Zerb retracts... thanks
I was referred to the other day, remotely, by the Toronto Star's "Zerb"... but in a not nice way. Today, she linked to me directly when she posted a retraction...
Though I still don't agree with the majority of your views, Zerb. ;-)
3. Some right-wing bloggers have complained that I unfairly maligned them by saying that I did not note that they had updated their posts to reflect that doubts had been cast on the original Post story by Chris Wattie. (...) They are correct. I should have noted that.Appology accepted... and appreciated.
Though I still don't agree with the majority of your views, Zerb. ;-)
posted by Christian Conservative @ 10:26 p.m.
15 Comments:
At Mon May 22, 12:14:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I'm sorry...your twitish "Zerb Retraction" has far less to do with anything substantial Antonia Zerbisias said than your participation in the whole BLOOD LIBEL of Iranians.
You are still responsible for the BLOOD LIBEL.
At Mon May 22, 12:58:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Anon:
Firstly, nice courage with the user name. You're a modern-day folk hero.
Or not.
On a serious note, you both have a point, and don't. On the plus side of your perspective, Andrew - unsurprisingly - jumped right on the bandwagon. Since I used to be very similar in temperment, I'd assume that this was an attempt to make Christianity's history or current track record on human rights and progressive thought look better by pointing the finger at Islam, because that is what I used to do. He saw the story, and tried to jump right in the gravy train without realizing he was actually the turkey. You're right on that count.
On the other side, he retracted his comments. He said he was wrong, and admitted Iran wasn't doing this. As far as I'm concerned, the "BLOOD LIBEL" ends at that point, with the retraction. A more specific apology to the Iranian government would have been better, but that isn't about to happen, I don't think.
"your twitish "Zerb Retraction" has far less to do with anything substantial Antonia Zerbisias said than your participation in the whole BLOOD LIBEL of Iranians."
I firstly don't think posting that was to equivocate between the magnitude of his error and that of Zerbisias; I believe it was to do damage control and help people realize that not every right-wing blogger is as "twittish" as some are. Even Canada Cynic (I believe) complimented him on not deleting the posts and attempting to white-wash the affair. All he's doing is reminding people that a mistake was made, it has been corrected, let's move on. It's actually the only politically astute move I've seen Andrew make on this blog in quite some time, and for him to actually have an affect on a bigger name like a Star blogger bears witness to that. Give the devil his due; he's making the best out of a bad situation.
Now, whether or not a lesson was learned from all this will be revealed in time, I guess.
At Mon May 22, 01:14:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Give us all a break, you silly hypocrite. Jesus doesn't demand that you talk your way out of sin. You've participated in BLOOD LIBEL, about the worst sin imaginable.
Good luck...because you're gonna need it.
At Mon May 22, 02:34:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Jesus doesn't demand that you talk your way out of sin."
Uh, are you addressing me? If so, I'd respond that "BLOOD LIBEL" is, in fact, a sin of writing (not talking), and ask how else can one possibly make it right other than by retracting and apologizing for what has been done? And that's what Andrew did.
And, since it seems you were addressing me, I'd wonder if the sin of "BLOOD LIBEL" is applicable to somebody who wrote the following things: "Give us all a break, you silly hypocrite...Good luck...because you're gonna need it."
And, as for the luck, I doubt I'll need it much if I'm doomed to spend the rest of my life going back-and-forth with homeschool dropouts like you. I can get by just fine without it.
At Mon May 22, 06:48:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
ananymous' claim of "Blood LIBEL" is way out of line. He or she obvious knows very little about either Iran or the Zerb. Thus such comment do not assist in honest debate.
At Mon May 22, 12:36:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"BLOOD LIBEL"? Anyone care to fill me in on what exactly I did that might qualify as that?
I think my mistake was that I put to much faith in a story in the MSM, and, upon realizing that it was in doubt, I retracted my comments until it can be either verified or debunked.
Anyone else care to help me out on this one?
