Pastor Saeed Abedini reportedly released in prisoner exchange

[ThisIsTheDay]

Praise be to God.

[Carol in Cal.]

Finally!

[Word Nerd]

His wife confirmed it as well.

 

More info. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35333656

[1bassoon]

Great news!

[Guest]

Wow!!!

[Heatherwith4]

Thank God!

[Chris in VA]

I am very happy for them. Been praying a long time.

 

I was totally surprised to see she has accused him of ongoing (even over Skype) spousal abuse, though.

 

If true (and I believe her), I hope they get all the counseling they need.

 

May God continue to hold them.

[Guest]

It's been a long time and I hope they both heal :(

[HRAAB]

Thankfully!

[East Coast Sue]

An answered prayer!

[umsami]

Very happy about this....and for the other prisoners and their families who were released too.  Faith/belief should be free...wherever one lives.

 

His wife, though, reported a history of domestic violence in her relationship with him, which makes we worried that she will feel pressured to stay with him.  I know she was a tireless campaigner to get him released, but now that he will be...I pray for her safety too.  (Although...I wonder how the abuse increased during his imprisonment (her words) unless it was emotional at that time, as they apparently Skyped.)  

Edited January 17, 2016 by umsami

[Guest]

Very happy about this....and for the other prisoners and their families who were released too. Faith/belief should be free...wherever one lives.

 

His wife, though, reported a history of domestic violence in her relationship with him, which makes we worried that she will feel pressured to stay with him. I know she was a tireless campaigner to get him released, but now that he will be...I pray for her safety too. (Although...I wonder how the abuse increased during his imprisonment (her words) unless it was emotional at that time, as they apparently Skyped.)

How on earth would they have Skyped when his Iranian family couldn't even visit him?? She went silent on FB in October, published an article that would discredit/cast doubt on him and two months later he's released.

I don't believe a word of that "report" for a second. I think she purposefully made it unbelievable.

[Word Nerd]

How on earth would they have Skyped when his Iranian family couldn't even visit him?? She went silent on FB in October, published an article that would discredit/cast doubt on him and two months later he's released.

I don't believe a word of that "report" for a second. I think she purposefully made it unbelievable.

I'm not following your train of thought here. What do you believe she had to gain by making an unbelievable report?

[Laurie4b]

How on earth would they have Skyped when his Iranian family couldn't even visit him?? She went silent on FB in October, published an article that would discredit/cast doubt on him and two months later he's released.

I don't believe a word of that "report" for a second. I think she purposefully made it unbelievable.

 

 

What purpose would that serve? 

[umsami]

How on earth would they have Skyped when his Iranian family couldn't even visit him?? She went silent on FB in October, published an article that would discredit/cast doubt on him and two months later he's released.

I don't believe a word of that "report" for a second. I think she purposefully made it unbelievable.

Why would she do that?  

 

While I agree that the whole Skype thing is weird...it could be that he was emotionally abusive during those calls.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't abusive prior in their marriage.  

 

DV Is very real and affects people from every religion, social class, race, etc.  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her claims, especially as she had nothing to gain by revealing them.  

[Garga]

What purpose would that serve?

Maybe the thought behind that post is that the wife was told to write those things by the people imprisoning her husband as a way to smear his character? And if she did, they'd release him? So instead of him being the hero that they wrongfully imprisoned, it makes it out like they imprisoned a bad guy.

[sheryl]

PTL!

 

eta: I glanced at a few replies....I hope it's true.

Edited January 18, 2016 by sheryl

[umsami]

Maybe the thought behind that post is that the wife was told to write those things by the people imprisoning her husband as a way to smear his character? And if she did, they'd release him? So instead of him being the hero that they wrongfully imprisoned, it makes it out like they imprisoned a bad guy.

 

Do you really believe this?  He was released because of the loosening of sanctions on Iran....it had nothing to do with his wife saying he was abusive.  Other American prisoners were released as well.  He could be a fabulous pastor... and still be abusive.  He could be super well liked....and still be abusive....many abusers have NPD.  We know that at least one in four women experience abuse.  We know that we lose close to five women per day....every day....to intimate partner homicide.  We know that 1/3 of all women who are murdered, are murdered by their intimate partners.  Of course, some of those are pastors and pastor's wives.

 

http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2013/01/11/abuse-and-pastors-when-the-abuser-is-a-pastor-by-jeff-crippen/

http://www.ccel.us/hearttoheart.ch7.html

[Garga]

Do you really believe this? He was released because of the loosening of sanctions on Iran....it had nothing to do with his wife saying he was abusive. Other American prisoners were released as well. He could be a fabulous pastor... and still be abusive. He could be super well liked....and still be abusive....many abusers have NPD. We know that at least one in four women experience abuse. We know that we lose close to five women per day....every day....to intimate partner homicide. We know that 1/3 of all women who are murdered, are murdered by their intimate partners. Of course, some of those are pastors and pastor's wives.

