All charming people have something to conceal - usually their total dependence on the appreciation of others.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
[thought for the day] tuesday evening
All charming people have something to conceal - usually their total dependence on the appreciation of others.
[whodunnit 1] first of a holmes series
This is what I sometimes did with the Year 9s. See how you go:
Sherlock Holmes received an urgent telegram from a client who felt certain that his life was in danger. Holmes and Watson hurried to his lodgings only to find that they were too late. The man had been murdered minutes before they had arrived.
Sherlock Holmes received an urgent telegram from a client who felt certain that his life was in danger. Holmes and Watson hurried to his lodgings only to find that they were too late. The man had been murdered minutes before they had arrived.
"I found him lying there," said the landlady. "Before he died, he muttered something about belonging to a secret club and quoted the number 92."
"Damned strange thing to say, Holmes," said Watson. Holmes nodded in agreement. "Did he say anything else?" Holmes asked the landlady.
"I asked him who had done this terrible thing to him, but he just repeated the number 92!" she answered.
Holmes thanked her for her help and discharged her. He then proceeded to search the dead man's room, coming across a letter addressed to the man from the other three members of the secret club.
Their names were Wilson, Updike and Brown. In the top left of the letter was the name of the dead man, Smith (Code 69).From this, Holmes deduced that he had been murdered by another member of the club, and that the number that he had uttered to the landlady was in fact the code number of the murderer.
Holmes then supplied the name of the killer.
What was that name? More importantly, on what basis did you decide on him? The answer is tucked away down below in white. You'll need to highlight.
Wilson - each letter has a number.
[crisis] what crisis?
There is a tendency in the blogosphere to look at the "micro", e.g. the abolition of the 10p tax rate and rightly so.
However, not enough attention is given to the "macro" - the overall game plan globally and any who attempt this are caught up in a hostile barrage of cliches about "truthers" and "conspiracy theories", among other things.
It astounds me by what sort of logic these cliches are trotted out as a first knee-jerk reaction. For example, there is most certainly a change in the world's weather. Whether it is a downward point on a hundred year graph or whether something direr I shan't argue here but those who then say "it isn't man made" really mean "it isn't the common man's fault".
That's what it comes down to.
And the Gorites with all the "carbon footprint" bullsh - they are the ones who are milking the issue for all it's worth so to agree that there is a change taking place - does that put us in bed with the illuminists? And what's with all the cliches and catchcries?
I'm not interested in the cliches, I don't have an agenda to push. I'm an ordinary person trying to make sense of the plethora of words.
And this denial of the very principle of collusion - for example, Lisbon being voted on in Ireland - is that not evidence of collusion with Barros et al? And what's this denial of collusion anyway? Don't people collude to protect their interests wherever they are? Aren't the Round Tables in Europe logically going to do that? Isn't the Bilderberg Conference going to press for a certain world view? Aren't you going to collude with your partner for your mutual interests?
Isn't this simply logic?
And what's with this catchcry "conspiracy theorist" the moment someone draws attention to a global issue? Where's the theory in this? It's simple logic.
When Fred Gates said, in 1904:
... is that not a commentary on what we are now seeing - the surveillance moves, the tightening of security, ID cards, global databases which mysteriously lose data, the Milliband EU army, China's muscle flexing, e.g. in Africa, the U.S. housing and sub-prime crises, the UK abolition of 10p taxation and the shifting of the poor onto tax credit dependence and so on and so on and so on.
That's what it comes down to.
And the Gorites with all the "carbon footprint" bullsh - they are the ones who are milking the issue for all it's worth so to agree that there is a change taking place - does that put us in bed with the illuminists? And what's with all the cliches and catchcries?
I'm not interested in the cliches, I don't have an agenda to push. I'm an ordinary person trying to make sense of the plethora of words.
And this denial of the very principle of collusion - for example, Lisbon being voted on in Ireland - is that not evidence of collusion with Barros et al? And what's this denial of collusion anyway? Don't people collude to protect their interests wherever they are? Aren't the Round Tables in Europe logically going to do that? Isn't the Bilderberg Conference going to press for a certain world view? Aren't you going to collude with your partner for your mutual interests?
Isn't this simply logic?
And what's with this catchcry "conspiracy theorist" the moment someone draws attention to a global issue? Where's the theory in this? It's simple logic.
