PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Where are the Christian terrorists?


Rain Man
03-28-2010, 06:23 PM
I'd been meaning to ask this question for a while, and peteg's thread about the Christian militia reminded me.

We've got a whole bunch of Islamic nutjobs running around who are willing to murder innocent people and blow up roadside bombs and strap bombs to children and implant them in women's breasts and stuff.

Where are the Christian equivalents? Are westerners just too smart to be that fanatical? It seems to me like we could head down into the Ozarks or Tennessee and find whole villages of people who would be delighted to go to war against a group that is hoping to establish Islam as the world's only religion.

Why do you think there are no grassroots Christian movements to fight the Islamists? I'm not talking about government-supported stuff. I'm talking about national churches putting together secret armies to go fight. It's not like churches are supporting the war with tax dollars or anything.

irishjayhawk
03-28-2010, 06:28 PM
They're there but they're usually not as publicized.

Scott Roeder, for example, is a well publicized Christian terrorist with the minor exception that the media refuses to call him such. That's another key element: the media isn't even with the label.

Muslim gunman = terrorist
Christian gunman = murderer

The greater negative connotation is with the label terrorist despite them both being "bad".

Rain Man
03-28-2010, 06:34 PM
Oh, yeah. I guess I meant Christian terrorists trying to infiltrate Muslim countries and wreak havoc. It seems like there should be some. Is Christianity just not as militant as Islam? They seemed to be willing to tote the rock during the Crusades, but I'm not seeing them now.

Psyko Tek
03-28-2010, 06:43 PM
christianity seems to just terrorize
abortion clinics

and hell yes send them and all gangbangers, and illegal aliens
over there
you make it back alive
you get to be a citizen

irishjayhawk
03-28-2010, 06:44 PM
Oh, yeah. I guess I meant Christian terrorists trying to infiltrate Muslim countries and wreak havoc. It seems like there should be some. Is Christianity just not as militant as Islam? They seemed to be willing to tote the rock during the Crusades, but I'm not seeing them now.

I proposed - on this very board, a few years ago - that religions are cyclical and follow a pattern. Currently, Islam is in the "Crusades" phase of Christianity. The only real difference is technology and thus the amount of people they can hurt. That, and the media coverage.

Silock
03-28-2010, 06:51 PM
I proposed - on this very board, a few years ago - that religions are cyclical and follow a pattern. Currently, Islam is in the "Crusades" phase of Christianity. The only real difference is technology and thus the amount of people they can hurt. That, and the media coverage.

The Crusades weren't a one-way street, though.

EDIT: Not saying that the current militant arm of Islam is, either. Just saying that you can't look at these events in a vacuum.

Rain Man
03-28-2010, 06:56 PM
So Christianity is in an internal-looking part of the cycle now? Not seeking to expand or even defend? It just seems like there would be more indignation about another religion seeking to kill Christians and destroy western civilization.

Pants
03-28-2010, 06:57 PM
I proposed - on this very board, a few years ago - that religions are cyclical and follow a pattern. Currently, Islam is in the "Crusades" phase of Christianity. The only real difference is technology and thus the amount of people they can hurt. That, and the media coverage.

An Islamic "crusade" would be called Jihad. :)

There are no Chrsitian terrorists because they have too much to lose and obviously there's no hate. If the roles were reversed and there were Muslim nations' forces stationed here with their overpowering military, we'd blowing their shit up guerrilla style as well.

KC Jones
03-28-2010, 06:59 PM
You may have missed the whole Bosnian conflict thing, in which bands of armed christians raped and mutilated girls and children as just a part of their terror campaign. Oh yeah, it went both ways so I'm not saying the Muslims on the other side didn't do equally evil things, but there you have it.

Pants
03-28-2010, 07:01 PM
You may have missed the whole Bosnian conflict thing, in which bands of armed christians raped and mutilated girls and children as just a part of their terror campaign. Oh yeah, it went both ways so I'm not saying the Muslims on the other side didn't do equally evil things, but there you have it.

Yeap, same thing in India with Hindus vs Muslims. Muslims blow a train up and kill 120 people, Hindus go over to an Islamic settlement (village) and have a mass murder/rape session while the government and the police don't do anything about it.

Chiefspants
03-28-2010, 07:02 PM
Timothy Mcveigh

Reaper16
03-28-2010, 07:03 PM
Ireland.

Rain Man
03-28-2010, 07:04 PM
So you're all saying that if the Muslims were nearby and convenient we'd probably be going after them, but since they're a long plane ride away, it's not worth it? And meanwhile, the Muslims continue to build frequent flyer miles.

KC Jones
03-28-2010, 07:08 PM
So you're all saying that if the Muslims were nearby and convenient we'd probably be going after them, but since they're a long plane ride away, it's not worth it? And meanwhile, the Muslims continue to build frequent flyer miles.


straw stick man?

:p

Rain Man
03-28-2010, 07:17 PM
straw stick man?

:p


Heh. Actually, I have no agenda at all. I was just thinking about it the other day, and it seems like at any other point in the past 1,500 years the pope would be calling for an army and there would be mass anger and it would be "a good war" to go fight Muslims. Western enthusiasm for religious wars seems to be at an all-time low.

KC Jones
03-28-2010, 08:41 PM
Heh. Actually, I have no agenda at all. I was just thinking about it the other day, and it seems like at any other point in the past 1,500 years the pope would be calling for an army and there would be mass anger and it would be "a good war" to go fight Muslims. Western enthusiasm for religious wars seems to be at an all-time low.

No problem and I agree with you there. I think the big difference is that Western Civilization had the age of enlightenment and the age of reason that helped bring it out of the shackles of religious zealotry. The parts of the middle east and Africa where these terrorists come from are part of a barbaric and violent culture. I know religion and culture are intertwined, but I've known far too many Muslims to make a gross generalization that "the Muslims" are cashing in their frequent flyer miles to come here for jihad. 99.99% of them come here for the same reasons our forefathers came here - to see the world and build a better life for themselves and their family.

stevieray
03-28-2010, 08:53 PM
99.99%



IYO, how many Christians have the capability for evil in their heart?

Rain Man
03-28-2010, 08:54 PM
Oh, sure. I know that most aren't bad. The guy in Africa even turned in his son (underwear bomber).

I was just implying that the terrorists are hoping to take the war a significant distance from their home turf. It's interesting, because in American history we've almost never had to fight on our home turf, and that's a good thing. Even in this case, we've managed to turn it around and put the fighting on Islamic turf, but it's more of a governmental thing than a religious thing.

KC Jones
03-28-2010, 09:02 PM
IYO, how many Christians have the capability for evil in their heart?

Is this a trick question?

The correct answer is all of them. We all have the capacity for evil in us.

stevieray
03-28-2010, 09:08 PM
Is this a trick question?

The correct answer is all of them. We all have the capacity for evil in us.

including the 99.99%.

Thig Lyfe
03-28-2010, 09:10 PM
Oh, yeah. I guess I meant Christian terrorists trying to infiltrate Muslim countries and wreak havoc.


http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gwbush.jpg


:D

WoodDraw
03-28-2010, 09:13 PM
So you're all saying that if the Muslims were nearby and convenient we'd probably be going after them, but since they're a long plane ride away, it's not worth it? And meanwhile, the Muslims continue to build frequent flyer miles.

A lot of it has to do with education and standards of living. When you have quality jobs and universal education, a lot of the recruitment ability disappears.

People don't wake up and say I'd like to go on a crusade or jihad; there has to be some education and mind warp to get them there. While we have secular schools and quality religious schools here, you get different stuff in certain Muslim countries.

KC Jones
03-28-2010, 09:13 PM
including the 99.99%.

If you had a point, I'm missing it completely.

Are you suggesting that based on human capacity for evil it's fair to project upon a subset of humanity evil intentions because other members of that population sample committed evil acts?

