Christian Terrorists Kill American Civilians and Shoot Police

[GMDino]

(12-02-2015, 03:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course you hoped there was a connection.  One need only look at the approach you took to creating this thread.  Not one word of sympathy for the victims.

I really have no idea what you are talking about me implying some sort of consequence or what you saw as a threat. 

"Hope is probably the better word."  Nope.  Still don't see it.

No, not hope...expected...assumed...something like that.

And then *IF* it was true everyone could pretend it has nothing to do with religion.

But then we DO have all those atheists attacking PP buildings and doctors.  

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does this organization receive Federal assistance and other type of aid, to include tax breaks under the faith based initiatives?

Your attempt here to, as put by another user, move the bar is noted. I have no knowledge of their filing status for anything, only what they identify as and their justification as such. Any organization does not require government recognition to be such. I know churches that are not officially recognized by the government all over my area, does that mean they are not a Christian organization?

I understand that it is an uncomfortable thing to think of people that identify as something we may ourselves identify as taking such an action. Trying to distance ourselves from them is the natural reaction. "They are not Christian" is the first thing we want to think and say, but they are saying they are. Those that may not be Christian will see them as such. So we make statements to say that what they did is not Christian, that we do not recognize them as such, that we are against their extremist stance on something that we also do not agree with but would not go to such extremes, or even think about doing so, in order to combat it. And inevitably, many people will ignore all of that and just say that his Christian beliefs led him to do what he did.

Just seems to be a very familiar script these days.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 03:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course you hoped there was a connection.  One need only look at the approach you took to creating this thread.  Not one word of sympathy for the victims.

I really have no idea what you are talking about me implying some sort of consequence or what you saw as a threat. 

"Hope is probably the better word."  Nope.  Still don't see it.

If you're implying that I derive some sort of pleasure from religious ideology influencing people to act violently against others all in the name of JHC; you haven't been reading this thread at all.

Keep on denying the connection.  Its a good look on you.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 04:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: If you're implying that I derive some sort of pleasure from religious ideology influencing people to act violently against others all in the name of JHC; you haven't been reading this thread at all.

Keep on denying the connection.  Its a good look on you.

No I think you get some kind of joy out of discovering that an event was perpetrated by a Christian.  It's very plain to see.  And you still haven't explained this threat that I leveled at you.  

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 04:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No I think you get some kind of joy out of discovering that an event was perpetrated by a Christian.  It's very plain to see.  

1.  I was juxtaposing it against all the other bigoted hatred against muslims thats taken place here of late.  That combined with the 50 PP threads Lucile created a while back, and I decided this was a pertinent subject.  

Quote:And you still haven't explained this threat that I leveled at you.  

2.  Explained it multiple times.  Turn off the TV and concentrate when you reread it this time.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 04:26 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: 1.  I was juxtaposing it against all the other bigoted hatred against muslims thats taken place here of late.  That combined with the 50 PP threads Lucile created a while back, and I decided this was a pertinent subject.  


2.  Explained it multiple times.  Turn off the TV and concentrate when you reread it this time.

Never explained it once.  Tell me the words I used that were threatening.  What did I say that made you think, "Hmmm...he would come after me if he could."?

[GMDino]

(12-02-2015, 04:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Never explained it once.  Tell me the words I used that were threatening.  What did I say that made you think, "Hmmm...he would come after me if he could."?

Its been pretty clearly explained as to why the thread was created and for what purpose.  I would suggest that if its the victims you are concerned about youshould re-read the entire thread.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-02-2015, 04:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Its been pretty clearly explained as to why the thread was created and for what purpose.  I would suggest that if its the victims you are concerned about youshould re-read the entire thread.

I'm talking about where I threatened him.

[Rotobeast]

(12-02-2015, 04:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm talking about where I threatened him.

Sorry.... I cannot help myself.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2015, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your attempt here to, as put by another user, move the bar is noted. I have no knowledge of their filing status for anything, only what they identify as and their justification as such. Any organization does not require government recognition to be such. I know churches that are not officially recognized by the government all over my area, does that mean they are not a Christian organization?

I understand that it is an uncomfortable thing to think of people that identify as something we may ourselves identify as taking such an action. Trying to distance ourselves from them is the natural reaction. "They are not Christian" is the first thing we want to think and say, but they are saying they are. Those that may not be Christian will see them as such. So we make statements to say that what they did is not Christian, that we do not recognize them as such, that we are against their extremist stance on something that we also do not agree with but would not go to such extremes, or even think about doing so, in order to combat it. And inevitably, many people will ignore all of that and just say that his Christian beliefs led him to do what he did.

Just seems to be a very familiar script these days.

Most likely why I said affiliated; I suppose recognized would be a beeter word to use for someone attempting to play Devil's Advocate.

Do you consider any organization that calls themselves Christians, such as this one, to be a Christian based organization?

