EPTThe flight plan - Page 2
| Blogs > RebelHeart |
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
I think you might be on the right track there. If you really want my thoughts then I think it's great if you are actually going to help the poor, talk is much easier than action, but spreading fairy tales to impressionable people that are looking for answers to their suffering is wrong. Why was it so dangerous for the guy by the way? Was it maybe because Pakistan is a Muslim country and they were getting annoyed by the preachy Christians there? Muslims want to be converted to Christianity just as much as you want to be converted to Islam, which I'm guessing is not at all. Are all Muslims and Jews who lead good lives following their own religion but reject Christ joining Gandhi in hell too? | ||
|
fuglyfrog
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 00:27 boghat wrote: If you really want my thoughts then I think it's great if you are actually going to help the poor, talk is much easier than action, but spreading fairy tales to impressionable people that are looking for answers to their suffering is wrong. Quite true, but as Jesus states: "man can not live on bread alone, but needs the Word of God". Feeding people is only a part of helping them, but if you don't change their lifestyles they'll never get better and will only remain dependent on the wrong things. The missionary who gave the sermon went to Pakistan because the local schools were short of teachers (he and his wife filled the role of five teachers). Their school was attacked by Muslims with machine guns because they knew there were Christian teachers there (under their law, a Muslim is allowed to kill a Christian and not be subject to punishment), many were killed but for some reason their group of children survived because the room they were in was locked when the attack started and the attackers didn't bother breaking the door in. Edit: Apparently the law is not as I wrote - see below. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 02:22 fuglyfrog wrote: gl hf gg Re?  | ||
|
fuglyfrog
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On August 06 2007 04:37 RebelHeart wrote: (under their law, a Muslim is allowed to kill a Christian and not be subject to punishment) I'm sorry, but this is a lie. A bigoted lie that shouldn't go unchallenged. There is no clause in Pakistani law for murder that may acquit a defendant if he is Muslim and his victim is Christian. I have no doubt that being a Christian in Pakistan can be dangerous, particularly for a proselytizer, but Muslims cannot kill Christians free from punishment under the law (whether the law is enforced is another question, but I digress). There was a fairly famous case that received some news attention in the West back in 2004. A Pakistani police officer, named Faryad Ali, brutally murdered Samuel Masih, a Christian that was awaiting trial for blasphemy (he had heaped garden rubbish against the wall of a mosque), a crime that in Pakistan carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison. Blaspheming the Quran can carry a life sentence and blaspheming Muhammad the death penalty. Whether these penalties-- or even the laws themselves-- are just can and should, imo, be argued, but vigilantism isn't how the penalties are carried out. Ali was immediately jailed and charged with Masih's Qalt-i-Amd, or intentional murder. Qalt-i-Amd in Pakistan is punishable by Qasis: punishment by way of similar damage as the convict caused to the deceased. Qasis may be carried out by the Wali: chosen from the victim's relatives, or by the state. If a Pakistani Muslim is known to have murdered a Christian and the crime goes uncharged and unpunished, that is a corruption or failure of law, not an implementation of law. This is an important distinction. You don't need to lie about the severity of the conditions that Christians face in Pakistan to illicit sympathy for their hardships. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 06:14 Tadzio00 wrote: I'm sorry, but this is a lie. A bigoted lie that shouldn't go unchallenged. There is no clause in Pakistani law for murder that may acquit a defendant if he is Muslim and his victim is Christian. I have no doubt that being a Christian in Pakistan can be dangerous, particularly for a proselytizer, but Muslims cannot kill Christians free from punishment under the law (whether the law is enforced is another question, but I digress). There was a fairly famous case that received some news attention in the West back in 2004. A Pakistani police officer, named Faryad Ali, brutally murdered Samuel Masih, a Christian that was awaiting trial for blasphemy (he had heaped garden rubbish against the wall of a mosque), a crime that in Pakistan carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison. Blaspheming the Quran can carry a life sentence and blaspheming Muhammad the death penalty. Whether these penalties-- or even the laws themselves-- are just can and should, imo, be argued, but vigilantism isn't how the penalties are carried out. Ali was immediately jailed and charged with Masih's Qalt-i-Amd, or intentional murder. Qalt-i-Amd in Pakistan is punishable by Qasis: punishment by way of similar damage as the convict caused to the deceased. Qasis may be carried out by the Wali: chosen from the victim's relatives, or by the state. If a Pakistani Muslim is known to have murdered a Christian and the crime goes uncharged and unpunished, that is a corruption or failure of law, not an implementation of law. This is an important distinction. You don't need to lie about the severity of the conditions that Christians face in Pakistan to illicit sympathy for their hardships. Oh, well I'm sorry for getting it wrong but I was simply restating what the speaker told us, so whether or not he intended to lie I don't know. But he said one of his Muslim friends' friend converted and was beaten to death by his family and that it was allowed, and used it as an example of why he believed Islam is not a peaceful religion (I haven't read the Korean myself but I know Christians shouldn't be quick to judge considering our history with the Crusades and Ireland). He didn't even want to mention his friend's name in case there was a Muslim in the congregation who would relay that information back to Pakistan, but he also cited other cases such as a nurse being beaten and how they have to have secret prayer meetings. If you want you can write to him to straighten this out and tell him he got the law wrong, his name was Tom Scott and the Church e-mail address is office@stchristophers.org.nz. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On August 06 2007 07:19 RebelHeart wrote: Bah, Quaran, that is (I hope I spelt it right). lol. It has multiple spellings because it's not written in the roman alphabet. The most popular spellings in english are Koran, Quran, and Qu'ran. I'm not going to write your admired speaker. I have a feeling he told you that the people killing Christian-convert family members were not punished and you took it to mean that their actions were lawful. Probably, the crimes were ignored for cultural or corrupt reasons. If the speaker actually said the murder was lawful his whole message should be considered suspect. If his message was that Islam is a religion built on a foundation of violence, that should be a strong signal that he's looking at things through tunnel vision. However, writing someone from NZ whom I've never spoken to and who's message I've never heard or seen first-hand isn't an activity I value. Let him spread his hate-- and his love-- as he likes. If his audience cares about the message, they'll investigate to find truth. | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On August 05 2007 13:17 Aepplet wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism just an alternative. good luck. word | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 12:23 HeadBangaa wrote: Tadzio00 2 - 0 Rebelhart HeadBangaa - forfeit? | ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
| ||
| ||