Dave Lane
03-28-2010, 09:21 PM
http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gwbush.jpg


:D

Rep

Dave Lane
03-28-2010, 09:25 PM
If you had a point, I'm missing it completely.

Are you suggesting that based on human capacity for evil it's fair to project upon a subset of humanity evil intentions because other members of that population sample committed evil acts?

Actually KC I think you hit the nail completely on the head. If Iran invaded the US took us over with a unassailable military force and was cruising our streets killing neighbors, parents and children everyone would think you were a hero if you took out 10 of them, regardless of how noble they thought their goals were.

irishjayhawk
03-28-2010, 09:29 PM
Ireland.

Succinct, accurate, and relevant.

If you had a point, I'm missing it completely.

Are you suggesting that based on human capacity for evil it's fair to project upon a subset of humanity evil intentions because other members of that population sample committed evil acts?

Christians don't have the capacity for evil, duh. They also don't believe in gravity.

stevieray
03-28-2010, 09:37 PM
If you had a point, I'm missing it completely.

Are you suggesting that based on human capacity for evil it's fair to project upon a subset of humanity evil intentions because other members of that population sample committed evil acts?

I'm saying that if we all have the capability for evil in our hearts, then it applies to all of us, regardless of religion, even to the astronomical percentage you claim exists.

Thig Lyfe
03-28-2010, 09:40 PM
I'm saying that if we all have the capability for evil in our hearts, then it applies to all of us, regardless of religion, even to the astronomical percentage you claim exists.

I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.

wazu
03-28-2010, 09:49 PM
I proposed - on this very board, a few years ago - that religions are cyclical and follow a pattern. Currently, Islam is in the "Crusades" phase of Christianity. The only real difference is technology and thus the amount of people they can hurt. That, and the media coverage.

Islam has been in the "Crusades" phase since it's inception.

Jenson71
03-28-2010, 09:59 PM
I proposed - on this very board, a few years ago - that religions are cyclical and follow a pattern. Currently, Islam is in the "Crusades" phase of Christianity. The only real difference is technology and thus the amount of people they can hurt. That, and the media coverage.

Oh, irish. The simplicity of this argument is facepalm-worthy.

orange
03-29-2010, 12:36 AM
Oh, sure. I know that most aren't bad. The guy in Africa even turned in his son (underwear bomber).

I was just implying that the terrorists are hoping to take the war a significant distance from their home turf. It's interesting, because in American history we've almost never had to fight on our home turf, and that's a good thing. Even in this case, we've managed to turn it around and put the fighting on Islamic turf, but it's more of a governmental thing than a religious thing.

What Moslem country is worth attacking? They're all pretty close to pathetic.

Perhaps Iran might attract some ire, but like most dictatorships, it's tough to get in and move around.

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 04:54 AM
Oh, irish. The simplicity of this argument is facepalm-worthy.

How so?

blaise
03-29-2010, 05:19 AM
Timothy Mcveigh

Was he?

patteeu
03-29-2010, 08:32 AM
Timothy Mcveigh

Are you a believing Christian, Chiefspants? If not, what do you believe?

Jenson71
03-29-2010, 08:56 AM
How so?

It seriously takes all the other, most relevant aspects of history out of the equation. You honestly think religions all have some "crusade" period? Based on the Christian crusades? Do you have any other crusades religions have gone through? Other than this Islamic crusade, which is repeatedly pointed out, that it's a minority movement. Almost all Christians were in favor of winning back the Holy Lands from tyrannical, murderous Turks in the Middle Ages. What percentage of Muslims do you think condemned the recent terrorist attacks on the West? I'd guess over 80%. You take away the historical contexts of the crusades, the theology and state of mind behind them, and you take away the historical contexts of Western domination in Arab lands, and then you can conceive of this religious-historical cycle. That's bad history.

In 1200, Islam was a beacon of enlightenment. That religion helped pushed Christianity to a better state of mind.

banyon
03-29-2010, 09:01 AM
I think these guys qualify:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00107/Lord_s-Resistance-A_107510a.jpg

Radar Chief
03-29-2010, 09:10 AM
Was he?

There is evidence that McVeigh might have collaborated with Muslims extremists for the bomb making recipe and target selection, possibly even received funds from them.
McVeigh’s motivation was political not religious.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 09:11 AM
It seriously takes all the other, most relevant aspects of history out of the equation. You honestly think religions all have some "crusade" period? Based on the Christian crusades? Do you have any other crusades religions have gone through? Other than this Islamic crusade, which is repeatedly pointed out, that it's a minority movement. Almost all Christians were in favor of winning back the Holy Lands from tyrannical, murderous Turks in the Middle Ages. What percentage of Muslims do you think condemned the recent terrorist attacks on the West? I'd guess over 80%. You take away the historical contexts of the crusades, the theology and state of mind behind them, and you take away the historical contexts of Western domination in Arab lands, and then you can conceive of this religious-historical cycle. That's bad history.

In 1200, Islam was a beacon of enlightenment. That religion helped pushed Christianity to a better state of mind.

In general, you're making great points here, but I bet the number bolded is quite a bit too high. The percentage of muslims in full throated support of recent terrorist attacks is probably pretty small, but the number who passively approve or who rationalize them as understandable (even if some of the rationalizers still think they're wrong) rather than condemn them is pretty high, I bet. Not a majority in the US, but a much larger percentage than 20% worldwide.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 09:14 AM
There is evidence that McVeigh might have collaborated with Muslims extremists for the bomb making recipe and target selection, possibly even receiving funds.
McVeigh’s motivation was political not religious.

There was a pretty good book about this called The Third Terrorist written by an Oklahoma City journalist named Jayna Davis.

BigCatDaddy
03-29-2010, 09:16 AM
Anybody member of something called a "Christian militia" or anything similar would not be a true Christian.

Ebolapox
03-29-2010, 09:20 AM
IYO, how many Christians have the capability for evil in their heart?

100%... not to be an a-hole, but tis human nature: within each of us is the potential/capability to do great, wonderful 'good' for humanity, as well as the potential/capability to do horrible, unspeakable things.

stevieray
03-29-2010, 10:26 AM
100%... not to be an a-hole, but tis human nature: within each of us is the potential/capability to do great, wonderful 'good' for humanity, as well as the potential/capability to do horrible, unspeakable things.absolutely, that was my point.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 01:03 PM
Heh. Actually, I have no agenda at all. I was just thinking about it the other day, and it seems like at any other point in the past 1,500 years the pope would be calling for an army and there would be mass anger and it would be "a good war" to go fight Muslims. Western enthusiasm for religious wars seems to be at an all-time low.

You could go on and on about this stuff, but in my view, the western world became progressively less religious starting in the 1600s or so, and more materialistic and wealthy. Because they, in general, were more technologically, militarily and economically advanced, they were able to impose their will, by and large, on the non-Western world. In particular the British Empire, but they certainly weren't the only colonists.

Religious fervor, in general, gave way to nationalistic fervor.

The Islamic world, by contrast, by generally more to be bitter and unhappy about, has been less successful economically, has more religious fervor, and more militant religious fervor in particular, and has generally remained more religious than nationalistic. It is also, I believe, far less educated on average. As a result, I think, it is easier to find followers for radical movements.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 01:06 PM
It seriously takes all the other, most relevant aspects of history out of the equation. You honestly think religions all have some "crusade" period? Based on the Christian crusades? Do you have any other crusades religions have gone through? Other than this Islamic crusade, which is repeatedly pointed out, that it's a minority movement. Almost all Christians were in favor of winning back the Holy Lands from tyrannical, murderous Turks in the Middle Ages. What percentage of Muslims do you think condemned the recent terrorist attacks on the West? I'd guess over 80%. You take away the historical contexts of the crusades, the theology and state of mind behind them, and you take away the historical contexts of Western domination in Arab lands, and then you can conceive of this religious-historical cycle. That's bad history.