 

http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2013/01/11/abuse-and-pastors-when-the-abuser-is-a-pastor-by-jeff-crippen/

http://www.ccel.us/hearttoheart.ch7.html

Nope. I don't believe it. But as I read the post that someone made about not believing the wife's statements, that what I thought the poster meant--that the wife was forced to make those statements under duress because the husband was released relatively shortly after the statements were made. So when a few people asked, "What did you mean by your statement," that's when I wrote interpretation of her post. I know nothing about this situation. I was just saying my interpretation of the post that people questioned. Edited January 18, 2016 by Garga

[albeto.]

Very happy about this....and for the other prisoners and their families who were released too.  Faith/belief should be free...wherever one lives.

 

He was one of four released. One is a journalist, one is a marine, little known about the third, according to the link the OP shared. Only one was charged with religious crimes, and while I agree that faith/belief should be free, it's remarkable to see only the xian's freedom garners any comment here. 

[lauraw4321]

Long live diplomacy!  I am proud of the State Department's work in freeing four wrongfully imprisoned people.  

[Valley Girl]

He was one of four released. One is a journalist, one is a marine, little known about the third, according to the link the OP shared. Only one was charged with religious crimes, and while I agree that faith/belief should be free, it's remarkable to see only the xian's freedom garners any comment here. 

 

I don't think it's especially remarkable. I haven't followed any of the cases in depth, but my sense is that the pastor's was pretty well publicized. (I don't know about the other people.) Sounds like those who followed his particular case are simply commenting on the outcome. I don't take that as meaning the other people are any less important or deserving of their freedom.

[umsami]

He was one of four released. One is a journalist, one is a marine, little known about the third, according to the link the OP shared. Only one was charged with religious crimes, and while I agree that faith/belief should be free, it's remarkable to see only the xian's freedom garners any comment here. 

 

I'm not surprised.  There was a lot of talk about his imprisonment among Christians.  Of course, it would have been more remarkable had they released some Bahais.... they are persecuted far more in Iran than Christians.

 

One of the guys, was a Muslim-American and ex-Marine.  He, of course, got a lot of press in the Muslim community.  

 

One was a Washington Post reporter. 

 

According to one report, the other prisoner chose not to leave Iran...which seems a bit weird....I'd think he'd be worried about re-arrest.

 

Some people posted about the ex-CIA guy who was abducted...Robert Levinson...but I'm not surprised he was not included.  He was working for the CIA at the time.  I'd be surprised if he's even still alive.

[Word Nerd]

He was one of four released. One is a journalist, one is a marine, little known about the third, according to the link the OP shared. Only one was charged with religious crimes, and while I agree that faith/belief should be free, it's remarkable to see only the xian's freedom garners any comment here. 

 

I posted a link to the BBC story with more information about all the releases. I didn't think commenting on the article was necessary, as people can read it for themselves.

[OnMyOwn]

He was one of four released. One is a journalist, one is a marine, little known about the third, according to the link the OP shared. Only one was charged with religious crimes, and while I agree that faith/belief should be free, it's remarkable to see only the xian's freedom garners any comme here.

Interesting pov. I was aggravated because the only one that's getting any real attention from the media is the journalist. Again and again, I hear about Jason Rezaian "and the three others" that were released. Does that bother you?

Edited January 18, 2016 by OnMyOwn

[Word Nerd]

Like others here, I have been following Saeed's story for several years. I have prayed for him and his wife and family. I have signed petitions and written to legislators on his behalf. I have written messages of support to his wife, Nagmeh. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has done those things. It’s not at all surprising that when I read the news Saturday morning, I wanted to celebrate that long-hoped-for release with others who had been hoping for the same. 

 

Of course I'm also happy that the other three Americans have been released. Just because we didn’t mention their names or start a thread about them doesn’t mean we don’t care about them or think they are less worthy. The implication that it's somehow wrong or morally deficient for people to celebrate the release of someone they have been hoping and praying would be released is itself remarkable.

 

I also know this doesn’t mean the will all live happily ever after. Even aside from the apparent marriage problems, there will likely be PTSD and other mental and physical issues for them to deal with. Saeed was tortured and beaten during his captivity and from all reports I’ve read is not well. Nagmeh has also said there are "serious dark issues" that they need to resolve.

[ThisIsTheDay]

He was one of four released. One is a journalist, one is a marine, little known about the third, according to the link the OP shared. Only one was charged with religious crimes, and while I agree that faith/belief should be free, it's remarkable to see only the xian's freedom garners any comment here. 

 

 

Does this mean that you were aware of all of these people prior to their release?  In my circles, Pastor Saeed is well known. I've prayed for him and his family for the past few years and, like Word Nerd, signed contacted lawmakers about his release. I also belong to the same church affiliation.

