In my previous thread on the late and not so great Mr Escobar, I provided 'one' view/profile of the man. Here is another, based on different facts about his life, written from the perspective of an outsider to the recipient community in Medayin,Columbia of his benevolence.

QUOTE:
Pablo Escobar began his criminal life as a teenage car thief in the streets of Medellín. He allegedly also stole headstones from graveyards and sold them in other villages of Antioquia (this allegation has never been proven). He eventually moved into the cocaine business and began building an enormous drug empire during the 1970s.

His reputation grew after a well known Medellín drug dealer named Fabio Restrepo was murdered in 1975 ostensibly by Escobar, from whom he had purchased 14 kilograms of cocaine, and all of Restrepo's men were informed that they were to work for Escobar. In May 1976 Escobar and several of his men were arrested after returning from a drug run to Ecuador. As the case against Pablo was being made he tried to bribe the judge but was unsuccessful. After many months of legal wrangling Pablo had the two arresting officers killed and the case was dropped. It was here that he began his pattern of dealing with the authorities by either bribing them or killing them.
ENDQUOTE:

The points I am drawing in this, are:
-firstly: that the totality of a persons life, particularly the negative, is often avoided or outright rejected, when people have benefitted from that person.

-Secondly, when people have made a psychological committment to the inherrent 'goodness' of a person, they strenuously resist attempts by others to re-characterize such a person as 'evil'.

Does this remind readers of any historic figure in the religious realm ?

Yes, Paul of Tarsus would probably fit that description.

Dutch Schultz, "Beer Baron of the Bronx", also fits quite nicely.

Even though his deathbed conversion may well have been influenced by drugs, it was sufficient to get him buried in consecrated ground.

He was a pretty nasty character too - according to at least one source he was the inventor of the "cement shoes" as a means to get rid of people he didn't get along with.

But apparently he also "presented himself to the town as a country squire and good citizen. He donated cash to local businesses, held bingo parties and turkey dinners, and performed other such good deeds" (Wikipedia)

Is this what you had in mind Boaz?

I did actually wonder how you were intending to switch the debate from a South American criminal to a tirade against Islam - I think I just spotted it.

So you don't have to bother any more. Just forget it.

Pericles, I don't have to turn anything into anything.
I've shown clearly that any person, even one with a widespread following and public support, can be seen in 2 ways.

It all depends on who is doing the reporting, and what their interest is in the person concerned.
If they have marital, or material obligations ...then it is most difficult to criticize, how much more if the last few people who criticized the figurehead had been executed?

I've said enough and provided sufficient reference for those who follow my posts to 'get' this, so no need to repeat it again at this point.

I've got 2 more threads to do on this line,...and I'm hoping that people will 'get' them also.

Hope ur weekend is going well. Same2u bugsy.

Bugsy.. I think your brief post deserves much more attention since you mentioned Paul. A great example.

The thing is, with Paul, we have to look at a major division in his life.
PreConversion, he was everything 'bad' and the evidence was there to support that. He:
-arrested
-Harassed
-Intimidated
-Executed .....Christians in large numbers. It was nothing less than an attempt at religious genocide.

Now.. it could have been said of him during this period as follows:

Christians saying: "This man is a terrorist/tryant/thug/brutalizing animal"

Or..the by Jewish Authorities:

"This man is a hero and visionary, a great and noble warrior, cleansing the state of these vile Christian parasites"

Then.. conversion.

The Christians would now be saying "This man is a great Apostle, and has suffered greatly for his newfound faith"

The Pharisees/Judaizers "This man is a traitor, a turncoat, a deceiver and an agent of Beelzebub"

The primary issue really though, is.... how do we evaulate his true character?

Well, may I suggest one way is to examine his actual behavior post conversion.

-He did suffer.. (stoned, shipwrecked)
-He did NOT try to form an army or engage in terrorist acts.
-He urged people "as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men"

and many other things, all of which were entirely peaceful.
His only boast was 'in Christ crucified'.. and his heart was for the Body of Christ diaspora.

It is up to us, to refrain from unfounded criticism, and to see the real man revealed to us on the pages of his letters in the New Testament, and in reports of him in the book of Acts.

blessings.

BD, in answer to your question - probably. The writings of your nearest and dearest about yourself have not yet crossed my desk so it's hard to be certain.

Certainly in regard to more significant historical religious figures I've noticed that most christains seem unable to acknowledge just how barbaric and brutal their god has been both as described in the old testament and in that ever so sick Revelations.

Most when confronted with the evidence duck for cover in the first few books of the new testament, claim that their god is wiser than us so must have good reason to do what he does (just as other thugs have reasons for their brutality) or point out that if I want to escape a similar fate I'd better start saying how good and loving their god is.

From what I've seen people of other faith groups have similar problems confronting the less savory aspects of the history of their gods and prophets.

R0bert

Yes, Boaz, I know.

>>I've shown clearly that any person, even one with a widespread following and public support, can be seen in 2 ways<<

Your intent with both this and the original post (which was, delightfully, ignored) was wholly transparent. A debater's version of the old huckster salesman's trick of "bait and switch".