They weren't called the crusades, of course, but Islam had its own fundamentally religious-based aggressive expansionist period for several hundred years, until checked by various defeats and weighed down by the inertia of their own successes.

But your point is well taken that not every religion has some kind of aggressive expansionist period, or reclamation project such as the Crusades.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 01:11 PM
Islam has been in the "Crusades" phase since it's inception.

That's a pretty gross exaggeration. I couldn't even tell you the last time an Islamic nation sought to expand by military aggression against a non-Islamic neighbor.

I don't deny, of course, that in its early years (hundreds of them), that Islam did in fact grow by military expansion. But later rifts within Islam led to alot of infighting and many more wars were fought between Muslims than with Infidels after that initial growth phase.

Jilly
03-29-2010, 01:15 PM
I think it's possible to be a terrorist without being physically violent and I would say many Christian fall under that umbrella.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 01:24 PM
I think it's possible to be a terrorist without being physically violent and I would say many Christian fall under that umbrella.

Excellent take, as usual. :D

RJ
03-29-2010, 01:24 PM
Poor people make the best terrorists. Comfortable people are less inclined to strap bombs to themselves.

Jenson71
03-29-2010, 01:37 PM
They weren't called the crusades, of course, but Islam had its own fundamentally religious-based aggressive expansionist period for several hundred years, until checked by various defeats and weighed down by the inertia of their own successes.

But your point is well taken that not every religion has some kind of aggressive expansionist period, or reclamation project such as the Crusades.

Good point. The Muslim dynasties had a vast empire in an astonishingly short amount of time since the founding of the religion. Done through conquer, mostly, if not all.

Radar Chief
03-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Poor people make the best terrorists. Comfortable people are less inclined to strap bombs to themselves.

Yup.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 01:49 PM
That's a pretty gross exaggeration. I couldn't even tell you the last time an Islamic nation sought to expand by military aggression against a non-Islamic neighbor.

I don't deny, of course, that in its early years (hundreds of them), that Islam did in fact grow by military expansion. But later rifts within Islam led to alot of infighting and many more wars were fought between Muslims than with Infidels after that initial growth phase.

1967's Six Day War (kind of) and 1973's Yom Kippur War? :shrug:

patteeu
03-29-2010, 01:50 PM
Excellent take, as usual. :D

If you treat her nice, she's going to go back to the Lounge and tell them all what nice people we are and it will ruin our reputation.

Jilly
03-29-2010, 01:53 PM
If you treat her nice, she's going to go back to the Lounge and tell them all what nice people we are and it will ruin our reputation.

:cuss: Oh I know you're not...I saw your bleeding comment, mr.

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 02:00 PM
It seriously takes all the other, most relevant aspects of history out of the equation.

For the record, I didn't say it was an end-all-be-all theory. It's certainly not the only aspect of history.

You honestly think religions all have some "crusade" period?

Yes*, I think they all go through some "crusade" period which is merely a militarized version of conversion.

* See below for a few criteria a religion must meet.

- A religion must have a substantial following. For example, Jainism isn't going to have a crusade period because it simply isn't large enough. Of course, this doesn't mean small religions can't go through a crusade period. Look at African tribes. (Whether that's tribal or religious is never necessarily crystal clear.)

- A religion must have a "conversion doctrine" in that it needs to expand. Buddhism isn't built like Islam or Christianity. It isn't based on conversion and getting more people to the faith. Thus, a crusade period would be hard to come by. And if it did, ironic.

- A religion must have a substantial timeframe. For example, Mormonism isn't far enough along to have a crusades period. (It isn't large enough, either.)


Based on the Christian crusades? Do you have any other crusades religions have gone through?

I don't have any off the top of my head because I haven't studied Roman and Greek religions enough. I'm sure many of their invasions were religiously motivated, even if they're now relegated to mythology (another topic all together).


Other than this Islamic crusade, which is repeatedly pointed out, that it's a minority movement. Almost all Christians were in favor of winning back the Holy Lands from tyrannical, murderous Turks in the Middle Ages.

Hold your horses, Jenson.

You are comparing two different societies and time periods. During the Crusades, religion reigned supreme. Today, it's not even close to that level of power and influence. I know it's tiresome but revisit Galileo and his heresy. You just wouldn't have that in today's society.

Because of this, both points are rendered moot. Militarized sects are not as big precisely because religion doesn't have the hold it once did. (Now, you might argue that, today, Islam has an equal hold, but I would contend that on the global scale, its not close to that of Christianity in the times of the Crusades.) It's a minority because of society's structure. To compare the two and act as if they're on equal footing is ignorant. In fact, I'd propose that the difference between the Islamic minority today and the Christian majority then is proportional; though I have no facts to back that up.


What percentage of Muslims do you think condemned the recent terrorist attacks on the West? I'd guess over 80%. You take away the historical contexts of the crusades, the theology and state of mind behind them, and you take away the historical contexts of Western domination in Arab lands, and then you can conceive of this religious-historical cycle. That's bad history.

Look at that, you are claiming I'm discarding history and I'm telling you you are discarding history. I'd also agree with patteeu about the 80% figure, though wouldn't push it.

Do you see where I'm coming from now?


In 1200, Islam was a beacon of enlightenment. That religion helped pushed Christianity to a better state of mind.

I don't see how this helps your cause.

Thig Lyfe
03-29-2010, 02:13 PM
Anybody member of something called a "Christian militia" or anything similar would not be a true Christian.

Do you think peaceful, moderate Muslims (i.e. most Muslims) consider members of an "Islamic terrorist organization" to be true Muslims?

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 02:16 PM
I think it's possible to be a terrorist without being physically violent and I would say many Christian fall under that umbrella.

Poor people make the best terrorists. Comfortable people are less inclined to strap bombs to themselves.

Both excellent points.

Anybody member of something called a "Christian militia" or anything similar would not be a true Christian.

Don't get me started on the slippery slope of a true Christian. Logical fallacy aside, even.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 02:25 PM
1967's Six Day War (kind of) and 1973's Yom Kippur War? :shrug:

Yeah, I'll admit you got me there, but the circumstances there were beyond highly unusual.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 02:27 PM
You are comparing two different societies and time periods. During the Crusades, religion reigned supreme. Today, it's not even close to that level of power and influence. I know it's tiresome but revisit Galileo and his heresy. You just wouldn't have that in today's society.

Because of this, both points are rendered moot. Militarized sects are not as big precisely because religion doesn't have the hold it once did. (Now, you might argue that, today, Islam has an equal hold, but I would contend that on the global scale, its not close to that of Christianity in the times of the Crusades.) It's a minority because of society's structure. To compare the two and act as if they're on equal footing is ignorant. In fact, I'd propose that the difference between the Islamic minority today and the Christian majority then is proportional; though I have no facts to back that up.


Canyou clarify what you mean in the last sentence? "Christian majority then" WHEN? Islamic minority WHERE?

patteeu
03-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Yeah, I'll admit you got me there, but the circumstances there were beyond highly unusual.

One other thought I have on this topic is that a lot of muslim/non-muslim violence takes place in civil wars rather than nation vs. nation wars. Bosnia and Kosovo breaking free from the former Yugoslavia weren't examples of a muslim country attacking another country, but they were examples of muslim people fighting to exert dominant control over an area. Which side started the violence in those two cases is somewhat debatable though.

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 02:35 PM
Canyou clarify what you mean in the last sentence? "Christian majority then" WHEN? Islamic minority WHERE?

He was attempting to say that they aren't similar because Christians in the Crusades era were in a majority (in favor of conquering the holy land again) whereas today Islamic terrorists are a minority within Islam.

I'm saying that's only a product of how society itself has evolved. If we were back in Crusades era, I think you'd see much more Islamic terrorist(s) or groups.

InChiefsHell
03-29-2010, 02:38 PM
Actually KC I think you hit the nail completely on the head. If Iran invaded the US took us over with a unassailable military force and was cruising our streets killing neighbors, parents and children everyone would think you were a hero if you took out 10 of them, regardless of how noble they thought their goals were.