 

At the time I made the original post here, he was the only one I knew was being released, because those were the breaking FB posts I was seeing, directly from Sekulow/ACLJ's FB and Abedini's wife's Twitter page.  In fact, I didn't post any link at that time, because I couldn't find the story on any of the major news stations--although it began to pop up minutes later.

 

What I find remarkable is how quick you are to jump to some sort of conclusion and assume some ulterior motive.  I'm sorry.  :(

[albeto.]

Interesting pov. I was aggravated because the only one that's getting any real attention from the media is the journalist. Again and again, I hear about Jason Rezaian "and the three others" that were released. Does that bother you?

 

Journalism has no belief system that denies or eschews an ingroup bias. Many xian beliefs do. These are mainstream, and common. I do recognize they are not universal among xians. Journalists' bias for concern does not bother me as much, because I understand this is human nature, but xianity claims to alter human nature in some way. In reality, there is no evidence for this. Nevertheless, there is an unequal access to privilege based on the assumption that a xian inspired human nature is in some way different, better, and that bothers me. That is, admittedly, beyond the scope of this thread, but this thread is a tiny illustration of that kind of thing. 

 

I think it's natural that journalists mention a released journalist. Just the way that Christians mention a released pastor.

 

I agree. Ingroup biases are natural, human behavior. I find it remarkable insofar as I have been led to believe that modern xianity eschews the ingroup bias though. I am familiar with arguments that xians love everyone, the god of the bible loves everyone, and one's value is intrinsic, based on being a special creation, fearfully and wonderfully made, etc etc etc. It certainly was an integral part of my faith (but like I say, I understand it's not universal among xians). Journalism makes no such claims, so a natural ingroup bias doesn't go against any grain. Granted, this is my personal experience, and anecdotal stories are only as good as they we want them to be. Nevertheless, I think this idea is generally acceptable by many mainstream, modern xians, although certainly not all. I do recall reading this sentiment here from time to time, but to be honest, I couldn't find an example. Perhaps I am mistaken. 

 

Like others here, I have been following Saeed's story for several years. I have prayed for him and his wife and family. I have signed petitions and written to legislators on his behalf. I have written messages of support to his wife, Nagmeh. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has done those things. It’s not at all surprising that when I read the news Saturday morning, I wanted to celebrate that long-hoped-for release with others who had been hoping for the same. 

 

Of course I'm also happy that the other three Americans have been released. Just because we didn’t mention their names or start a thread about them doesn’t mean we don’t care about them or think they are less worthy. The implication that it's somehow wrong or morally deficient for people to celebrate the release of someone they have been hoping and praying would be released is itself remarkable.

 

I also know this doesn’t mean the will all live happily ever after. Even aside from the apparent marriage problems, there will likely be PTSD and other mental and physical issues for them to deal with. Saeed was tortured and beaten during his captivity and from all reports I’ve read is not well. Nagmeh has also said there are "serious dark issues" that they need to resolve.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't expect anyone doesn't care about the others, and I believe you that your care is genuine. However, this does raise an interesting question for me. Did you sign petitions and write to legislators on the others' behalf as well? 

 

Does this mean that you were aware of all of these people prior to their release?  In my circles, Pastor Saeed is well known. I've prayed for him and his family for the past few years and, like Word Nerd, signed contacted lawmakers about his release. I also belong to the same church affiliation.

 

At the time I made the original post here, he was the only one I knew was being released, because those were the breaking FB posts I was seeing, directly from Sekulow/ACLJ's FB and Abedini's wife's Twitter page.  In fact, I didn't post any link at that time, because I couldn't find the story on any of the major news stations--although it began to pop up minutes later.

 

What I find remarkable is how quick you are to jump to some sort of conclusion and assume some ulterior motive.  I'm sorry.  :(

 

My conclusions aren't quickly drawn. These are pieces of a pattern that have come to my attention over time. This pattern was virtually invisible to me as a believer, which should come as no surprise. A double standard in expectation and allowances for breaching moral codes is well established. This isn't a religious barb, by the way. This phenomenon is common enough in humanity to not be limited to religious beliefs. It's even got its own name, "ingroup bias." It's well explained and easily seen in belief systems to which one does not develop an attachment. I'm sure you see examples of this in other directions. I see it in this one. Because this community is so open with religious beliefs, this kind of bias is well represented. I find this thread to be an example of such a thing. What I find remarkable is the idea that this bias is supposedly corrected for, according to many mainstream, popular accounts of the xian religion. What I find remarkable is how boldly this ingroup bias is expressed.

