

"Richard the Lionheart led his soldiers from the front.
Richard's Christian soldiers were on their own "jihad."
Like their Muslim enemy they believed they would get easy
access to heaven if they fought bravely."

As Tor Hundloe points out,
"Today, we seek the good, sustainable life and find
not only unimaginable environmental problems
(climate change, but we replay, at a far more dangerous
level than in 12th century warfare, the Crusades.

What is the point of saving humanity and the planet from
a possible environmental disaster if we are going to
keep killing each other in the name of different
prophets of the same god?"

Thanx Foxy. Those words are always aimed at achieving reconciliation between humanity and I accept that this is your hearts desire.

Indeed it is mine also, but I certainly operate from a less sentimental perspective (not a cricism of you, just an observation). I think my time in Malaysia sorted me out on many of these issues.. or perhaps hardened my resolve on them.. yes..I think it's the latter without doubt.

See you in other threads.

I'm still wondering about some of my critics who always claim I 'run' from difficult threads.. I think the shoe is on the other foot.

So..for critics out there.. the usual mob.. I still hold open the challenge I raised earlier. The silence can only be taken as a lack of confidence about the issue or material.

When those who are rabid and passionate Poly-Bashers are equally focuses on gleaning the historical background to various Islamic texts, and then determining honestly how the text, its' background and the call by the author of the Quran (Mohammad alone) to view himself as an example to follow..(33.21) Then they will have my respect. Until then, they have none, because they have not earned any.

But that was just one example among many possibles.
The persecution of Christians in Orissa Province India by Hindus is equally a worry.
It directly relates to 'beliefs' and 'behavior'. In that case, the belief is "Christians murdered a hindu holy man" and that is a lie spread by Hindu extremists. It matters not that it is a deliberate lie, what matters is that in BELIEVING it the Hindus are now harming, hurting, killing, burning and raping innocent Christians in the name of that lie(belief).

Hence...this thread.

Poly, poly, poly. Where to start.

Firstly, I find this comment incredibly objectionable, not to mention childish:

"The silence can only be taken as a lack of confidence about the issue or material."

From a literal sense, this is flawed from the outset. "only" as a lack of confidence?

Only? What the hell? People could be away, they could have better things to do, they could be sick to death of your dishonest motives. As far as "only" goes, a remedial student in critical reasoning could hammer the holes in that argument. A far more likely explanation is that you're more persistent, and want to claim victory using any means possible.

Let me take this back to the simplest things here: you make a simple assertion which is patently obvious, but your motives are well known and your intended extrapolations are what are rejected from the outset.

It is the fundamental principles of your intended extrapolations which cause issues. You say you have no respect for the people who don't research the background of the texts, blah blah and so forth - but what if the background of said texts is believed to be so utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand, it is not worth scouring them?

What if simple argument and proper logic can eliminate their relevance to the argument here and now? Why place a premium solely on what you consider to be relevant, especially when it is a niche interest, with a contested interpretation.

cont'd.