But how cool would they think you were if you blew yourself up in a crowded market full of other people just to prove a point, or to maybe take out a couple of the bad guys?

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 02:41 PM
One other thought I have on this topic is that a lot of muslim/non-muslim violence takes place in civil wars rather than nation vs. nation wars. Bosnia and Kosovo breaking free from the former Yugoslavia weren't examples of a muslim country attacking another country, but they were examples of muslim people fighting to exert dominant control over an area. Which side started the violence in those two cases is somewhat debatable though.

:shrug: That's true, but I'm not certain of the relevance. The statement related to whether Islam is in some kind of expansionistic "Crusader" mode. I don't see an internal struggle for power as expansionistic. And, as you say, the allocation of blame there is beyond difficult.

Unless you're suggesting that Islam has adopted the kind of tactics that Communism thought would lead to their world conquest -- infilatration and then revolution by sympathic supporters, that type of thing.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 02:42 PM
He was attempting to say that they aren't similar because Christians in the Crusades era were in a majority (in favor of conquering the holy land again) whereas today Islamic terrorists are a minority within Islam.

I'm saying that's only a product of how society itself has evolved. If we were back in Crusades era, I think you'd see much more Islamic terrorist(s) or groups.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks.

Jenson71
03-29-2010, 02:42 PM
I don't have any off the top of my head because I haven't studied Roman and Greek religions enough. I'm sure many of their invasions were religiously motivated, even if they're now relegated to mythology (another topic all together).

I can't think of a single Roman or Greek war that was started for religious reasons.

I'm not disagreeing that monotheism often has a militant aspect to it. I'm disagreeing with the idea that religions go through a cycle that mirrors Christianity, and that Islam is just now going through its "crusade period"

You are comparing two different societies and time periods. During the Crusades, religion reigned supreme. Today, it's not even close to that level of power and influence. I know it's tiresome but revisit Galileo and his heresy. You just wouldn't have that in today's society.

Because of this, both points are rendered moot.


My whole disagreement with you started because you were comparing two different societies and time periods, and saying that they inevitably follow similar evolutions. That's your argument! Not mine!!

I don't see how this helps your cause.

Because that shows how religions change with their societies. They are not static, unaffected movements! It was not inevitable that Islam was at one time the patron of Greek reason, but now they are in their "crusade period"

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 02:44 PM
And I'm not sure I agree that Islam isn't in the expansion business, Amnorix. They're using the same tactics Christianity used: weaponry/attacks to create fear.

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 02:45 PM
I can't think of a single Roman or Greek war that was started for religious reasons.

I'm not disagreeing that monotheism often has a militant aspect to it. I'm disagreeing with the idea that religions go through a cycle that mirrors Christianity, and that Islam is just now going through its "crusade period"


My whole disagreement with you started because you were comparing two different societies and time periods, and saying that they inevitably follow similar evolutions. That's your argument! Not mine!!



Because that shows how religions change with their societies. They are not static, unaffected movements! It was not inevitable that Islam was at one time the patron of Greek reason, but now they are in their "crusade period"


More later, as I have to work, but I don't see how the bold helps you or hurts me. I'm comparing two different societies and time periods and comparing the two TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHANGES, as I've pointed out.

Jenson71
03-29-2010, 02:52 PM
On second thought, I do remember one Greek war that was started because of religious reasons, though it wasn't for conversion, it was more of an offense.

Jenson71
03-29-2010, 03:05 PM
More later, as I have to work, but I don't see how the bold helps you or hurts me. I'm comparing two different societies and time periods and comparing the two TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHANGES, as I've pointed out.

You didn't just compare the two, you made a much bigger claim. Besides, even if you are now amending your original argument to just a comparison, there is still a ton wrong with it.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 03:16 PM
And I'm not sure I agree that Islam isn't in the expansion business, Amnorix. They're using the same tactics Christianity used: weaponry/attacks to create fear.

Well, first you have the problem of ascribing the actions of what seems to be a distinct minority to the religion in general. I don't think Christianity is in the abortion-doctor-murdering business, for example.

Second, I think you have pretty scan evidence regarding Islam's expansionistic tendencies. While I certainly think that there is an ongoing battle in a number of Islamic/Arabic countries over the degree to which the country itself will be dominated by Islamic versus secular ideals, there certainly hasn't been much evidence of conquest by Muslims of non-Muslims.

We are about 60 years removed from the de facto or de jure domination of Islamic countries by western, democratic, christian colonialism. The shift of power and self-determination still has yet to play out in all of the countries that were subjected to such colonialism, and has been complicated to some degree by the reconfiguring of nation states that happened during that era. Perhaps when that "game" is done being played, if militant Islam wins that "fight", then they will once again look external to their own borders, but for the last 300 or so years, you've got very little evidence to support the idea that Islam is on the march.

RJ
03-29-2010, 03:18 PM
Does attacking a funeral and cops count as terrorism?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts?GT1=43001


The article says these guys have a web site. I wonder if they have an IT department, cause none of the people who were arrested look bright enough to set one up.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 03:22 PM
Does attacking a funeral and cops count as terrorism?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts?GT1=43001

In this case, these fools should be in the Fail thread, rather than counted as terrorists. Moron wannabes is all you can say they are.

RJ
03-29-2010, 03:27 PM
In this case, these fools should be in the Fail thread, rather than counted as terrorists. Moron wannabes is all you can say they are.


Based on the photos, I'd say they belong in "People of Walmart".

patteeu
03-29-2010, 03:56 PM
:shrug: That's true, but I'm not certain of the relevance. The statement related to whether Islam is in some kind of expansionistic "Crusader" mode. I don't see an internal struggle for power as expansionistic. And, as you say, the allocation of blame there is beyond difficult.

Unless you're suggesting that Islam has adopted the kind of tactics that Communism thought would lead to their world conquest -- infilatration and then revolution by sympathic supporters, that type of thing.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. A combination of immigration, conversion and/or higher birthrates leading, over time, to greater political power (and sometimes to civil war) and tending to have the effect of muslim expansion.

stevieray
03-29-2010, 04:11 PM
You could go on and on about this stuff, but in my view, the western world became progressively less religious starting in the 1600s.
that's a pretty skewed view, considering it was Congress that printed the first Bibles in this country...and most oaths of office included God.

I'm amazed how much people try to rewrite our history.

Dave Lane
03-29-2010, 05:10 PM
that's a pretty skewed view, considering it was Congress that printed the first Bibles in this country...and most oaths of office included God.

I'm amazed how much people try to rewrite our history.

That maybe the all time funniest post you've posted. Kudos.

Pioli Zombie
03-29-2010, 06:11 PM
First Family Church in Overland Park comes close
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli Zombie
03-29-2010, 06:26 PM
The following terrorist organizations must never be allowed to acquire Plutonium. Heartland Community Church,Olathe
Life Church, Olathe
Westside Family Church, Lenexa
Posted via Mobile Device

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 07:24 PM
that's a pretty skewed view, considering it was Congress that printed the first Bibles in this country...and most oaths of office included God.

I'm amazed how much people try to rewrite our history.

Look, we can have a lengthy and detailed discussion about how religious the founders of this country were, or weren't. How many times the word "God" appears in the Constituiton, etc., but that isn't what I'm talking about.

The western world is nowhere near as religious as it was in the Middle Ages. Not even close. Wars were frequently fought either expressly on religious grounds, or at least nominally so in order to rouse public support. The percentage of the population that adhered, STRONGLY, to whatever religious denomination they worshipped were much higher, tending on to 100%. The power of the clergy, both spiritual and in the secular lives of their followers, was tremendous. Papal interdicts would be levied on a city and the effect, spiritual and economic, was tremendous -- the interdicted city could not have mass, could not receive any of the sacraments (including marriage), could not even ring the bells that, day after day, rang throughout the city. We, here in 2010, really just cannot relate to how important a role the organized church played not just in the daily lives of the individual citizenry, but in the functioning of the entire society.