When Fred Gates said, in 1904:
In our dreams we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands...
... is that not a commentary on what we are now seeing - the surveillance moves, the tightening of security, ID cards, global databases which mysteriously lose data, the Milliband EU army, China's muscle flexing, e.g. in Africa, the U.S. housing and sub-prime crises, the UK abolition of 10p taxation and the shifting of the poor onto tax credit dependence and so on and so on and so on.
And now this:
Japan's acute butter shortage, which has confounded bakeries, restaurants and now families across the country, is the latest unforeseen result of the global agricultural commodities crisis.
A sharp increase in the cost of imported cattle feed and a decline in milk imports, both of which are typically provided in large part by Australia, have prevented dairy farmers from keeping pace with demand.
While soaring food prices have triggered rioting among the starving millions of the third world, in wealthy Japan they have forced a pampered population to contemplate the shocking possibility of a long-term — perhaps permanent — reduction in the quality and quantity of its food.
A 130% rise in the global cost of wheat in the past year, caused partly by surging demand from China and India and a huge injection of speculative funds into wheat futures, has forced the Government to hit flour millers with three rounds of stiff mark-ups.
Ellee Seymour comes at it from the citizen's angle:
Am I the only shopper who has noticed that shelves in supermarket stores are not as plentiful as they used to be? In the last few weeks when I’ve popped into Tesco, it’s almost like the pre-Christmas rush has taken place, there are lots of unfilled spaces on the shelves.I’ve just read that one of the UK’s biggest meat processing companies has been forced to close a factory blaming soaring food inflation, and 450 people have lost their jobs.
Faccenda Group, the second-biggest chicken processing company in Britain, said it had been hit by the rocketing cost of wheat - a key ingredient in chicken feed - which has more than doubled in the past year.
And there are also reports that some some retail chains are stockpiling goods, afraid that their suppliers will go bust due to rising prices.
One of the UK’s largest cash-and-carry chains has increased the volume of vegetable oil and rice that it holds in its warehouses and is understood to have spent £10 million on extra stock. How long before other outlets follow suit, spreading panic?
Stockpiling promotes fear and greed, the instinct for self-survival kicks in, of caring for your own, it can bring out the worst in people’s natures.
This is insanity which Ellee is touching on - this is a return to mass uneasiness and helplessness, global eco-collapse, world war and so on. The pre-WW2 scenario. This is the USSR handout mentality, the British rationing, the American food queues - buddy, can you spare a dime. This is the current policy direction and have any of these policies borne fruit as yet or have they sunk us even deeper in the mire? Please tell me.
And all avoidable.
Yes there is a soaring population worldwide, particularly in AIDS infested Africa and Asia. Yes there is a biofuel ad speculative food crisis world wide. Bird flu is just one manifestation of the essential limitation of humans of a certain ilk at the top trying to out-God G-d. Anyone remember the Tower of Babel?
Hey - humans cannot sort out their problems on their own. They are incompetent, they make errors, they have no long term strategy, they're gullible, as Fred Gates pointed out and the people at the top hold all the cards. You hold food, water and the air we breathe in your hands and you have control, whether markets collapse or whatever.
Here are some snippets on population - here, here and here, this latter where David Cameron says:
But the net figure is currently too high, he will say, “so we need policy to reduce the level of net immigration – and we also need policy to reduce the pressure of household formation”.
Ho ho - reduce household formation? Meaning families. Oh yeah - the illumined plank of destruction of the family as a means of controlling population growth? Great stuff, David.
And is there an unofficial depopulation agenda or not? Well one blogpost can't answer that but here's some reading on the matter and one quote from the editors:
While some aspects of the depopulation agenda remain murky and speculative -- its precise implementation and how it will unfold, the evidence for the existence of an intentional depopulation agenda itself is overwhelming. The public record is clear and available for all to read.
And if that is one of the goals, then here are some methods of achieving it, whilst ostensibly finding a solution for it. Here are some other methods.
No governmental interference in any of this? All just happened by itself? If even part of this report is true, then it is food for thought:
Introduction to "The Population Factor'', in "Down to Earth", HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988:
Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation--and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism--are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.
