Christian Terrorists Kill American Civilians and Shoot Police

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2015, 04:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He may have been Christian, but that doesn't mean he did what he did because of Christianity.  I would guess that in this country the majority of murderers would identify as Christian, but that doesn't mean they killed for Christianity.

Right.  Thus the identification, Christian Terrorist.

 

[SteelCitySouth]

(12-01-2015, 03:26 PM)Benton Wrote: Behold!



In it, Christians are told, in so many words, not to shoot people. Jews, not so much, but they stop reading after the first half.

Where does it say you are no longer christian?  If one believes in god and everything written in that book, I'm sure one will agree that not all Christians will go to heaven.  It does not say that if you do these things you are no longer Christian it says that you will no longer be able to take part in the benefits there of later.  Also Part two provides a buy back.  So there's that as well.

[Benton]

(12-01-2015, 04:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He may have been Christian, but that doesn't mean he did what he did because of Christianity.  I would guess that in this country the majority of murderers would identify as Christian, but that doesn't mean they killed for Christianity.

Like Beast said, a Christian wouldn't have done this.

[Belsnickel]

(12-01-2015, 05:08 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Where does it say you are no longer christian?  If one believes in god and everything written in that book, I'm sure one will agree that not all Christians will go to heaven.  It does not say that if you do these things you are no longer Christian it says that you will no longer be able to take part in the benefits there of later.  Also Part two provides a buy back.  So there's that as well.

Christian means following Christ. Christ was pretty specific about turning swords into plowshares and turning the other cheek. I'm sure there are some that would argue that acting violently is not being Christian as you are not following Christ.

Disclaimer: This does not necessarily reflect my views, only that there is a logical inference there that can be made.

[Benton]

(12-01-2015, 05:08 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Where does it say you are no longer christian?  If one believes in god and everything written in that book, I'm sure one will agree that not all Christians will go to heaven.  It does not say that if you do these things you are no longer Christian it says that you will no longer be able to take part in the benefits there of later.  Also Part two provides a buy back.  So there's that as well.

Sinning is part of it. It's that understanding that nobody is perfect, you will screw up and He will forgive you. But that requires remorse and actually seeking absolution. That is something on a personal level.

A person might identify themselves as a Christian. They might break the rules. As long as they are remorseful for that, as long as they're trying to do better, it washes off. But if you're shooting people, you're not following the teaching any moreso than a vegetarian is a plant eater if they break down and eat some bacon.

[Belsnickel]

(12-01-2015, 05:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Sinning is part of it. It's that understanding that nobody is perfect, you will screw up and He will forgive you. But that requires remorse and actually seeking absolution. That is something on a personal level.

A person might identify themselves as a Christian. They might break the rules. As long as they are remorseful for that, as long as they're trying to do better, it washes off. But if you're shooting people, you're not following the teaching any moreso than a vegetarian is a plant eater if they break down and eat some bacon.

You almost got me to get really theological in here.

I've been reading a lot of Reformation works as of late, as well as some more modern takes on Lutheran theology and so there is a lot of this stuff in the front of my mind.

[SteelCitySouth]

(12-01-2015, 05:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Sinning is part of it. It's that understanding that nobody is perfect, you will screw up and He will forgive you. But that requires remorse and actually seeking absolution. That is something on a personal level.

A person might identify themselves as a Christian. They might break the rules. As long as they are remorseful for that, as long as they're trying to do better, it washes off. But if you're shooting people, you're not following the teaching any moreso than a vegetarian is a plant eater if they break down and eat some bacon.

So then you agree that it is an opinion, and not proof as to know his "christianity" without accepting what he says would require you to either know what is in his heart, which again would require you to know the thoughts of god.

[SteelCitySouth]

Don't get me wrong Benton. I agree. I'ts just that the standard in here has been set. One only needs to identify themselves as a member of a religious community to have the entire said community saddled with the wrongs of this person or group.

I am merely arguing for them since they seem to be having difficulty doing it themselves for some reason.

[Benton]

(12-01-2015, 06:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You almost got me to get really theological in here.

I've been reading a lot of Reformation works as of late, as well as some more modern takes on Lutheran theology and so there is a lot of this stuff in the front of my mind.

Go for it. After all, that's what the forum is supposed to be about — sharing different views on politics and religion — not as an outlet for Islamaphobia or homophobia or any other fear mongering.

[SteelCitySouth]

(12-01-2015, 06:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Go for it. After all, that's what the forum is supposed to be about — sharing different views on politics and religion — not as an outlet for Islamaphobia or homophobia or any other fear mongering.

You save those for Klotsch  

[Benton]

(12-01-2015, 06:09 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: So then you agree that it is an opinion, and not proof as to know his "christianity" without accepting what he says would require you to either know what is in his heart, which again would require you to know the thoughts of god.

That's a valid point, but it's one after the fact. I don't think it would be fair to label him as a Christian terrorist as — in the moment of committing the act in question — he was doing it against the teachings. That was the reason I mentioned Judaism. Some acts are permitted by their books. So, while there isn't one in this case, you could call someone a Jewish terrorist, but not a Christian.

(12-01-2015, 06:13 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Don't get me wrong Benton.  I agree.  I'ts just that the standard in here has been set.  One only needs to identify themselves as a member of a religious community to have the entire said community saddled with the wrongs of this person or group.

I am merely arguing for them since they seem to be having difficulty doing it themselves for some reason.

And that's something that should change. But people take a long time to get over preconceptions and being scaredy cats doesn't help them any.

[Benton]

(12-01-2015, 06:18 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You save those for Klotsch  

Smack talk.

Steelers fans are, by and large, fear mongers.

[SteelCitySouth]

(12-01-2015, 06:21 PM)Benton Wrote: Smack talk.

Steelers fans are, by and large, fear mongers.

So you identify as a Steeler fan then.  Very well.

[Benton]

(12-01-2015, 06:23 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: So you identify as a Steeler fan then.  Very well.

The only fear I monger is of my Andrew Luck like equipment.

[Aquapod770]

(12-01-2015, 03:08 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Can you prove he isn't?

I didn't start a thread claiming he wasn't did I? 

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2015, 06:48 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I didn't start a thread claiming he wasn't did I? 

No you didn't.  So we've landed in a stalemate then?  I can't prove he is, you can't prove he isn't.  What we both do know, is that he shot up a PP facility.  Oddly similar to previous hostile and violent actions taken on PP by the radical christian right pro-lifer movement.  Thats the connection I made, which I've elaborated on several times in the thread.

Others have made fair cases as to why they do not believe he should be labeled a christian which I respect wholeheartedly.  Would you like to contribute to that dialogue, or just keep asking each other dumb questions with obvious answers?  

[*michaelsean*]

(12-01-2015, 04:33 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Right.  Thus the identification, Christian Terrorist.

 

When you modify the word you are implying a connection.  I don't call Stalinan atheist mass murderer or Dahmer an atheist serial killer.  I just call them a mass murderer and a serial killer.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2015, 11:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: When you modify the word you are implying a connection.  I don't call Stalinan atheist mass murderer or Dahmer an atheist serial killer.  I just call them a mass murderer and a serial killer.

That was intentional. I believe there is a connection.  

[*michaelsean*]

(12-01-2015, 11:48 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: That was intentional. I believe there is a connection.  

Hope is probably the better word.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 12:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Hope is probably the better word.

I'm confident my phrasing and word choice accurately depicts my sentiments on the subject. Shall I interpret your revision as a threat? Please elaborate on the consequences should aforementioned statements of my 'belief' be incorrect.‎