I'm not here to denigrate you or your worship. YOU may be the most religious person in the history fo the world. I neither know nor care. Teh reality is, however, that the world you live in is not half as religious as the Western World was 600 years ago. And it's comical to think otherwise, achieving little more than proving your ignorance of history.

Pioli Zombie
03-29-2010, 07:36 PM
Jesus?
Posted via Mobile Device

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 09:11 PM
Well, first you have the problem of ascribing the actions of what seems to be a distinct minority to the religion in general. I don't think Christianity is in the abortion-doctor-murdering business, for example.

Neither do I. I don't recall offering that argument.


Second, I think you have pretty scan evidence regarding Islam's expansionistic tendencies. While I certainly think that there is an ongoing battle in a number of Islamic/Arabic countries over the degree to which the country itself will be dominated by Islamic versus secular ideals, there certainly hasn't been much evidence of conquest by Muslims of non-Muslims.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. In the Crusades era, the Twin Tower attack would have most likely converted a great many people so as to not invite further atrocities. Today, we don't have that problem. Again, it has to do with religion's role, which has been severely diminished.


We are about 60 years removed from the de facto or de jure domination of Islamic countries by western, democratic, christian colonialism. The shift of power and self-determination still has yet to play out in all of the countries that were subjected to such colonialism, and has been complicated to some degree by the reconfiguring of nation states that happened during that era. Perhaps when that "game" is done being played, if militant Islam wins that "fight", then they will once again look external to their own borders, but for the last 300 or so years, you've got very little evidence to support the idea that Islam is on the march.

I guess you don't see the cartoon uproar, the constant attacks on Western nations/religions, a part of the ME conflict, and many other activities as Islam being on the march. I see them as a pattern, obviously adapted to today's societal constraints; meaning fear won't have the same effect that witch trials had and thus entering a sort of guerrilla warfare, aka terrorism.

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 09:14 PM
Look, we can have a lengthy and detailed discussion about how religious the founders of this country were, or weren't. How many times the word "God" appears in the Constituiton, etc., but that isn't what I'm talking about.

The western world is nowhere near as religious as it was in the Middle Ages. Not even close. Wars were frequently fought either expressly on religious grounds, or at least nominally so in order to rouse public support. The percentage of the population that adhered, STRONGLY, to whatever religious denomination they worshipped were much higher, tending on to 100%. The power of the clergy, both spiritual and in the secular lives of their followers, was tremendous. Papal interdicts would be levied on a city and the effect, spiritual and economic, was tremendous -- the interdicted city could not have mass, could not receive any of the sacraments (including marriage), could not even ring the bells that, day after day, rang throughout the city. We, here in 2010, really just cannot relate to how important a role the organized church played not just in the daily lives of the individual citizenry, but in the functioning of the entire society.

I'm not here to denigrate you or your worship. YOU may be the most religious person in the history fo the world. I neither know nor care. Teh reality is, however, that the world you live in is not half as religious as the Western World was 600 years ago. And it's comical to think otherwise, achieving little more than proving your ignorance of history.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. And that's why I tend to see this as a cyclical thing just with constraints given a society's emphasis on religion at the time.

Thig Lyfe
03-29-2010, 10:52 PM
that's a pretty skewed view, considering it was Congress that printed the first Bibles in this country...and most oaths of office included God.

I'm amazed how much people try to rewrite our history.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thig Lyfe
03-29-2010, 10:58 PM
That maybe the all time funniest post you've posted. Kudos.

I'm afraid that honor goes to this one:

You can't scientifically prove George Washington existed.

funny how Jesus pulls up more hits on google than any other person in history.

HolyHandgernade
03-30-2010, 12:11 AM
Oh, yeah. I guess I meant Christian terrorists trying to infiltrate Muslim countries and wreak havoc. It seems like there should be some. Is Christianity just not as militant as Islam? They seemed to be willing to tote the rock during the Crusades, but I'm not seeing them now.

Personally, I think much has to do with how the majority view their religions manifestly. The Islamic mindset is that the world needs to submit to Allah and Islam. The Christians, OTOH, believe Jesus is supposed to accomplish this end himself. Every once and a while, you may get some groups who feel they need to "prepare" this world for that day, but essentially, the anticipation that Jesus will "lead" them in the second coming doesn't make forced interaction as necessary, especially if they live in a society that is more or less "comfortable".

Islam, OTOH, doesn't really have the Messianic outlook of "heaven on earth". Their view is that while we are here on "this world" our duty should be submission to Islam, and if you take some of the verses more literally, there are no qualms about making submission an either or thing concerning "the rest of your life". If you couple this with life conditions that are substantially "less comfortable" than what is known to exist elsewhere, targeting the "infidels" for their failure to submit is justified in their mind.

Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't violent Christians and peaceful Muslims, but when speaking of the majority of the flocks, these generalizations are not far fetched in answering your query. I think it is fair to say Islam has the propensity to be a much more violent religion when taken to its extremes. They aren't waiting for some God to come to Earth to give the "OK" to judge the quick and the dead.

-HH

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-30-2010, 12:21 AM
that's a pretty skewed view, considering it was Congress that printed the first Bibles in this country...and most oaths of office included God.

I'm amazed how much people try to rewrite our history.

What does this even mean?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-30-2010, 12:24 AM
I'm afraid that honor goes to this one:

What the fuck?

Thig Lyfe
03-30-2010, 12:55 AM
What the fuck?

The answer to that question is "stevieray is a huge fucking idiot."

Jilly
03-30-2010, 10:30 AM
I had forgotten how hard it is to keep up with these DC threads. Some of you are wicked smart........just some.

LOCOChief
03-30-2010, 12:09 PM
They're there but they're usually not as publicized.

Scott Roeder, for example, is a well publicized Christian terrorist with the minor exception that the media refuses to call him such. That's another key element: the media isn't even with the label.

Muslim gunman = terrorist
Christian gunman = murderer

The greater negative connotation is with the label terrorist despite them both being "bad".

You are a dumbass! There is no such thing as a Christian Terrorist. You cite ONE individual whom may or may not claim to be a Christian.

yet how many examples to we have of Muslims commiting terrorist acts?

Give me a break, again you = dumbass!

Reaper16
03-30-2010, 12:57 PM
You are a dumbass! There is no such thing as a Christian Terrorist. You cite ONE individual whom may or may not claim to be a Christian.

yet how many examples to we have of Muslims commiting terrorist acts?

Give me a break, again you = dumbass!
No such thing? Ever heard of Northern Ireland?

irishjayhawk
03-30-2010, 01:39 PM
You are a dumbass! There is no such thing as a Christian Terrorist. You cite ONE individual whom may or may not claim to be a Christian.

yet how many examples to we have of Muslims commiting terrorist acts?

Give me a break, again you = dumbass!

Please define terrorism, then.

LOCOChief
03-30-2010, 02:32 PM
Please define terrorism, then.

Below is a list of the worlds worst terror attacks since 9/11. which one's do you think were perpetrated by Christians?

Truth is there is about as much evidence of Christians commiting acts of terror as there is racist tea party goers which is none.



11 Sep 2001: crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)

12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)

29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)

1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)

21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)

27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)

2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)

11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)

24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)

1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)

28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)

14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)

5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)

11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)

16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)

23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)

22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)

3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)

6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)

27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)

18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)

3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)

7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)

14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)

18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)

17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)

26-29 Nov 2008: multiple gun and grenade attacks and hostage takings in Mumbai, India (174)

19 Aug 2009: multiple bombings at government sites in Baghdad, Iraq (102)

25 Oct 2009: two vehicle bombings at government buildings in Baghdad, Iraq (155)

28 Oct 2009: bombing at marketplace in Pakistan (118)

8 Dec 2009: five car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (127)

Reaper16
03-30-2010, 02:38 PM
Below is a list of the worlds worst terror attacks since 9/11. which one's do you think were perpetrated by Christians?