"People" interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Dec. 21, 1981, "Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation'':
The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
Now be honest - you half agree with him, don't you? Over-population is a major problem and if a billion Africans and Asians perish, well that only means increased security for you and your family, it eases the pressure on food, as demonstrated in the 2008/2009 global food crisis and heck - how will their perishing affect you? They're living on another continent. Heck, if they can't look after themselves, they don't deserve to live, right?
Therein lie the seeds of elitism, conveniently ignoring human ethical standards, giving the nod to extreme solutions to problems artificially exacerbated. What separates us from the beasts when we go along with these subtle suggestions? Are we any better than the fair citizens at the Nuremburg rallies?
Looking at all the aforementioned in summary, could and would an Andy Jackson or Churchill or Ben Chifley or whoever be able to help defuse the human timebomb ticking away? Would they seize the moment and reverse the acquiescence to the coming genocide? Are we morally untainted - you and I?
People, in our cozy British, British Commonwealth and North American living rooms, we think we are still safe in April, 2008 except, that is, for Ellee's first speculative query that things might not be quite so good for us as we'd supposed.
Out there in the wider world there are already rioting, looting and mass deaths.To invoke a well worn cliche myself - please, I beg of you, readers:
Wake up and smell the coffee.
[youth strategy] negotiating your father
Don't normally run these things but as She passed it along to me, I'll post it:A father passing by his son's bedroom was astonished to see that his bed was nicely made and everything was picked up.
Then he saw an envelope, propped up prominently on the pillow that was addressed to "Dad." With the worst premonition he opened the envelope with trembling hands and read the letter.
Dear Dad:
It is with great regret and sorrow that I'm writing you.
I had to elope with my new girlfriend because I wanted to avoid a scene with Mom and you. I have been finding real passion with Stacy and she is so nice.
But I knew you would not approve of her because of all her piercing, tattoos, tight motorcycle clothes and the fact that she is much older than I am. But it's not only the passion...Dad she's pregnant.
Stacy said that we will be very happy. She owns a trailer in the woods and has a stack of firewood for the whole winter. We share a dream of having many more children. Stacy has opened my eyes to the fact that marijuana doesn't really hurt anyone. We'll be growing it for ourselves and trading it with the other people that live nearby for cocaine and ecstasy.
In the meantime we will pray that science will find a cure for AIDS so Stacy can get better. She deserves it. Don't worry Dad. I'm 15 and I know how to take care of myself. Someday I'm sure that we will be back to visit so that you can get to know your grandchildren.
Love, Your Son John
PS. Dad, none of the above is true. I'm over at Tommy's house. I just wanted to remind you that there are worse things in life than a report card. That's in my center desk drawer. I love you. Call me when it's safe to come home.
Monday, April 21, 2008
[thought for the day] monday evening
You write with ease to show your breeding
But easy writing's vile hard reading.
[Sheridan, 1771]
[self indulgence] feel a limerick coming on
The Swearing Mother has gone all limericky and wishes us to participate in an orgy of limericism about ourselves.
Her own contribution is here. My humble addition to the anthology is:
Behind the mild manners a raptor
Unless some sweet lady's his captor
Looks after his dears
Then bores them to tears
To write more would need a full chapter
[epidemics] useful things in some hands
Only once was I gulled into having flu shots. That winter I had two bouts of severe flu, the second almost knocking the Higham into the Choir Invisible [or Furnace Stokers as the case may be.] From then on, avoiding these shots like the plague, major bouts of illness were avoided.
Interesting to see flu vaccine questioned here as well:
Might be worth looking at the great epidemics:
Concerning the current Moscow epidemic:
Inevitably, in discussing flu epidemics, the name of Heinrich Muller and the book Gestapo Chief : The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Muller, Volume 3 comes up. Here is a comment which accepts Mueller's doings as authentic and here is one which rejects them.
The book includes:
The book states he also said:
So we're left with the usual dilemma - whether to believe the sceptics or those who are convinced it is genuine. Just hearsay or genuine evidence?
Wiki says, about biological warfare:
Influenza does not appear there and the history of viral research is not clear. While it was 1939 before microscopy saw the virus, it's introduction to bacteria was known of before the 1918 cut off date, in fact since the turn of the century.
My own feeling is that it is scarcely necessary to "introduce" a virus. One only needs to create the social preconditions for it to develop. For example, the movement of Russian prisoners was sufficient for typhus to spread during the war.
