In recent days it’s come to light that many black people are living in fear in Libya. Black immigrants who came to Libya as workers are suspected of being loyalists to Qaddafi. They are subjected to arrest or worse.
The reporting on this has been strong. Much of it I’ve been impressed with. And pretty immediately it’s apparent who’s in danger from who. Poor, young blacks have become targets of Libyan rebels because they fear that they’re mercenaries in the employ of Qaddafi. It’s clear reporting.
Check out these headlines:
“Black migrants now live in fear in Libya”
-Los Angeles Times
“Libyan rebels round up black Africans”
-The Associated Press
“Poor, young blacks become rebel targets”
-Minneapolis Star Tribune
But sadly, one has to wonder why we’re getting obfuscation on other stories of murder and violence. Today, Reuters ran this headline: “Youths Kill Family of 8 in Restive Central Nigeria.”
Youths? Family of eight? What’s really going on there? As I’m sure you guessed, what really happened was that a Christian family of 8 was hacked To death by Muslim attackers.
The headline in this case is created almost for the sole purpose of obfuscating what actually happened. This goes on all the time now. In fact, the word “youth” has almost become code for rampaging and murderous Muslim gangs.
The thing is, I don’t think the media hold this stuff back because they love Muslims so much. I think what’s really at issue here is that they don’t trust Christians not to get carried away by this news. They don’t trust Christians not to start attacking Muslims. Christians are those gun-toting bitter clingers, you know. They don’t trust you and me so they think they’re actually helping to achieve peace by covering up the motive of murder.
Their silence is an insult to us and it’s an insult to those being slaughtered.
September 7, 2011 at 4:46 pm
>This is ridiculous, as anyone who has read history knows. There are many independent historical sources for the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible: Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, to name a few.
Nope, nope and nope, there are no direct witnesses of Jesus (most of those guys came after and the ones that didn't the authenticity of the Jesus bits are deeply questionable).
What they wrote mostly and accurately about are Christians, the followers of Jesus but no mention of any trouble causing Rabbi in Judea.
Weird isn't it? We have reams of stuff about Julius Caesar from both his own hand and his friends and enemies but nothing about Jesus. Not pictures, no graffiti, nothing.
You'd think a guy wandering about healing lepers and raising the dead would leave more of a mark. We have more data on Roman tax collectors than Jesus.
But show me, show me these historical records of which you speak, remember, looking for eye witness accounts of Jesus, not accounts of Christians, I know they are real, but of Jesus himself. No, not from the Bible, that's a silly book full of silly things, an independent historical source.
September 7, 2011 at 4:49 pm
>You're not going to convert anyone here; the quickness with which you resort to personal insults
Uh huh… what did Baldy call me first?
Oh yes…
You got nothing dude – just a blood thirsty, lustful and avaricious pig.
So I guess it's only bad when I do it?
Just like when Muslims do bad things it's because THEY'RE EVVVVVVIIIILLL! And when Catholics do bad things… well do Catholics and Christians do bad things? I'm pretty sure they do, being human and all, but I'm wondering if you notice / care?
September 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Hey Ricky? All that stuff has equivalence in the Old Testament and Christianity itself was spread by the sword, first in a Roman civil war than by the Christian Empire itself.
I know, I know, since Jesus is real it's okay to kill people who don't believe in him!
September 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm
@salvage: name a single instance when the Lord Jesus taught or directed his disciples to murder anyone. I want book, chapter and verse just like what I provided about Mohammed.
Re: "You got nothing dude – just a blood thirsty, lustful and avaricious pig." That was for Mo. And if flowed from the prior narrative about Jesus vs. Mohammed. Look at each virtue of Jesus vs. the corresponding vice of Mohammed.
And it's not about you dude. It's about the truth about Jesus vs. Mohammed. It's about life from Jesus vs. that taken by Mohammedans. It's about the way to God vs. the devil (Allah).
