Just some food for thought.

Daisy what questions did I not answer? My question was legitimate about whether or not you both are Christians since you have Islamic ties? So what is your answer? I made the first step and shared with you. I do not know you from Joe Blow so why would you think I know your life story?

 

Daisy,

The verses that Diane posted are important verses to any Christian. This ~is~ a board for Christians, and when someone puts "Jesus Christ is very nice" as their statement of faith, states that they do have relatives who have Islamic ties, and then does not take the opportunity to say, "Yes, I'm a Christian," it is not "judgemental" to call you on it.

I see by the profile that you are Presbyterian, so maybe your church takes that kind of thing less serious than our church does, but most of us were raised that the greatest honor we are given in this life is to proclaim Christ as our Savior.

Whether you liked the reasons you were asked or not - we have a right to ask, "Why didn't you stand up for Christ?" AS MUCH as you are standing up for Daisy?

 

You said that the contractors who went to Iraq were no better than mercenaries (hired killers, if you weren't aware of that connotation)</font>[/QUOTE]I see, there is a genuine misunderstanding here (mostly my fault as I got "beheading" confused with "dismembering" in my original post to this thread).

The contractors who were so gruesomely, apallingly and, most emphatically, wrongly dismembered were actual mercenaries, ie. private security forces, civilian interrogators and such. I'm not calling them names, that's simply what they were.

Article on Blackwater Recruitment
Private security clashes with soldiers
Blackwater Job Application
Anti-Blackwater Blog

"Greedy" is your attribution, not mine. Most people do work for money rather than for love, but I don't think that makes most people "greedy" or them, specifically, greedy.

As we are not speaking of volunteers, since you believe that they are not there for the money, then why?

What I said is "by choice"; "foolish" is your own judgement call, not mine.

While I did say he liked the oil and I do believe that oil figured into his decision, you are wrong about "simply".

Regular unleaded is $2.59 per gallon where I am.

If you look back and think about it, the motives that you assumed I attributed to the contractors (whom I don't necessarily disagree with), didn't come from me. "Greedy" and "foolish" are your interpretations of "for money" and "by choice".

That's how it seems to me, anyhow.

 

Hey, Daisy, just curious, is this where you go to church?

www.brickchurch.org

 

Daisy,

I reread all posts in this thread and i did not find anyone calling you a liar (carpro did get close however). Yet you directly accused one poster of being a liar. That is what I was referring to. If I misread what you said, then I apologize for stating you did. No post should call anyone on this forum a liar.

I have not questioned your salvation. I merely stated that Our Savior has said "by their fruits you shall know them". If the shoe fits...

As to bullying you, you must subscribe to the liberal view that anyone who disagrees or asks a question is a bully.

I simply stated the truth. You had not answered the question, then I repeated it.

 

How very kind of you to tell me what is important to me. Thank you.

I disagree. You know very well that registration to this board requires that members affirm their Christianity. I am a registered member. Are you implying that I have since changed my faith?

Well then?

Why this persistence?

And I have a right to ask was anyone here attacking Christ? Was anyone attacking Daisy? Answer honestly.

 

Enoch, do you even understand what I wrote?
What do you consider to be "poisonous" in it?

As opposed to your own entirely neutral view?
I am not pro-Islam but neither do I think that all Moslems should be exterminated. Does that make me biased in your eyes, Enoch?

Since you did answer the question first and since you've asked so sweetly, I'll tell you: my husband is not Christian - yet - nor is he Moslem; he is a Deist. His family is not observant; his father never taught him how to pray.

Why did you use the word "admit" as though I had hidden something?

 

hmmm, good one, carpro, especially considering the reference. Not bad, really.

Enjoying the Daisy-bashing, I trust? </font>[/QUOTE]Not much.

I am glad to see that you realize where and how all this "Daisy bashing" began.

When you wrote: "The contractors who were decapitated were mercenaries, hired guns, killers. They were not electricians, plumbers or construction workers. Of any of the invaders, they seem to me the least innocent and the most appropriate target."

You made a mistake and were slow to admit it. The reaction from a number of other members should have been enough to tip you off that there was a real problem with what you wrote.

Even now, knowing that you realize your error, I still take exception to some of your characterizations of the contractors whose bodies were dismembered. While there may be some justification to calling them "hired guns" and maybe even "mercenaries", I don't believe there has ever been any evidence presented that they were "killers".

I just beieve , over all, that your post was out of line and "over the top". Most of us do that from time to time. It's important that we all recognize when we have done so.

So, as a result of all that has come of this post, I know I have walked a fine line in some of my posts and may have stepped over on accasion. For those occasions, I offer you my apologies.

 

Daisy
By the word “admit” I clearly meant you stated it as true. Thank you for sharing about your husband. I really do not have time to quote all of your thoughts I found immensely troubling. Maybe tomorrow? But I pretty much agree with everyone else on your offensive statements. I get the feeling there is much more to your story Daisy and after I posted last night I prayed for you, sincerely.