From my reading, [of which a certain amount appears as blogposts], there are certain recognizable characteristics to Them. One is the fixation with untraceability, which in itself presupposes a concern for "official" innocence.
Now this has always puzzled me. Great lengths are gone to to appear legitimate, when one wonders why they'd bother - if they hold all the cards, to whom must they appear legitimate?
Reports on possible terrorists got lost in the works or rejected and this terrorist later turned up at 911. Who was culpable? No one. It was a stuff up, that's all - official incompetence. The powers that be were as pure as the driven snow.
And even if my contention were accepted, there'd not be a lot which could be done.
Interesting to see flu vaccine questioned here as well:
What’s gone wrong with the vaccine then? According to the times, what makes it so hard for a vaccine to effectively prevent the flu is that the virus changes from year to year and experts would have to GUESS what forms of virus will be circulating for the next flu season based on the current year. Based on the guesstimation, experts formulate a vaccine to protect against those targeted strains. The newspaper goes on to explain usually the experts' guess work is pretty good and make the vaccine's efficacy at 70 to 90 percent in healthy adults. But this year they guessed it wrong and made many recipients miserable.
Might be worth looking at the great epidemics:
World War I claimed an estimated 16 million lives. The influenza epidemic that swept the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. One fifth of the world's population was attacked by this deadly virus. Within months, it had killed more people than any other illness in recorded history.
Concerning the current Moscow epidemic:
Doctors consider vaccination to be the most effective means of fighting flu, and schools regularly run vaccination programs. Adults can be inoculated year round at GPs' clinics or polikliniky. Modern vaccines contain no live viruses and so are considered safe but are only effective if boosted annually.
Inevitably, in discussing flu epidemics, the name of Heinrich Muller and the book Gestapo Chief : The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Muller, Volume 3 comes up. Here is a comment which accepts Mueller's doings as authentic and here is one which rejects them.
The book includes:
The interrogator, James Kronthal, the CIA Bern Station Chief asked Mueller to explain "double blow virus."
Mueller: "I am not a doctor, you understand, but the 'double-blow' referred to a virus, or actually a pair of them that worked like a prize fighter. The first blow attacked the immune system and made the victim susceptible, fatally so, to the second blow which was a form of pneumonia...[Schreiber told me] a British scientist actually developed it...Now you see why such things are insanity. These things can alter themselves and what starts out as a limited thing can change into something really terrible." [p106]
The book states he also said:
"If Stalin invades Europe...a little disease here and there would wipe out Stalin's hoards and leave everything intact. Besides, a small bottle of germs is so much cheaper than an atom bomb, isn't it? Why you could hold more soldiers in your hand than Stalin could possibly command and you don’t have to feed them clothes them or supply them with munitions. On the other hand, the threat of war...does wonders... for the economy." [p108]
So we're left with the usual dilemma - whether to believe the sceptics or those who are convinced it is genuine. Just hearsay or genuine evidence?
Wiki says, about biological warfare:
Diseases considered for weaponization, or known to be weaponized include anthrax (TR), ebola, Marburg virus, plague (LE), cholera (HO), tularemia (SR & JT), brucellosis (US, AB, & AM), Q fever (OU), machupo, Coccidioides mycosis (OC), Glanders (LA), Melioidosis (HI), Shigella (Y), Rocky Mountain spotted fever(UY), typhus (YE), Psittacosis(SI), yellow fever (UT), Japanese B encephalitis (AN), Rift Valley fever (FA), and smallpox (ZL)[13]. Naturally-occurring toxins that can be used as weapons include ricin (WA), SEB (UC), botulism toxin (XR), saxitoxin (TZ), and many mycotoxins.
Influenza does not appear there and the history of viral research is not clear. While it was 1939 before microscopy saw the virus, it's introduction to bacteria was known of before the 1918 cut off date, in fact since the turn of the century.
My own feeling is that it is scarcely necessary to "introduce" a virus. One only needs to create the social preconditions for it to develop. For example, the movement of Russian prisoners was sufficient for typhus to spread during the war.
From my reading, [of which a certain amount appears as blogposts], there are certain recognizable characteristics to Them. One is the fixation with untraceability, which in itself presupposes a concern for "official" innocence.
Now this has always puzzled me. Great lengths are gone to to appear legitimate, when one wonders why they'd bother - if they hold all the cards, to whom must they appear legitimate?