 

But this isn't a quick jump to conclusions. I find many other things remarkable about this story, and this thread, and this sentiment played out elsewhere. I find it remarkable to hear praise of the same god supposedly responsible for the release of Abedini from his pain and suffering, who is nevertheless expected to unleash pain and suffering upon unbelievers / infidels / your answer may vary, worse than Abedini had ever suffered. Furthermore, this pain and suffering is expected to last for all eternity with no possibility of diplomatic rescue. That same god is expected to torture my children, and he gets your praise. Abedini's trumped up charges are decried, but trumped up charges against my children are accepted as a mystery to be accepted and admired. Additionally, I find it remarkable that believers behave as if their claims aren't really trustworthy (such as expectations of miracles, answered prayers, blessings for persecution, etc), but again, these are beyond the scope of this thread. I offer these examples to show my comment isn't made in haste, the conclusions not jumped to. They're the result of long hours pondering (and praying, ha!) the logic of the faith I had once held in esteem higher than anything else I knew.

 

Anyway, I'm glad they're all released. Maybe that old movie Midnight Express plays into my imagination here, but I can't imagine anyone deserves Iranian imprisonment. I too am glad to hear Abedini is free. I'm glad to hear Jason Rezaian, Amir Hekmati, and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari (whatever his story is), are also free. Like Word Nerd says though, they've got lots of work ahead of them to be truly free. Surely being tortured like that will have left an indelible, negative mark on a person's experiences. I hope they all get the help they need to learn to be resilient enough to experience and appreciate joy and pleasure, and truly be free. 

 

ETA: I forgot to mention I don't assume any ulterior motive. Like I said to WN, I assume genuine relief and pleasure, and I don't assume the others are unimportant to you. I'm not sure how I gave an impression of assuming an ulterior motive, and if you let me know how you came to that conclusion, I'll do my best to avoid it in the future. I'm not sure what you're sorry for. Can you elaborate? 

Edited January 19, 2016 by albeto.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's so fantastic that this unjustly imprisoned man was released--very happy to hear of this.

Religious persecution is on the upswing worldwide.  But God is not mocked.

[albeto.]

It's so fantastic that this unjustly imprisoned man was released--very happy to hear of this.

Religious persecution is on the upswing worldwide.  But God is not mocked.

 

Well, but... he is. More and more people are coming out, even boldly mocking and ridiculing what they feel to be silly and ridiculous about the god of the bible. Bill Maher comes to mind first and foremost. He doesn't just point out things people increasingly find ridiculous, but he makes jokes about them. Publicly. Boldly. 

 

Unless this comment is a euphemism for something else and I'm missing the point. In which case, "shutting up." 

[Carol in Cal.]

Be not deceived; God is not mocked.  

--a well-known Bible passage

 

Glad to hear that this victim of anti-Christian persecution and torture is free!

[Word Nerd]

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't expect anyone doesn't care about the others, and I believe you that your care is genuine. However, this does raise an interesting question for me. Did you sign petitions and write to legislators on the others' behalf as well?

 

 

No—nor did I know about them. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Sadie, those are examples of disgusting human rights violations, as was the imprisonment and torture of the pastor, which is the subject of this thread.

 

There is no harm, however, in celebrating answers to prayer or the final rescue of one of the unjustly imprisoned.  And I do celebrate--it's excellent news.

[albeto.]

Be not deceived; God is not mocked.  

--a well-known Bible passage

 

This sounds like a thinly veiled threat. There's an implied, "or else" here, one that is clearly spelled out in the bible. It raises the question, "or else, what, exactly?" The conventional answer (Part A) is of course, "or else the god of the bible will withhold his blessings." That means nothing, as the bible says the rain falls on the just and unjust alike. But what does "withholding his blessings" looks like? If we take Iceland as an example, no one under the age of 25 in a recent poll answered positively about believing the god of the bible having created the world. 0.0%. That's astounding! Granted, not every individual under the age of 25 was asked, but polls give us insight nevertheless, and that's why they're valuable. So what does it mean to be a young Icelander, snubbed by the god of the bible? Apparently it means they enjoy more employment, they are less likely to be imprisoned, they spend less on health care costs, have a lower infant mortality rate, a bit more free time, and significantly less likely to have HIV/AIDS (link). Iceland is but one example. There are others (Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc).

 

It would appear to the interested observer that the god of the bible withholding his blessings isn't such a terrible threat after all. Considering how the god of the bible's blessings affect xians who report higher faith in the United States, for example, we might extrapolate that these blessings are arbitrarily given, at best. They certainly do not have a measurably positive affect on the faithful as the "well known bible passage" itself would lead one to believe. If anything, we can see a trend between faith and standard of living, but not positively so. With friends like that, who needs enemies, so the old joke goes. Then again, this trend is apparent in other faiths faiths, not just xianity. The best bet is to reduce religion to the role of symbolism, tradition, cultural bonds. Societies who do so have statistically higher standards of living in many important areas (such as employment, financial security, health, autonomy, education). This is notable regardless of the religious belief. 