At Mon May 22, 12:49:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"I'd assume that this was an attempt to make Christianity's history or current track record on human rights and progressive thought look better by pointing the finger at Islam, because that is what I used to do."
??? Amm, you'd be wrong there. It was an attempt to alert people to possible impending attrocities against the people of God, the Jews... but turned out that the story was in doubt... so we can all go back down to Defcon 4...
"I believe it was to do damage control and help people realize that not every right-wing blogger is as "twittish" as some are"
On that note, you'd be correct. I'd rather not go down in flames over something that I was clearly incorrect about! (I've got a big enough mouth to do that on my own... thank you very much)
At Mon May 22, 01:13:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"It was an attempt to alert people to possible impending attrocities against the people of God, the Jews..."
I see. So Jews deserve special protection by virtue of their Jewishness?!? This is what you're saying, and given the totality of your comments here, is pretty clearly your attitude.
I think my dispensationalism just might have rolled over and died with this one statement. What a horrible thing to say.
At Mon May 22, 01:33:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Blake, ANY people group deserves our collective protection from tyrany, not just the nation of Israel. As the people of Israel seem to be more picked on than many others, I pipe up to defend them more frequently.
True, they have a special place in Biblical prophecy, but that should not entitle them to any special treatment... we are ALL created "in the image of God", and all should be defended equally.
At Mon May 22, 02:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Blake, ANY people group deserves our collective protection from tyrany, not just the nation of Israel."
I quite agree, but if that's the case, why mention that they are the "people of God"? (And even a brief scan of the NT ought to put the lie to the idea that unbelieving Israel is "the people of God".)
"As the people of Israel seem to be more picked on than many others, I pipe up to defend them more frequently."
I think there are plenty of people who might raise an objection to this statement, like Tibetians, political prisoners, etc. Granted, Israel is not favourite friend of most people on the political left, but they have their own nation-state, well-equipped army, political and personal freedoms, a reasonably high quality of life, and the ability to kick their neighbours around pretty much as they please. I think there are plenty of people in the Baltic states, Africa, former Soviet republics, and for example Tibet who don't think Israel's so hard done by. And they kind of have a point. But the thing is, we don't hear about these people from you very much; Israel, we do.
I understand Israel's place in dispensationalist prophetic paradigms, and I do get that they've not exactly been given a friendly hug by their neighbours. But no nation deserves special treatment from us; Israel also has plenty of blood on its hands, and needs to be held accountable for that. I notice most dispensationalists are loathe to do that.
At Mon May 22, 04:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"Israel also has plenty of blood on its hands, and needs to be held accountable for that. I notice most dispensationalists are loathe to do that."
Not I... they're not the repentant state of Israel, yet.
At Mon May 22, 04:17:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Not I... they're not the repentant state of Israel, yet."
???
"people of God, the Jews..."
I have a phone call from a Mr. Inconsistency for you sir, but it didn't come in on the same line as he called last time. ;)
At Mon May 22, 05:25:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Hey! No inconsistency there! As per Gen. 12 and other passages, they are "chosen", but as they rejected their Messiah, they're presently in a state of unrepentance.
In a married couple, if one partner walks away, they were still "chosen" by the other spouse. In the end, there can be restoration only if the leaving spouse repents and returns.
Or, in our day and age, it can end in divorce. Sure glad God doesn't do things our way. ;-)
An example of this is Hosea 2:2-23
At Mon May 22, 06:15:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
You didn't say, "people chosen by God [for some future glory]", you said they are the "people of God" (as in, right now), which are two entirely different things. Unbelieving Israel as of today is not the people of God, as the NT is rather clear in stating. I would even also state that Israel's election for future things is fairly narrow in scope, when one considers the rather negligible size of the remnant to come out of Israel as potrayed in the apocalyptic literature in the Bible.
I know you believe all this, that there is no disagreement here, I'm just pointing out that your choice of terminology sucked. ;)
At Mon May 22, 07:04:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Ahh... well then, your choice of terminology in pointing out my poor choice in terminology sucked, cause I wasn't trackin with ya. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home