September 7, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Me: Mohammed taught his minions to murder the Jews and Christians.
Sal: "No, that's not true. In fact the early Muslims had a measure of respect for "peoples of the Book"….
Me:
Sal: "… All that stuff has equivalence in the Old Testament and Christianity itself…"
Me: So, it is true – contrary to your earlier assertion; however, it is OK because of similar verses in the OT et. al. (acc. to you)
With that, I'll end my thread here. You can have the last word. But come to my blog when you've opened your mind and heart to an honest quest for the Way, the Truth and the Life. You still have an immortal soul that my Lord came to redeem.
Or you can come here too at CMR. There's a lot of good people here to share their lives of faith with you. And don't forget my warning.
September 7, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Quoting:
"Uh huh… what did Baldy call me first?"
What, am I dad in the front seat mediating an argument between salvage and Rick in the back seat?
Anyway, I wasn't addressing anything Rick said, but, rather, your tendency on this and the other thread where we've been going back and forth to personally insult people when you disagree with them?
You know, even the Jesus Seminar people don't dispute that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical figure. If they could, I'm pretty certain they would.
So, really, why do you spend so much time standing outside the party throwing rocks in the window?
September 8, 2011 at 2:14 am
To be quite frank I am reluctant to enter this fray. As people on both sides of the issue are acting heatedly and that is a major roadblock to any understanding.
Salvage, I will say this: You have a point, the headline need not tell the entire story and it is not a unwise assumption to assume the reader will get the first page read at least.
That said, I do think some things do go unreported, but we need not argue that.
The reason I wish to post is I wish to share this view
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea1.asp
It is a commentary on the historicy of the person of Christ, and I think Tacitus' reference to Christ is pretty good evidence, especially if its a source that is otherwise considered valid historically. Why must that be discredited as the historicity of Christ? Is denying this follow the same scruntiny other sources of that era are subject to? Is the same scruntiny given to sources of Mohammed's time?
I'm no historian, I'm a computer scientist. But the evidence given in that article is enough to convince me of the historicity of the person of Christ, as to His claims….well, that is a whole other discussion.
September 8, 2011 at 4:07 am
Salvage, really? Let me guess, you are a militant atheist who oh so happy with his decision that he just has to go spread the joy by mocking others. You are neither original nor thought provoking. We get it…Jesus is a myth…God is a myth…yawn. you do not get history do you? If you want anything to grow…persecute it. If you want it to collapse, let it be crushed by the weight of its own complacency. Thank you for your service of your puerile attempts to persecute, it does give us pause to reinforce why we believe. You're not from PA are you?
September 8, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Isn't it interesting how the entire world changed to follow this guy who never existed?
It's kind of like those arguments that: there was no Bible right after Jesus – that it was written later – means that it was made up out of thin air. This is like arguing that because you don't have a Facebook page you don't exist.
Communication in the early church was face-to-face and by traditions, such as the Mass. That is one reason why, even today, The Bible is not the only source of guidance for the Church. (These were poor illiterate people, not the rich minting coins with Jesus image on them.) Tradition is our guidance as well. This is a key difference between Catholic and many Protestant churches.
The many miracles of the Christ were so well known and so awesome that the Church exploded by word of mouth. People saw, people knew. They believed and they told their children who did as well. There was no need for the pomp of documenting as an emperor the life that was being FELT and lived by the early church.
Of course that DID come later – and not much later either – when the Gospels were written in order to further spread "The Good News".
Either way, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is generally not disputed as it is overwhelming. Early martyrs being willingly tortured to death for nothing, on the other hand, strains credulity and logic.
As for what do you call a Christian who is doing something wrong? Evil – if the shoe fits. Anyone, Christian or otherwise is capable of grave and horrible sin.
However we are ALL also capable of doing amazing good too. The graces that God gives us through the Church do help us, so that it becomes easier to be and to do good. But we always have free will. If not, they we could not willingly and constantly make the choice to love God.