 

It's remarkable to me that the other victims are nearly invisible to the xian community, or perhaps more accurately, just some xian communities. WN shares her church either didn't know or didn't share the fact that others were also held unjustly in Iranian prisons, even though this was public information. How can a church be blind to the pain and suffering of people in the same boat as one who's being watched with concern? How can it only have eyes for the pain and suffering of xians? It's that ingroup bias that seems to be so contrary to the stated identity of the xian community - as I am familiar with it - that I find remarkable. 

 

Glad to hear that this victim of anti-Christian persecution and torture is free!

 

The irony is that the god being praised [for what I'm not sure, considering diplomats did what diplomats do], is expected to do the same, and worse, to people like my children (which is conventional answer, Part B). This punishment is for the crime of not believing, not giving this god his due. Is this any less trumped up than Abedini's charges? But I digress. This is an integral part of the problem, I think. The idea that there is a god who must be acknowledged respectfully and worshiped specifically (whether by going to church or the mosque) or else he is offended (mocked?), is what inspires this very persecution we're glad to see over! I find it remarkable that this same behavior is lamented when done by the "wrong" people (Iranians, Muslims), but when done by the "right people" (holy trinity), it's not only acceptable, but praised. And yes, I do recognize xians won't see it this way. But I'm not a xian, and so this double standard is apparent, and it's remarkable to me to see empathy extended by virtue of one's belief, not by virtue of one's intrinsic value. I also find it remarkable to see a "well known bible verse" used to sanctify the punishment for disobedience (mockery), in the context of celebrating the freedom of a man who was imprisoned for disobedience (mockery) of a god. It's almost as if it's lamentable when Iran does it, but glorious when Yahweh does. And by "almost," I mean, I can see no difference, but I'm not a believer. I understand the defense of mystery, and spiritual blindness, and what looks like foolishness to the Greeks, etc. What do I know, right? I'm looking at this logically, not spiritually, Or something. 

 

Please excuse me Carol, I mean these comments in general now, not just in reply to you. I don't offer this to argue the merits of belief, or the nature of this biblical character, or what the bible *really* means to say. I certainly don't mean to speak on behalf of any xians, nor do I mean to declare what xianity teaches. I hope I'm clear enough to show I recognize there are many xian beliefs, and not all xians will agree with those beliefs with which I am most familiar. I offer this to show why I think it is remarkable that a community that celebrates the freedom of one man, gives public praise to the character who is believed to deliver a fate worse than an Iranian prison to others, indeed, to most humanity if one believes Jesus' prediction. Your comment was a compelling one to respond to, as it incorporates so many things I find remarkable about this situation in such a succinct little comment. As always, thanks for the discussion. I find them very interesting. 

[albeto.]

Well yeah. 

 

But also this. And this. And this.

 

Is this also a sign that God is not mocked ?

 

Exactly. While the impulse is clearly different, the intent is the same - a warning to those who "mock" [disagree publicly, reject the claims, or show a beloved god in a bad light]. In these cases, the "mockery" was considering out loud if this god could actually be imaginary. The only difference here that I can see is that according to modern xians, the god of the bible will do the punishing after the individual dies. Although some xians seem to believe the god of the quran sanctions his followers to do the punishing now, I suspect many muslims would disagree heartily with this assumption. 

 

Although, that gets into more murky waters, as the god of the bible apparently relies on humans to do things for him as well. Working on freeing unjustly imprisoned people in Iran is one such example. The bible tells stories of devout missionaries led out of prison by virtue of grand earthquakes and angels, but modern missionaries rely on human diplomacy.

Edited January 19, 2016 by albeto.

[Cindy in FL.]

To put it simply, I believe that the reason that Christians focused on Abedini is that he is a member of our family. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but my time, energy, and resources go initially to my own family and then I work my way outward from there. That does not mean that I don't care about the suffering of those not within the Christian family and should not be an indictment against Christians. That is not in contradiction to the Bible and it should not be surprising in this case.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Cindy in FL.

[marbel]

To put it simply, I believe that the reason that Christians focused on Abedini is that he is a member of our family. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but my time, energy, and resources go initially to my own family and then I work my way outward from there. That does not mean that I don't care about the suffering of those not within the Christian family and should not be an indictment against Christians. That is not in contradiction to the Bible and it should not be surprising in this case.

 

Yes, this.

 

I have a friend dying of cancer right now.  My prayers are for him and his family.  That does not mean I don't care about any of the many cancer sufferers in the world!  But I am focused on the individual whom I know.   

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, this.

 

I have a friend dying of cancer right now.  My prayers are for him and his family.  That does not mean I don't care about any of the many cancer sufferers in the world!  But I am focused on the individual whom I know.   

 

Celebrating a good thing is always a good thing.

[ThisIsTheDay]

Once again, albeto. will jump into any thread, pretend to post innocent comments, and then take over with endlessly long and always repetitive arguments.  Yawn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Once again, albeto. will jump into any thread, pretend to post innocent comments, and then take over with endlessly long and always repetitive arguments.  Yawn.