Truth is there is about as much evidence of Christians commiting acts of terror as there is racist tea party goers which is none.



11 Sep 2001: crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)

12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)

29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)

1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)

21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)

27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)

2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)

11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)

24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)

1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)

28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)

14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)

5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)

11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)

16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)

23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)

22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)

3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)

6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)

27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)

18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)

3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)

7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)

14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)

18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)

17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)

26-29 Nov 2008: multiple gun and grenade attacks and hostage takings in Mumbai, India (174)

19 Aug 2009: multiple bombings at government sites in Baghdad, Iraq (102)

25 Oct 2009: two vehicle bombings at government buildings in Baghdad, Iraq (155)

28 Oct 2009: bombing at marketplace in Pakistan (118)

8 Dec 2009: five car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (127)
You are the worst arguer.

Dave Lane
03-30-2010, 02:39 PM
You are a dumbass! There is no such thing as a Christian Terrorist. You cite ONE individual whom may or may not claim to be a Christian.

yet how many examples to we have of Muslims commiting terrorist acts?

Give me a break, again you = dumbass!

I can understand how you settled on your username.

InChiefsHell
03-30-2010, 02:45 PM
Please define terrorism, then.

I've always thought of terrorists as people involved in a conspiracy to alter people's minds or actions by committing acts of terror, to include suicide bombings of public markets, kidnappings and video taped torture sessions or executions by beheading. Terrorists typically attack civilian populations, and try to make their actions as big and destructive as possible, again, to strike terror into the hearts of their victims, who could be anyone, not just some targeted group. They operate in stealth, and do not "fight" per se. They simply destroy in the hope of terrifying people into doing what they want them to do.

That's how I think of terrorists.

irishjayhawk
03-30-2010, 04:24 PM
I've always thought of terrorists as people involved in a conspiracy to alter people's minds or actions by committing acts of terror, to include suicide bombings of public markets, kidnappings and video taped torture sessions or executions by beheading. Terrorists typically attack civilian populations, and try to make their actions as big and destructive as possible, again, to strike terror into the hearts of their victims, who could be anyone, not just some targeted group. They operate in stealth, and do not "fight" per se. They simply destroy in the hope of terrifying people into doing what they want them to do.

That's how I think of terrorists.

Oh, so you mean like murdering abortion doctors in an effort to sway other doctors from providing a perfectly legal service?

Thig Lyfe
03-30-2010, 05:50 PM
You are a dumbass! There is no such thing as a Christian Terrorist. You cite ONE individual whom may or may not claim to be a Christian.

yet how many examples to we have of Muslims commiting terrorist acts?

Give me a break, again you = dumbass!

You eat poopy and you smell like poopy and your whole head is full of poopy.

InChiefsHell
03-30-2010, 07:21 PM
Oh, so you mean like murdering abortion doctors in an effort to sway other doctors from providing a perfectly legal service?

No. I think of those guys as people acting alone, not in an organization that teaches them from birth. Look at my definition again. I said conspiracy. I don't believe that one can be proven when you look at the lunatics who murder abortion doctors. They are lunatic nutjob criminal murderous bastards. Not terrorists.

Now, if there was an organization of them who were going out and suicide bombing abortion clinics and killing indiscriminately, then yeah that would fit MY definition of a terrorist.

InChiefsHell
03-30-2010, 07:22 PM
You eat poopy and you smell like poopy and your whole head is full of poopy.

That is a very poopy-licous post.

stevieray
03-30-2010, 11:24 PM
I'm not here to denigrate you .... achieving little more than proving your ignorance of history.

uh huh.

I say your view is skewed, because youi don't believe in God, but are so willing and able to go back hundreds of years to say this is what religion is...when in fact, it's not even close to representing God. Killing in the Name of God after the New Covenant had been established sounds like something Satan would do...works out pretty well for him that way..use people to proclaim and act something false, so people can point at religion and say.. see? see how fake it is..?

Those people weren't religious, Fred Phleps isn't religious. They are the exact opposite. They use(d) the Lord's name in vain, for their own agenda....they use(d) God as a means to condemn others, when Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies and bless those who persecute us....You can't force people to truly believe, just like God can't force you to love Him, just like you can't force your own children to love you.

If anything, and especially in America, we became more religious or spiritual, because our belief and foundation was/is bulit upon free will, not determined from some King or dictator...it's comes freely from the heart (ie Holy Spirit), not from man. Man never had the freedom to believe without fear, in his own way, until America.

The Crusades, like the Pharisees, are/were more concentrated on the letter of the Law, rather than the Spirit of the Law. It's why they crucified Jesus, and why the Crusaders committed atrocities.

70% failed marriages doesn't mean marriage isn't steadfast, just the people entering into it...likewise, so called believers who committed murder haven't discredited God, only themselves.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-30-2010, 11:42 PM
uh huh.

I say your view is skewed, because youi don't believe in God, but are so willing and able to go back hundreds of years to say this is what religion is...when in fact, it's not even close to representing God. Killing in the Name of God after the New Covenant had been established sounds like something Satan would do...works out pretty well for him that way..use people to proclaim something false, so people can point at religion and say.. see? see how fake it is..?

Those people weren't religious, Fred Phleps isn't religious. They are the exact opposite. They use(d) the Lord's name in vain, for their own agenda....they use(d) God as a means to condemn others, when Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies and bless those who persecute us....You can't force people to truly believe, just like God can't force yo to love Him, just like you can't force your own children to love you.

If anything, and especially in America, we became more religous or spiritual, because our belief and foundation was/is bulit upon free will, not determined from some King or dictator...it's comes freely from the heart (ie Holy Spirit), not from man. Man never had the freedom to believe without fear, in his own way, until America.

The Crusades, like the Pharisees, are/were more concentrated on the letter of the Law, rather than the Spirit of the Law. It's why they crucified Jesus, and why the Crusaders committed atrocities.

70% failed marriges doesn't mean marriage isn't steadfast, just the people entering into it...likewise, so called believers who committed murder haven't discredited God, only thenselves.

Revisionism.

stevieray
03-30-2010, 11:48 PM
Revisionism.


first as Black Jack Savage, then John Matrix, then 'Hamas' Jenkins.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-30-2010, 11:50 PM
1) You show your Christ-like compassion for others here on a daily basis, and as such, should be commended
2) Your paragraphs of tripe were nothing other than justifications for the elimination of critical thought.

Fred Phleps isn't religious. They are the exact opposite. They use(d) the Lord's name in vain, for their own agenda....they use(d) God as a means to condemn others, when Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies and bless those who persecute us

Oh the irony, given all the hateful rep messages and thinly veiled challenges to fight.

ROFL

stevieray
03-31-2010, 12:02 AM
1) You show your Christ-like compassion for others here on a daily basis, and as such, should be commended
2) Your paragraphs of tripe were nothing other than justifications for the elimination of critical thought.

Fred Phleps isn't religious. They are the exact opposite. They use(d) the Lord's name in vain, for their own agenda....they use(d) God as a means to condemn others, when Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies and bless those who persecute us

Oh the irony, given all the hateful rep messages and thinly veiled challenges to fight.

ROFL

all you are doing is proving that by my continued failures of standards not put in place by you or me,, is that no man is righteous and all fall short of the glory of God, and that God's word is legitimate.

you want to make sexual innuendo jokes about my daughters, we'll both deal with the consequences of our actions. like you being banned for calling a NFL player a jigaboo.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-31-2010, 12:08 AM
all yor are doing is proving is that by my continued failures of standrds not put in place by you or me,, is that no man is righteous and all fall short of the glory of God, the God's word is legitimate..

Actually, I'm laughing at you continually judging others while espousing the rhetoric of Christianity.