Reports on possible terrorists got lost in the works or rejected and this terrorist later turned up at 911. Who was culpable? No one. It was a stuff up, that's all - official incompetence. The powers that be were as pure as the driven snow.
And even if my contention were accepted, there'd not be a lot which could be done.
[apostasy] mortal or venial sin?
The question of becoming Muslim has been on my mind recently for personal reasons but there is the huge barrier of "apostasy" to overcome.
The Muslim idea is that Islam is the next step after Christianity and so to then revert, once there, is a backward step. They are true to their faith, the Muslims, so I have no problem with this view.
The more I read and learn about Islam, the more I realize the extremists are unjustified.
Just as the Crusades had about as much to do with Christianity as Beelzebub - what, they wore a big red cross, did they - so 911, Bali and Beslan also had about as much to do with the way the faith should be followed as Beelzebub.
Interesting article on Muslim apostasy:
So what about the other way - the Christian who reverts once he's accepted the redeeming power of Jesus of Nazareth?
Here we get into the area of the Holy Spirit. The theory is that you become Christian the moment you do two things - believe in that redeeming power [which entails accepting the Trinity] and then live a life as close to that expressed in the Sermon on the Mount as well as you can.
That's basically it.
The Trinity is the Father, the Logos [or Word] and the Spirit - the latter the least understood of them all. Without getting bogged down in theology, this is the day-to-day "force" which enters you at the point of acceptance and then directs your conscience, provides protection and comfort and generally does cool things inside you.
So what happens if you go back on this force and do dirt on it?
Well, the Catholics [of which I am not one, as I don't accept the middle-man status of the priest between my Maker and me and don't elevate Mary to a status of worship*] probably put it the most clearly:
So, what is a "grave" matter? One of these is blasphemy against the spirit, a troubling passage in Christian scripture. Again the Catholics say of this:
So, in a nutshell, the whole point of this is to once accept the "grace of G-d" but then to deliberately reject it at a later time. Whether you could then turn around once again and accept it a second time I have absolutely no idea.
Also, what of the atheist?
Well, though he's not going to share in any "heaven" by virtue of his non-belief, he still has every chance of redemption until the point of death. And my reading of this theology would put the ordinary agnostic or atheist in one category but Richard Dawkins, who goes out of his way to prevent people finding the connection with their Maker, would be in the mortal sin category and heading for a warm reception once he karks it.
Saul is an interesting point of discussion on this. He was clearly out to destroy on the road to Damascus but then seemingly still managed to come back from that.
An apostate though is another matter.
He is one who has deliberately turned his back on the redemptive power and therefore the connection with his Maker, once he has actually experienced it. Once you've actually experienced this high, you'd know what I mean when I say to then turn your back on this would not endear you.
An analogy would be anyone who accepts you as his/her life partner but then "trades you in" for another. Bit difficult to forgive, that would be.
A more spurious analogy is that of the PC user with Windows XP who sees the light and converts to MacOSX, experiences the superior technology and sheer elegance of the Mac, then turns round and goes back to bl--dy Vista or some such.
What an apostate. :)
So where does becoming a Muslim fit into this? If Islam is truly an extension of Christianity, then there is no conflict. But if it is not so, then the apostate ex-Christian is in trouble.
And the ex-Muslim?
Well, as a Muslim is one who submits to the one G-d and as Christians accept the one G-d, is the Muslim-Christian apostate or not? What if his motivation was a genuine desire to get closer to his G-d?
I'm personally in no position to give you any answers on these matters, still being a student at the University of Life.
* The point above about Catholics elevating Mary to "worship" status. Of course Catholics say they don't do this - they simply "venerate" Mary and if this were so, then there is really little between Catholic and Protestant theologically, except on the middle-man status of the confessional.
The Muslim idea is that Islam is the next step after Christianity and so to then revert, once there, is a backward step. They are true to their faith, the Muslims, so I have no problem with this view.
The more I read and learn about Islam, the more I realize the extremists are unjustified.
Just as the Crusades had about as much to do with Christianity as Beelzebub - what, they wore a big red cross, did they - so 911, Bali and Beslan also had about as much to do with the way the faith should be followed as Beelzebub.