Well, not just ANY thread.  :)

[JadeOrchidSong]

albeto. Usually I can't see your posts. But sometimes I still see them and have grown strangely warmed by them. You can believe or not believe in god or a xian's views. But we xians are certainly here to celebrate however we want. By the way, I bet you are just as glad to see Saaeed as well as the other 3 released. So we do have some common ground to stand on. :-). :-)

[albeto.]

Once again, albeto. will jump into any thread, pretend to post innocent comments, and then take over with endlessly long and always repetitive arguments.  Yawn.

 

Once again the question of whether or not I am right has been ignored in favor of the seemingly more compelling question of whether or not I am a jerk. The thing is, so long as this is a public forum, and so long as people post controversial things, people are likely to discuss them. Were you unaware that your praise report is controversial? Were you unaware that others may enjoy longer, more substantial conversation than you personally enjoy? Are you uncomfortable with people showing your faith in a less than favorable light? I mean, my goodness, the hostility in this comment is quite remarkable. It's really something to witness. 

[sassenach]

Well, not just ANY thread.  :)

 

She doesn't just start ANY threads either-

 

0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world, new poll reveals

weird stuff in the bible 2.0

s/o welcomed in church

in your opinion, what does prayer do?

Freedom from religion Bible Quiz

Faith vs. Facts- NYtimes op-ed

 

But really, we're all oversensitive to feel like this is active ANTI-Christian behavior, completely unchecked by moderators. 

 

[8circles]

albeto.  Just wanted to say your post gave me a lot to think about.  I'm too tired to type more but I think your questions are relevant and xians ought to at least think about them.  Disclaimer: I AM a xian & I disagree with much of what albeto opines but her questions are valid ones and the response shouldn't be mockery or dismissal.  

 

 

Journalism has no belief system that denies or eschews an ingroup bias. Many xian beliefs do. These are mainstream, and common. I do recognize they are not universal among xians. Journalists' bias for concern does not bother me as much, because I understand this is human nature, but xianity claims to alter human nature in some way. In reality, there is no evidence for this. Nevertheless, there is an unequal access to privilege based on the assumption that a xian inspired human nature is in some way different, better, and that bothers me. That is, admittedly, beyond the scope of this thread, but this thread is a tiny illustration of that kind of thing. 

 

 

I agree. Ingroup biases are natural, human behavior. I find it remarkable insofar as I have been led to believe that modern xianity eschews the ingroup bias though. I am familiar with arguments that xians love everyone, the god of the bible loves everyone, and one's value is intrinsic, based on being a special creation, fearfully and wonderfully made, etc etc etc. It certainly was an integral part of my faith (but like I say, I understand it's not universal among xians). Journalism makes no such claims, so a natural ingroup bias doesn't go against any grain. Granted, this is my personal experience, and anecdotal stories are only as good as they we want them to be. Nevertheless, I think this idea is generally acceptable by many mainstream, modern xians, although certainly not all. I do recall reading this sentiment here from time to time, but to be honest, I couldn't find an example. Perhaps I am mistaken. 

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't expect anyone doesn't care about the others, and I believe you that your care is genuine. However, this does raise an interesting question for me. Did you sign petitions and write to legislators on the others' behalf as well? 

 

 

My conclusions aren't quickly drawn. These are pieces of a pattern that have come to my attention over time. This pattern was virtually invisible to me as a believer, which should come as no surprise. A double standard in expectation and allowances for breaching moral codes is well established. This isn't a religious barb, by the way. This phenomenon is common enough in humanity to not be limited to religious beliefs. It's even got its own name, "ingroup bias." It's well explained and easily seen in belief systems to which one does not develop an attachment. I'm sure you see examples of this in other directions. I see it in this one. Because this community is so open with religious beliefs, this kind of bias is well represented. I find this thread to be an example of such a thing. What I find remarkable is the idea that this bias is supposedly corrected for, according to many mainstream, popular accounts of the xian religion. What I find remarkable is how boldly this ingroup bias is expressed.

 

But this isn't a quick jump to conclusions. I find many other things remarkable about this story, and this thread, and this sentiment played out elsewhere. I find it remarkable to hear praise of the same god supposedly responsible for the release of Abedini from his pain and suffering, who is nevertheless expected to unleash pain and suffering upon unbelievers / infidels / your answer may vary, worse than Abedini had ever suffered. Furthermore, this pain and suffering is expected to last for all eternity with no possibility of diplomatic rescue. That same god is expected to torture my children, and he gets your praise. Abedini's trumped up charges are decried, but trumped up charges against my children are accepted as a mystery to be accepted and admired. Additionally, I find it remarkable that believers behave as if their claims aren't really trustworthy (such as expectations of miracles, answered prayers, blessings for persecution, etc), but again, these are beyond the scope of this thread. I offer these examples to show my comment isn't made in haste, the conclusions not jumped to. They're the result of long hours pondering (and praying, ha!) the logic of the faith I had once held in esteem higher than anything else I knew.