Often times we have to employ the "reasonable person" concept.

Not sure what bar has been moved.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 12:55 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: 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.‎

There you go.  Never even said it was threatening.  Asked if I should interpret it as such.  When you communicate lazily, it puts an onus of interpretation on the reader.  In the future, attempt more specificity in order to avoid said confusion.

You said 'Hope is probably a better word'.  You understand 'hope' has a couple of meanings, depending on how it is used, correct?

Technically speaking, if I were to assume you wanted to replace 'believe' with 'Hope'; then you are using its verb form and are essentially saying 'I want it to be the case.'  Obviously not.  I KNEW it was that case.  Because it was REALITY. 
 
Unfortunately, I did not interpret the statement that way, and am partially to blame for that.  For that, I apologize, I was getting heated.  I interpreted it as expecting some sort of consequence, incorrectly.  

But still, please don't 'come after me.'  I'm a meek man with dainty hands and pastel shirts.  You're clearly too much of a big devout man for me.    

[*Nately120*]

Well, there was another shooting today so I think it's time we put this "old news" to bed and concentrate on the next one.

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely why I said affiliated; I suppose recognized would be a beeter word to use for someone attempting to play Devil's Advocate.

Either way, it is irrelevant. Formal affiliation or recognition is not necessary to be Christian, whether it is from the government or another religious organization.

(12-02-2015, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you consider any organization that calls themselves Christians, such as this one, to be a Christian based organization?

My position is that they believe themselves to be Christians. My belief does not jive with their belief, but it also does not jive with Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, or Latter Day Saints. It's not my place to determine whether or not they are Christian.

(12-02-2015, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Often times we have to employ the "reasonable person" concept.

I am very confident that if the legal principle of the "reasonable person" test were applied to everything I have said in this thread, it would stand.

(12-02-2015, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure what bar has been moved.

My apologies, you never set a bar to begin with, so there was no bar to move.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-02-2015, 05:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, there was another shooting today so I think it's time we put this "old news" to bed and concentrate on the next one.

Don't specify the shooter's religion in the thread...  Unless their brown.  

OTHERWISE YOU HATE 'MURICA!

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2015, 05:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Either way, it is irrelevant. Formal affiliation or recognition is not necessary to be Christian, whether it is from the government or another religious organization.


My position is that they believe themselves to be Christians. My belief does not jive with their belief, but it also does not jive with Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, or Latter Day Saints. It's not my place to determine whether or not they are Christian.


I am very confident that if the legal principle of the "reasonable person" test were applied to everything I have said in this thread, it would stand.


My apologies, you never set a bar to begin with, so there was no bar to move.

The question is not a difficult one. Do you believe that this AOG orgainzation and other terrorist groups would be considered a Christian Based Oganization using the "Reasonable Person Standard" that we must often times apply?

And don't sell yourself short; it does matter what you think; so a yes or no would be preferable from the typical; it's not up to me to decide.  

Let's say I sat the bar there

[*Nately120*]

(12-02-2015, 05:12 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Don't specify the shooter's religion in the thread...  Unless their brown.  

OTHERWISE YOU HATE 'MURICA!

Does it matter?  It's a shooting in America...what else needs to be said anymore?

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The question is not a difficult one. Do you believe that this AOG orgainzation and other terrorist groups would be considered a Christian Based Oganization using the "Reasonable Person Standard" that we must often times apply?

And don't sell yourself short; it does matter what you think; so a yes or no would be preferable from the typical; it's not up to me to decide.  

Let's say I sat the bar there

Applying the "reasonable person" principle, AoG and those affiliated with it would be counted as a Christian based terrorist organization.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2015, 05:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Applying the "reasonable person" principle, AoG and those affiliated with it would be counted as a Christian based terrorist organization.

So that is a yes; gonna say, as usual, we disagree on this organization or any other hate group being Christian based in anyway. I suppose only one of us is being a "reasonable person"

[*PhilHos*]

(12-02-2015, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I understand that it is an uncomfortable thing to think of people that identify as something we may ourselves identify as taking such an action. Trying to distance ourselves from them is the natural reaction. "They are not Christian" is the first thing we want to think and say, but they are saying they are. Those that may not be Christian will see them as such. So we make statements to say that what they did is not Christian, that we do not recognize them as such, that we are against their extremist stance on something that we also do not agree with but would not go to such extremes, or even think about doing so, in order to combat it. And inevitably, many people will ignore all of that and just say that his Christian beliefs led him to do what he did.

At least Christians denounce the heinous actions of other "Christians" like this one.

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2015, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that is a yes; gonna say, as usual, we disagree on this organization or any other hate group being Christian based in anyway. I suppose only one of us is being a "reasonable person"

I don't believe any hate group could actually be based on Christian principles, myself. But then we will get into the script I mentioned before that is being played out here, and is played out time and time again whenever any act of violence is carried out with religious motivation.