More importantly, you seemed to miss the broader point, which was that you continually revise history and make all faults those of "man" and shift any blame from your theoretical God as a tautological way of propping up your belief system.

Thig Lyfe
03-31-2010, 12:16 AM
Actually, I'm laughing at you continually judging others while espousing the rhetoric of Christianity.

More importantly, you seemed to miss the broader point, which was that you continually revise history and make all faults those of "man" and shift any blame from your theoretical God as a tautological way of propping up your belief system.

Don't forget the part where he's a huge fucking idiot.

stevieray
03-31-2010, 12:19 AM
Actually, I'm laughing at you continually judging others while espousing the rhetoric of Christianity.

More importantly, you seemed to miss the broader point, which was that you continually revise history and make all faults those of "man" and shift any blame from your theoretical God as a tautological way of propping up your belief system.

by your logic, judging would only be in theory, and not practical.

like you attempting to play both sides of the fence.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-31-2010, 12:20 AM
by your logic, judging would only be in theory, and not practical

Do you mean praxis?

Thig Lyfe
03-31-2010, 12:24 AM
Do you mean praxis?

I don't even think he knows what he means. He just bashes his head against the keyboard and presses "submit."

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-31-2010, 12:26 AM
So, I found the Leinart "post"...and it wasn't me, you dim bastard, it was Mecca.

ROFL ROFL

Hey Matt Leinart is coming to Arrowhead next week.

Which could lead to the greatest thread in the history of the internet if he broke it off in some Planeteer's daughter.


Where's Stevie Ray when you need him........

Ok that was cold even for me.

Thig Lyfe
03-31-2010, 12:30 AM
So, I found the Leinart "post"...and it wasn't me, you dim bastard, it was Mecca.


When have facts ever gotten in stevieray's way?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XJRdyEtHvbU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XJRdyEtHvbU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

stevieray
03-31-2010, 12:30 AM
So, I found the Leinart "post"...and it wasn't me, you dim bastard, it was Mecca.

ROFL ROFL
funny how you leave out the part where you stated you wished it was you who had said it, and thought it was hilarious.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-31-2010, 12:36 AM
funny how you leave out the part where you stated you wished it was you who had said it, and thought it was hilarious.

So, basically you're admitting that you lied about me saying it?

Pioli Zombie
03-31-2010, 04:26 AM
Nazarenes are terrorists.
Posted via Mobile Device

Amnorix
03-31-2010, 08:27 AM
Man never had the freedom to believe without fear, in his own way, until America.


ROFL

Not that religious persecution wasn't a problem. Of course it was, but when the vast majority of the population worships religion in the same way, then I think they have the freedom to believe without fear, pretty much by definition.

Amnorix
03-31-2010, 08:28 AM
all you are doing is proving that by my continued failures of standards not put in place by you or me,, is that no man is righteous and all fall short of the glory of God, and that God's word is legitimate.


That's a heckuva leap. That humans aren't perfect doesn't prove there is a God.

LOCOChief
03-31-2010, 08:34 AM
You are the worst arguer.

Couldn't find a Christian terrorist on that list huh?

Jenson71
03-31-2010, 09:52 AM
Those people weren't religious, Fred Phleps isn't religious. They are the exact opposite. They use(d) the Lord's name in vain, for their own agenda....they use(d) God as a means to condemn others, when Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies and bless those who persecute us....You can't force people to truly believe, just like God can't force you to love Him, just like you can't force your own children to love you.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that people were not religious before the founding of America. Is that correct?

Reaper16
03-31-2010, 10:07 AM
Couldn't find a Christian terrorist on that list huh?
I said you were the worst arguer because:

1.) You said that the amount of racist Tea Party members is "none." I happen to agree with Tea Party people that the talk of rampant racism within the party's ranks is overblown but to say that there is zero racism amongst its members is impossibly stupid.

2.) You changed the goal posts. Big time. The question wasn't "Where are the Christian terrorists in the 50 largest terror attacks since 9/11." No one was talking about the severity of terror attacks. So no, I couldn't find a Christian terrorist on the list you provided. The list is irrelevant to this discussion, which seeks to find (and indeed has found despite your objections) any Christian terrorists at all.

Rain Man
03-31-2010, 10:35 AM
I've always thought of terrorists as people involved in a conspiracy to alter people's minds or actions by committing acts of terror, to include suicide bombings of public markets, kidnappings and video taped torture sessions or executions by beheading. Terrorists typically attack civilian populations, and try to make their actions as big and destructive as possible, again, to strike terror into the hearts of their victims, who could be anyone, not just some targeted group. They operate in stealth, and do not "fight" per se. They simply destroy in the hope of terrifying people into doing what they want them to do.

That's how I think of terrorists.


Perhaps this is another clarifying discussion we should have. While I generally agree with everything you say, I would add another big condition to your definition, which is that they're engaging in said acts against a government. I don't really view the abortion murderer as a terrorist because he wasn't seeking to gain power as a result of his actions. His attack was more of a social/personal cause.

Jilly
03-31-2010, 10:43 AM
Actually, I'm laughing at you continually judging others while espousing the rhetoric of Christianity.

More importantly, you seemed to miss the broader point, which was that you continually revise history and make all faults those of "man" and shift any blame from your theoretical God as a tautological way of propping up your belief system.

Wait....I think I know what you're getting at, but need some clarification, you're saying that he believes that all acts of terror, etc are faults of men and that he hides behind that to get away with saying some of the hateful things he does.....right? But then I'm hearing you say that at some point he should be blaming God for those faults and failures of history in the Christian culture of religion?

LOCOChief
03-31-2010, 02:58 PM
I said you were the worst arguer because:



2.) You changed the goal posts. Big time. The question wasn't "Where are the Christian terrorists in the 50 largest terror attacks since 9/11." No one was talking about the severity of terror attacks. So no, I couldn't find a Christian terrorist on the list you provided. The list is irrelevant to this discussion, which seeks to find (and indeed has found despite your objections) any Christian terrorists at all.

Isn't the thread title "where are the Christian terrorists"

You claiming that I've changed the goal posts "big time" is like me saying there are no racist tea party goers.

Either way the claim that there is a real problem with Christians perpetrating terrorist acts here and abroad and compairing the faith in those terms to Islam just doesn't seem right.

irishjayhawk
03-31-2010, 06:32 PM
Perhaps this is another clarifying discussion we should have. While I generally agree with everything you say, I would add another big condition to your definition, which is that they're engaging in said acts against a government. I don't really view the abortion murderer as a terrorist because he wasn't seeking to gain power as a result of his actions. His attack was more of a social/personal cause.

By this logic, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack. They didn't fly planes into the buildings as an act against a government but a way of life and, arguably, a religion. The 9/11 hijackers weren't attempting to gain power as a result of their actions, neither were the planners.

irishjayhawk
03-31-2010, 06:39 PM
Isn't the thread title "where are the Christian terrorists"

You claiming that I've changed the goal posts "big time" is like me saying there are no racist tea party goers.

Either way the claim that there is a real problem with Christians perpetrating terrorist acts here and abroad and compairing the faith in those terms to Islam just doesn't seem right.

It doesn't seem right because one views Christianity as good and Islam as bad.

Take religion out of the equation entirely (that is, all is bogus) and you have a different lens. In this case, it's clear there are terrorists on both sides. Many of the Christian terrorists are in early Christianity times. Islam happens to have them now.

Even this post seems to miss the point:

No. I think of those guys as people acting alone, not in an organization that teaches them from birth. Look at my definition again. I said conspiracy. I don't believe that one can be proven when you look at the lunatics who murder abortion doctors. They are lunatic nutjob criminal murderous bastards. Not terrorists.

Now, if there was an organization of them who were going out and suicide bombing abortion clinics and killing indiscriminately, then yeah that would fit MY definition of a terrorist.

There are plenty of anti-abortion groups. Many of which sided with what Scott did and some of which were used as evidence in the trial.