 

Anyway, I'm glad they're all released. Maybe that old movie Midnight Express plays into my imagination here, but I can't imagine anyone deserves Iranian imprisonment. I too am glad to hear Abedini is free. I'm glad to hear Jason Rezaian, Amir Hekmati, and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari (whatever his story is), are also free. Like Word Nerd says though, they've got lots of work ahead of them to be truly free. Surely being tortured like that will have left an indelible, negative mark on a person's experiences. I hope they all get the help they need to learn to be resilient enough to experience and appreciate joy and pleasure, and truly be free. 

 

ETA: I forgot to mention I don't assume any ulterior motive. Like I said to WN, I assume genuine relief and pleasure, and I don't assume the others are unimportant to you. I'm not sure how I gave an impression of assuming an ulterior motive, and if you let me know how you came to that conclusion, I'll do my best to avoid it in the future. I'm not sure what you're sorry for. Can you elaborate? 

 

 

[JadeOrchidSong]

Albeto.'s implied solution to socioeconominal problems (or whatever other problems there possibly are) is to erase xianity (in your own term, albeto.) from the face of the earth. Please correct me if this is a wrong conclusion from your posts today. I am referring to the first part of the following quote.

 

 

This sounds like a thinly veiled threat. There's an implied, "or else" here, one that is clearly spelled out in the bible. It raises the question, "or else, what, exactly?" The conventional answer (Part A) is of course, "or else the god of the bible will withhold his blessings." That means nothing, as the bible says the rain falls on the just and unjust alike. But what does "withholding his blessings" looks like? If we take Iceland as an example, no one under the age of 25 in a recent poll answered positively about believing the god of the bible having created the world. 0.0%. That's astounding! Granted, not every individual under the age of 25 was asked, but polls give us insight nevertheless, and that's why they're valuable. So what does it mean to be a young Icelander, snubbed by the god of the bible? Apparently it means they enjoy more employment, they are less likely to be imprisoned, they spend less on health care costs, have a lower infant mortality rate, a bit more free time, and significantly less likely to have HIV/AIDS (link). Iceland is but one example. There are others (Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc).

 

It would appear to the interested observer that the god of the bible withholding his blessings isn't such a terrible threat after all. Considering how the god of the bible's blessings affect xians who report higher faith in the United States, for example, we might extrapolate that these blessings are arbitrarily given, at best. They certainly do not have a measurably positive affect on the faithful as the "well known bible passage" itself would lead one to believe. If anything, we can see a trend between faith and standard of living, but not positively so. With friends like that, who needs enemies, so the old joke goes. Then again, this trend is apparent in other faiths faiths, not just xianity. The best bet is to reduce religion to the role of symbolism, tradition, cultural bonds. Societies who do so have statistically higher standards of living in many important areas (such as employment, financial security, health, autonomy, education). This is notable regardless of the religious belief.

 

It's remarkable to me that the other victims are nearly invisible to the xian community, or perhaps more accurately, just some xian communities. WN shares her church either didn't know or didn't share the fact that others were also held unjustly in Iranian prisons, even though this was public information. How can a church be blind to the pain and suffering of people in the same boat as one who's being watched with concern? How can it only have eyes for the pain and suffering of xians? It's that ingroup bias that seems to be so contrary to the stated identity of the xian community - as I am familiar with it - that I find remarkable.

 

 

 

The irony is that the god being praised [for what I'm not sure, considering diplomats did what diplomats do], is expected to do the same, and worse, to people like my children (which is conventional answer, Part B). This punishment is for the crime of not believing, not giving this god his due. Is this any less trumped up than Abedini's charges? But I digress. This is an integral part of the problem, I think. The idea that there is a god who must be acknowledged respectfully and worshiped specifically (whether by going to church or the mosque) or else he is offended (mocked?), is what inspires this very persecution we're glad to see over! I find it remarkable that this same behavior is lamented when done by the "wrong" people (Iranians, Muslims), but when done by the "right people" (holy trinity), it's not only acceptable, but praised. And yes, I do recognize xians won't see it this way. But I'm not a xian, and so this double standard is apparent, and it's remarkable to me to see empathy extended by virtue of one's belief, not by virtue of one's intrinsic value. I also find it remarkable to see a "well known bible verse" used to sanctify the punishment for disobedience (mockery), in the context of celebrating the freedom of a man who was imprisoned for disobedience (mockery) of a god. It's almost as if it's lamentable when Iran does it, but glorious when Yahweh does. And by "almost," I mean, I can see no difference, but I'm not a believer. I understand the defense of mystery, and spiritual blindness, and what looks like foolishness to the Greeks, etc. What do I know, right? I'm looking at this logically, not spiritually, Or something.

