Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
I acknowledged it the second time in post 27 where I was expressing my amazement you would discount an article highlighting the significant persecution of Christians because of a disagreement about theology. I said:
And as I said in post #31:
I never said that I disagreed with McLaren on the points he made about resorting to violence, hatred or bitterness in light of persecution. But his gospel is wrong, and I am free to take everything he says with that in mind. I find it very interesting that you jump to defending Chuck and his article, but you still make no comment regarding the lack of reporting in the MSM about the persecution of believers.
It was here also that you were quite clear to indicate there was something wrong with me in not expressing outrage to your particular set of requirements:
Clearly, the implication is there is something wrong with me. That implication is not 'just in my head'. And you continued in that vein, though perhaps not so clearly in a accusatory mode.
Clearly, the implication is there is something wrong with me. That implication is not 'just in my head'. And you continued in that vein, though perhaps not so clearly in a accusatory mode.
I acknowledged your point a third time in this post (post 34):
And then finally you managed to notice it in post 35 where I said:
That would be 4 times with you acting as it was only once and along the way implying there was something wrong with me because I wasn't all over the MSM about it in a way that would satisfy you.
That would be 4 times with you acting as it was only once and along the way implying there was something wrong with me because I wasn't all over the MSM about it in a way that would satisfy you.
I could not quite figure out what you were getting at is why. 'this' would have been clearer had it been 'what you speak of in the text below'.
First: I wasn't speaking about you specifically, but the general trend in recent years of dismissing the Sermon on the mount and what it requires in terms of how we treat others, especially our enemies. The idea that turning the other cheek, offering love for hatred, speaking gracefully even when being attacked is somehow 'namby pamby' rather that the brave acts of committed Christians willing to suffer and die without a fight if necessary for the Gospel.
Second: This thread, started in response to the New Zealand shooting of Muslims is part and parcel of that same spirit of seeking revenge, seeking the encourage outrage and anger against those you and others perceive as our enemies - the people in the MSM. Had it been started in isolation much it would still have that problem, but much, much more so as a response to such an act. And consistent with that general trend.
As I noted in post #36:
It is not your business to tell me whether something I post is appropriate or not. That is the whole purpose of this thread. To show that terrible things are happening to Christians EVERY day and nobody hears about it. How dare you tell me that I shouldn't have started this thread when I did!
You seem to be saying here that it's ok to defend the MSM -- as you say "seeking revenge, seeking the(sic) encourage outrage and anger against those you and others perceive as our enemies - the people in the MSM," then you need to look at your own treatment of your brothers over those who feed your political mindset. I have no idea what kind of revenge you think I'm seeking, other than to point out the hypocrisy of the MSM in this regard. Which will do absolutely nothing to change them, especially with liberal Christians like you who support them and refuse to call them on it.
And if you think it would have been wrong to start this thread at any time, as you state in your last sentence, then it would seem that you don't object to the media not reporting the murder of Christians.
Answered.
Jim
Jim
Jim, I'm done with you on this issue. If you've had your say, you're welcome to step out of the thread.
Comment