You were going to start us off contemplating in awe the highly effective PR machine that - from a very oblique angle, it has to be said - showed Escobar in a less than villainous light. Then you switch us to your favourite hobby-horse, that Islam suffers from a similar bipolarity, according to your selected extracts from the Qur'an.

As I said before, don't bother.

In the free time I have thus created for you, I strongly suggest that you finally commit yourself to reading that book I have been recommending to you for ages - "My Life", by Sir Oswald Mosley.

Here's an offer. You tell me where to send it, and I will get hold of a copy and make sure it reaches you. Just so long as you promise to read it... you know, pearls, swine, all that jazz.

The reason it is so important for you to learn its lessons is quite simple. If you continue along the path you have chosen, then I strongly suspect that St Peter is going to have some pretty harsh words to say to you, before he sends you packing to the other place.

(And you don't want to go there, do you? Think of all those people you will meet. Doesn't bear contemplation, does it?)

I suspect that he will, if it is a good day and there aren't too many in the queue, take you to one side and say something along these lines.

"Boaz. Boazy. Mate. What were you thinking? All that hatred you stirred up. All that blood you caused to be spilled. What got into you? What did we say to make you think that this is how to lead a good and holy life? And now, it's too late, mate."

Pericles, if I had time to read it I would happily receive it. No need for now thanx.

I'm a bit at a loss to understand your concern over stirring up righteous anger at things which are clearly abominable.

If I was stirring against National Socialism in 1936, I just wonder how you would be reacting? Care to enlighten me ?

It appears your concerns are based on the assumption of:

a) My selective and misguided understanding of Islam.
b) Your selective ignoring of a mountain of evidence affirming my posiiton.
c) You denial or lack of awareness of the significance of a group (just one of many) in Australia Hizb Ut Tahrir, who state categorically if they ever have power they will KILL anyone who departs from the 'official' faith.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was in cahoots with Hitler, and assisted in raising 2 divisions of Bosnian Muslims for the Wafen SS who as you know played a key role in exterminating Jews.

This is a continual source of wonderment and dismay for me, to see you look death in the face and simply deny that it is there.

I'd be interested to know your actual feeling about such groups, and why you seem to be against others exposing them for what they are ?

If anything, the only idea I can glean from your writings is that you simply don't see them as any serious or potential threat, based on their apparently small numbers ?

Please give a decent answer to this, because I consider it important.
There has to be a very strong reason why one such as you would defend Islam's true colors from being nailed to the mast. I cannot imagine you would take issue with National Socialism being denounced simply because it would make members of the Nazi party feel socially uncomfortable.....would you?

I'm not convinced you're serious, Boaz. My concern, as I have stated on many occasions, is that you pick and choose the "evidence" that Islam is evil.

Once you accept this, you will realize that all your questions have already been answered.

I'm out of the country for a while. Please behave while I'm away.

Pericles, safe travels.

R0bert

Pericles, safe journey, but ur still within email or internet I'm sure.

If you are not convinced I'm serious, may I remind you of the personal cost which occurred some months back ?

May I also remind you that I am no more selective than a lawyer who is either defending, or prosecuting a case. Each selects for a desired outcome. It is the JURY which decides.

The Jury is that group of the public, who weighs the evidence and looks for consistency, and corroboration, and an inescapable conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence far beyond reasonable doubt for the claim that 'Islam is inherrently violent, and aggressive, is political as well as spiritual, and is absolutely intent on world domination.'

I've also claimed and maintain with rock solid evidence, that violence we we in the Islamic world today, can be traced back directly to its founder. He attained power and retained power, by violence, this is not even deniable. He advocated violence and destruction of other belief system in THIS world and the next.
I've simply demonstrated all the above by selecting those passages which prove the point. Their interpetration is provided based on normal literary approaches.

What more is there to say ?

Hi Robert.

Boazy: "I'm a bit at a loss to understand your concern over stirring up righteous anger..."

Is this an admission from Boazy that he is indeed quite deliberately 'rabble-rousing'? Albeit self-righteously, of course.

Boazy: "If you are not convinced I'm serious, may I remind you of the personal cost which occurred some months back ?"

Please remind us, Boazy. What "personal cost" has your ugly little crusade brought you? While I think that it's inevitable that some portion of the hate that you spout will come back and bite you, it would be somewhat gratifying to hear how this has already happened - if indeed this is truly the case.

Why am I not overly surprised that Boazy has deserted his own thread at this juncture?

BD, as you said "May I also remind you that I am no more selective than a lawyer who is either defending, or prosecuting a case."

Perhaps you might read some of the threads about lawyers and lies.
What you are doing was called in older times "Bearing false witness" by selectively presenting only those parts of the story most likely to create the impression you wish to portray. I though the approach to truth you take was predominately a charismatic thing, years ago bretho's generally seemed to recognise the evil in only telling part of the truth.

R0bert

Funny how Boazy cuts and runs when you catch him out. At least he's consistent. Perhaps he's still suffering from whatever it was...

Isn't he a great advertisement for Christianity?