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