 

Please excuse me Carol, I mean these comments in general now, not just in reply to you. I don't offer this to argue the merits of belief, or the nature of this biblical character, or what the bible *really* means to say. I certainly don't mean to speak on behalf of any xians, nor do I mean to declare what xianity teaches. I hope I'm clear enough to show I recognize there are many xian beliefs, and not all xians will agree with those beliefs with which I am most familiar. I offer this to show why I think it is remarkable that a community that celebrates the freedom of one man, gives public praise to the character who is believed to deliver a fate worse than an Iranian prison to others, indeed, to most humanity if one believes Jesus' prediction. Your comment was a compelling one to respond to, as it incorporates so many things I find remarkable about this situation in such a succinct little comment. As always, thanks for the discussion. I find them very interesting.

Edited January 20, 2016 by JadeOrchidSong

[Cindy in FL.]

Once again the question of whether or not I am right has been ignored in favor of the seemingly more compelling question of whether or not I am a jerk. The thing is, so long as this is a public forum, and so long as people post controversial things, people are likely to discuss them. Were you unaware that your praise report is controversial? Were you unaware that others may enjoy longer, more substantial conversation than you personally enjoy? Are you uncomfortable with people showing your faith in a less than favorable light? I mean, my goodness, the hostility in this comment is quite remarkable. It's really something to witness.

Everyone doesn't believe that atheists are right. You've linked that article previously as though it justifies the posts that you make, and I don't think it does. As a Christian I am not one bit scared of atheists. Why should I be? Nothing that you have posted in this thread is a legitimate indictment of Christians/Christianity.

 

Praise the Lord that Pastor Abedini was released. There should be nothing controversial about that statement or sentiment.

[Valley Girl]

I usually stay out of these threads, but I honestly don't understand how people being glad this man was released is in any way "controversial." He's someone for whom those who are celebrating have had a personal concern because of shared affiliation. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing. I guess I should take heart, really, because if expressing happiness in the freedom of a tortured captive is now controversial, then the world at large must be running short of real problems and issues.

[Liz CA]

It's the choice of tortured captives whose release we choose to celebrate that can be thought-provoking. 

 

It's natural to focus on a member of the in-group. I always notice the murders/lashing/beheading of atheists, for example.

 

But is 'natural' the same as 'good' ?

 

And when a religion posits its believers as the most moral, shouldn't their striving towards the good also then involve noting, praying for, celebrating ALL persons ?

 

Or is the very narrowest definition of 'love thy neighbour' to be preferred ?

 

I celebrate the release of anyone who is held illegally against their will. I mourn anyone brutalized or murdered while held captive.  Anyone remember Daniel Pearl just to mention one? 

 

In the early days of the first Gulf War, a group of soldiers were taken captive. I had and to this day have no idea if any of them professed any religious affiliation but I prayed fervently for their release. I cannot say why I was so burdened by it but I was. It has nothing to do with the victim's religious belief or the lack thereof.

And you are completely correct. We are called to pray for all, seek justice for all - not just believers. If Saeed Abedini was not a pastor we would still be glad he is free.

[albeto.]

Albeto.'s implied solution to socioeconominal problems (or whatever other problems there possibly are) is to erase xianity (in your own term, albeto.) from the face of the earth. Please correct me if this is a wrong conclusion from your posts today. I am referring to the first part of the following quote.

 

You misunderstand. I don't suggest or imply the solution to socio-economic problems is to erase xianity from the face of the earth. It's simply a part of our nature to believe in things like invisible agency, a mind/will that is separate from the body, etc (e

). There is reason to believe we can solve our problems better (more effectively, compassionately, humanely) when we appeal to reasons that are logical, rational, and fact based far more than when we appeal to reasons that are faith or emotion based. 

[albeto.]

Everyone doesn't believe that atheists are right. You've linked that article previously as though it justifies the posts that you make, and I don't think it does. As a Christian I am not one bit scared of atheists. Why should I be? Nothing that you have posted in this thread is a legitimate indictment of Christians/Christianity.

 

Praise the Lord that Pastor Abedini was released. There should be nothing controversial about that statement or sentiment.

 

I linked that to give credit to the phrase. I also think the article has interesting points with regard to some of the responses I get to my posts, but mostly I would feel guilty to appear as if such a succinct concept is mine. 

 

I don't mean to indite xians or xianity, so I'm glad nothing I've posted gives that impression to you. 

 

The controversy doesn't revolve around the release of one man, but the apparent favoritism when multiple people experienced the same horrors. This is apparently a feature of some versions of xianity of which I was unaware. I'm familiar with the version that would not consider a xian to be "part of the family," but all humans. Admittedly, there are many versions, and there's no reason to assume mine is more valid than yours. A bigger controversy, in my opinion, is the idea of praising a character for releasing a man from torture when he has plans to do the same thing to most of the population of the earth. I don't mean to bait you or anyone into an unwanted discussion, just explain what the controversy is, and what it isn't, from my point of view.