 

Oh, yes. If a poster has an unpopular opinion, many posters feel free to question her Christianity and patriotism; at least one feels justified in grossly and deliberately misrepresenting what she said and what she feels in order to feed the hate; most just pile on.

I appreciate those who took the discussion seriously and refrained from personal attacks.

A mistake is not a lie, as you characterized it. Sure I was slow, I don't read every thread every day. I had lost track of this thread until you called it to my attention. What a terrible sin to have committed.

Yes, we must all have the Proper Opinion or risk getting bashed hard on a personal level. Got 'cha.

Right, those were toy guns with toy bullets.

So your remedy is to demonize the poster rather than discuss the issues?

Like when you said I was lying? Or when you said "Daisy thinks it's OK to behead contractors" when you knew very well that that is not what Daisy thinks?

My word, you are a persistent saint! I thank you humbly for showing me the errors of my ways. I will never again claim that mercenaries seem less innocent than babes in arms.

 

Ok, let's look at your first mention of these "mercenaries."

So now it's "emphatically wrong" to kill them? Earlier it was more, "Oh you shouldn't do that, but I guess it's understandable."

 

Oh, yes. If a poster has an unpopular opinion, many posters feel free to question her Christianity and patriotism; at least one feels justified in grossly and deliberately misrepresenting what she said and what she feels in order to feed the hate; most just pile on.

I appreciate those who took the discussion seriously and refrained from personal attacks.

A mistake is not a lie, as you characterized it. Sure I was slow, I don't read every thread every day. I had lost track of this thread until you called it to my attention. What a terrible sin to have committed.

Yes, we must all have the Proper Opinion or risk getting bashed hard on a personal level. Got 'cha.

Right, those were toy guns with toy bullets.

So your remedy is to demonize the poster rather than discuss the issues?

Like when you said I was lying? Or when you said "Daisy thinks it's OK to behead contractors" when you knew very well that that is not what Daisy thinks?

My word, you are a persistent saint! I thank you humbly for showing me the errors of my ways. I will never again claim that mercenaries seem less innocent than babes in arms. </font>[/QUOTE]Your initial post was either a mistake or you were lying. Since at first you denied making a mistake, it would be logical to believe you were lying. Since you now realize you made a mistake, it would mean you were mistaken. What you were and what you are is in your control.

I don't know why but I thought you would react to an apology this way. An offered apology that is rejected and mocked is a decidedly un-Christian attitude. That may explain why you say "Jesus Christ is very nice".

It's the same opinion of Jesus that I have heard expressed by a lot of non believers. Not that that's what you are, but that 's the same line.

 

Altough the original question about whether or not Daisy and her family were Christian may have been legit, I do not feel that what has happened since has been. I, for one, would not have been bullied into an answer either.

Let us leave off the focus on one of our long term members please and focus instead on the topic at hand.

That topic may be found in the OP.

If we can't continue on topic this thread will be closed.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

[ July 29, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Where? In the original post where I made the mistake?

Or in my second post in this thread which begins: "Sorry, my mistake...?

Your "apology" for what you say you "may" have done (rather than for anything you actually did do), coming as it did at the end a post which you continued to excoriate me and accompanied by a smiley indicating you consider yourself a "saint", seemed to me a hollow mockery of an actual apology. That your very next post continues in the same manner, bespeaks the sincerity of your "apology". However, if a non-apology is, in fact, the best that you are capable of, welll, you have my condolences.

But, enough about me.

Let us consider the Third Rule of the OP:

Is understanding someone the same as excusing them?

I don't believe it is. I still think it is better to try to understand why anyone would do something which so essentially incomprehensible than to remain ignorant. To try to understand other people is to understand the human condition and oneself. The more you learn about other cultures, other ways of being, the more you learn about your own. I consider that to be a good thing.

For those of you who disagree, totally or in part, that understanding our enemies has any value - practical, moral, personal, intellectual or spiritual - please explain why you disagree. It is the "whys" that are most interesting.

 

Where? In the original post where I made the mistake?

Or in my second post in this thread which begins: "Sorry, my mistake...?

Your "apology" for what you say you "may" have done (rather than for anything you actually did do), coming as it did at the end a post which you continued to excoriate me and accompanied by a smiley indicating you consider yourself a "saint", seemed to me a hollow mockery of an actual apology. That your very next post continues in the same manner, bespeaks the sincerity of your "apology". However, if a non-apology is, in fact, the best that you are capable of, welll, you have my condolences.

</font>[/QUOTE]I can't remember another time that a Christian has refused to accept my apology.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

 

This discussion of apologies and acceptances and doubting salvations has gone on long enough.

This thread is closed.

Roger
C4K
Moderator