Now, if you want to add a clause that what makes a murderer different than a terrorist is the "killing indiscriminately" you'd still have to account for the serial killers and random happenstance murders that have occurred for years.

From my vantage point, it seems you want to define a killer who believes in Islam as a terrorist and a killer who believes in Christianity as a "nutjob criminal murderous bastard". Likewise is the tendency in the media. And a related note: many people who subscribe to this kind of view, view the Christian killer as "not a true Christian" while an Islamic killer as a representative of their faith. (aka, oh he's just Islamic.... As if that explains something.)

Saggysack
04-01-2010, 05:12 AM
WooHoo! Chalk one up for the good guys.

Christian terrorist Scott Roeder will be sentenced today. Buh-Bye, scotty. Don't forget to wear your underwear when you shower.

InChiefsHell
04-01-2010, 07:30 AM
There are plenty of anti-abortion groups. Many of which sided with what Scott did and some of which were used as evidence in the trial.

Well, I can honestly say I don't know much about that. How were they used as evidence in the trial?

Now, if you want to add a clause that what makes a murderer different than a terrorist is the "killing indiscriminately" you'd still have to account for the serial killers and random happenstance murders that have occurred for years.

No, because it's a whole ton of criteria, not just any one of the criteria I mentioned.

From my vantage point, it seems you want to define a killer who believes in Islam as a terrorist and a killer who believes in Christianity as a "nutjob criminal murderous bastard". Likewise is the tendency in the media. And a related note: many people who subscribe to this kind of view, view the Christian killer as "not a true Christian" while an Islamic killer as a representative of their faith. (aka, oh he's just Islamic.... As if that explains something.)

It seems to me then, by your vantage point, a killer is a killer, regardless of motive or circumstance. And by that definition, there is no such thing as a terrorist. They are all the same.

I respect your intellect, but that to me is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

LOCOChief
04-01-2010, 07:55 AM
It doesn't seem right because one views Christianity as good and Islam as bad.

In this case, it's clear there are terrorists on both sides. Many of the Christian terrorists are in early Christianity times. Islam happens to have them now.



The "early Christianity times"? Maybe Christains have become more civilized over the last hundred or so centuries and Muslims haven't????

Look at it this way.

On one hand you have a couple of so called Christians commiting acts that can be considered terrorism that is denounced by everyone else in that faith.

On the other hand you have tens of thousands of Muslims commiting acts of terrorism all over the world against tens of thousands of innocent people in the name of Allah. Many who perpetrate these acts are not only held in high regard by other members of that faith and their families, but it is also believed by many in that faith that their acts are justified and they will be rewarded by their creator for them.




I would think that even an anti Christian nut job (not that you are one) can see the difference, it is what it is.

irishjayhawk
04-01-2010, 01:37 PM
Well, I can honestly say I don't know much about that. How were they used as evidence in the trial?



No, because it's a whole ton of criteria, not just any one of the criteria I mentioned.


It seems to me then, by your vantage point, a killer is a killer, regardless of motive or circumstance. And by that definition, there is no such thing as a terrorist. They are all the same.

I respect your intellect, but that to me is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

Why is this a ridiculous outlook? A killer is a killer is a killer. Serial killers and one time murderers are both killers - one just does it more often and is therefore more dangerous.

Moreover, terrorism means they're using terror to impose their will. A terrorist is one who employs terrorism. Would you say the 9/11 hijackers - who are almost like the gold standard of the label "terrorists" actually used terror to impose their will? Was it even remotely effective?

It seems you want to define them based on numbers killed per event. By that logic, McVeigh is a clear terrorist. The Columbine kids were terrorists.

I don't see how it's ridiculous to view a killer is a killer is a killer.

The "early Christianity times"? Maybe Christains have become more civilized over the last hundred or so centuries and Muslims haven't????

Hence, why I view this as cyclical. I'm apparently alone in that viewpoint, but I'm sticking to it.


Look at it this way.

On one hand you have a couple of so called Christians commiting acts that can be considered terrorism that is denounced by everyone else in that faith.

Well, considering this passage and the one below, I'd say I was right on the mark; which is to say that because it's Christianity, they're automatically nutbags and not a true Christian and because Islam they're viewed as part of the whole.


On the other hand you have tens of thousands of Muslims commiting acts of terrorism all over the world against tens of thousands of innocent people in the name of Allah. Many who perpetrate these acts are not only held in high regard by other members of that faith and their families, but it is also believed by many in that faith that their acts are justified and they will be rewarded by their creator for them.

Tens of thousands? Really?

You don't think there are plenty of Christians who side with Scott Roeder?



It's pretty clear. Christianity = good; Islam = bad. Christianity terrorists don't exist because Christianity denounces terrorism. Islam terrorists exist because the PERCEPTION is Islam accepts terrorism.




I would think that even an anti Christian nut job (not that you are one) can see the difference, it is what it is.[/QUOTE]

Chief Henry
04-01-2010, 01:42 PM
The "early Christianity times"? Maybe Christains have become more civilized over the last hundred or so centuries and Muslims haven't????

Look at it this way.

On one hand you have a couple of so called Christians commiting acts that can be considered terrorism that is denounced by everyone else in that faith.

On the other hand you have tens of thousands of Muslims commiting acts of terrorism all over the world against tens of thousands of innocent people in the name of Allah. Many who perpetrate these acts are not only held in high regard by other members of that faith and their families, but it is also believed by many in that faith that their acts are justified and they will be rewarded by their creator for them.


I would think that even an anti Christian nut job (not that you are one) can see the difference, it is what it is.



Well said :thumb:

InChiefsHell
04-01-2010, 03:32 PM
Why is this a ridiculous outlook? A killer is a killer is a killer. Serial killers and one time murderers are both killers - one just does it more often and is therefore more dangerous.

Moreover, terrorism means they're using terror to impose their will. A terrorist is one who employs terrorism. Would you say the 9/11 hijackers - who are almost like the gold standard of the label "terrorists" actually used terror to impose their will? Was it even remotely effective?

It seems you want to define them based on numbers killed per event. By that logic, McVeigh is a clear terrorist. The Columbine kids were terrorists.

I don't see how it's ridiculous to view a killer is a killer is a killer.

Fair enough. And I think McVeigh is a terrorist. But I'm not sure his motivations were religious, so I'm not sure he could be labled a Christian terrorist. But a terrorist nonetheless. He was involved in a conspiracy. He didn't blow himself up, which I've always thought of as a "terrorist calling card".

Maybe the reason people don't think of Christians as terrorists is because you just don't see them out there screaming "Jesus is Lord" before they blow up a school full of kids or go into a mall and start blasting away.

I don't know. Agree to disagree I guess. A killer is indeed a killer, but a terrorist is a special breed. I'm sure that there are some Christian "terrorists" out there, but I'm sure they are not as prevalent or active as a Muslim terrorist is.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just makes more sense.

stevieray
04-01-2010, 04:16 PM
ROFL

Not that religious persecution wasn't a problem. Of course it was, but when the vast majority of the population worships religion in the same way, then I think they have the freedom to believe without fear, pretty much by definition.
....you're strengthening my point.

People worship God. When people worship religion, that's when it gets skewed.

stevieray
04-01-2010, 04:19 PM
That's a heckuva leap. That humans aren't perfect doesn't prove there is a God.
no, the charge was that I fail as a Christian..Which is true. ..and it's only true because God says if you judge, you'll be judged. We can't say on one hand that God isn't real, and on the other state that holding people to HIS standards is valid.

Jenson71
04-01-2010, 08:06 PM
....you're strengthening my point.

People worship God. When people worship religion, that's when it gets skewed.

People didn't worship religion before the founding of America. They worshiped God.

jjjayb
04-03-2010, 11:19 AM
And apparantley these guys were Bush hating Democrats. Go figure. ROFL

Pioli Zombie
04-03-2010, 10:33 PM
I like cheese.
Posted via Mobile Device