Interesting article on Muslim apostasy:
Last week, British teacher Daud Hassan Ali, 64, was shot dead in Somalia. His widow, Margaret Ali, said her husband was targeted by Islamists who "believe it is ok to kill any man who was born into Islam and left the faith".Those renouncing their faith for atheism or agnosticism are viewed in a similar way to those who adopt another faith.
A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy. Until recently, I would have shared that view, but since personally rejecting extremism myself, I've been re-examining the issues which I once regarded as conclusive.
I was staggered to learn that the Quran does not say anything about punishing apostates and that its proponents use two hadiths instead to support their view. Hadiths are the recorded traditions and sayings of the Prophet which, in addition to the Quran, provide an additional source of Islamic law.
The hadiths which relate to apostasy are linguistically ambiguous and open to interpretation. Distinguished scholars told me that the hadiths actually speak about a death penalty for treason, not apostasy. And even then, they stressed the punishment is discretionary.
Dr Hisham Hellyer is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies at University of Oxford, and has researched classical Islamic law. He believes the death penalty punishment is no longer applicable and should be suspended under certain circumstances.
Usama Hassan, a Cambridge-educated scientist and an imam, goes further and says the classical scholars were wrong in how they interpreted the Quran. He is unequivocal in denouncing those who advocate the death penalty.
So what about the other way - the Christian who reverts once he's accepted the redeeming power of Jesus of Nazareth?
Here we get into the area of the Holy Spirit. The theory is that you become Christian the moment you do two things - believe in that redeeming power [which entails accepting the Trinity] and then live a life as close to that expressed in the Sermon on the Mount as well as you can.
That's basically it.
The Trinity is the Father, the Logos [or Word] and the Spirit - the latter the least understood of them all. Without getting bogged down in theology, this is the day-to-day "force" which enters you at the point of acceptance and then directs your conscience, provides protection and comfort and generally does cool things inside you.
So what happens if you go back on this force and do dirt on it?
Well, the Catholics [of which I am not one, as I don't accept the middle-man status of the priest between my Maker and me and don't elevate Mary to a status of worship*] probably put it the most clearly:
Q. What is the difference between a mortal sin and a venial sin?A. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must exist at the same time.
1. It must be of a grave matter;
2. It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin;
3. It must be committed with full consent.
So, what is a "grave" matter? One of these is blasphemy against the spirit, a troubling passage in Christian scripture. Again the Catholics say of this:
"Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss." (C.C.C. # 1864)
So, in a nutshell, the whole point of this is to once accept the "grace of G-d" but then to deliberately reject it at a later time. Whether you could then turn around once again and accept it a second time I have absolutely no idea.
Also, what of the atheist?
Well, though he's not going to share in any "heaven" by virtue of his non-belief, he still has every chance of redemption until the point of death. And my reading of this theology would put the ordinary agnostic or atheist in one category but Richard Dawkins, who goes out of his way to prevent people finding the connection with their Maker, would be in the mortal sin category and heading for a warm reception once he karks it.
Saul is an interesting point of discussion on this. He was clearly out to destroy on the road to Damascus but then seemingly still managed to come back from that.
An apostate though is another matter.
He is one who has deliberately turned his back on the redemptive power and therefore the connection with his Maker, once he has actually experienced it. Once you've actually experienced this high, you'd know what I mean when I say to then turn your back on this would not endear you.
An analogy would be anyone who accepts you as his/her life partner but then "trades you in" for another. Bit difficult to forgive, that would be.
A more spurious analogy is that of the PC user with Windows XP who sees the light and converts to MacOSX, experiences the superior technology and sheer elegance of the Mac, then turns round and goes back to bl--dy Vista or some such.
What an apostate. :)
So where does becoming a Muslim fit into this? If Islam is truly an extension of Christianity, then there is no conflict. But if it is not so, then the apostate ex-Christian is in trouble.
And the ex-Muslim?
Well, as a Muslim is one who submits to the one G-d and as Christians accept the one G-d, is the Muslim-Christian apostate or not? What if his motivation was a genuine desire to get closer to his G-d?
I'm personally in no position to give you any answers on these matters, still being a student at the University of Life.
* The point above about Catholics elevating Mary to "worship" status. Of course Catholics say they don't do this - they simply "venerate" Mary and if this were so, then there is really little between Catholic and Protestant theologically, except on the middle-man status of the confessional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)