First off, we really have NO idea who any of the posters are on this site, what their motivations are, or who they are in real life. That's the blessing & curse of dealing in Cyber space, it's quite anonymous, thus allowing folks to even pretend if they so wish w/o repercussions or fear of being found out.
I know for a fact that there are Democratic operatives operating as plants here. I've talked to them & they have admitted as much. We have several Freepers here that do likewise on DU & the Huffington Post. No great revelation there.
With that being said, I look at those I referred to as the Christian Jihadists, & for the better part, I see them as fanatics (please see defintion below), one trick pony's if you will. This is a conservative political website, & yet for the most part, they, for the better part, post almost exclusively on Mormon and/or Catholic bashing threads, or threads that they quickly hijack into Mormon/Catholic bashing threads (i.e. most recent Glen Beck Threads). The vast majority of their time is spent bashing, not on conservative causes for which this site has it's purpose, or at least used to. The vast majority of their time is spent on sewing seeds of discord here among conservatives, not uniting in the common theme of conservatism. Hmmmm. Something plants are specifically here to do. But I digress.
The definition of Jihad is Holy war. Is there really any doubt that these "Christian Jihadists" consider the cause they undertake here as a Holy war? Their actions & obsessive behavior certainly seem to point in that direction. Jihadists of any kind tend to try & impose their will/opinions upon the rest. They believe that it's their way or the highway. There's no room for opposing opinions, theirs is all that matters. Of course all they have are opinions, very little that's definitive, yet that doesn't stop them.
Common to most, if not all Jihadists, they are fanatical in their actions & beliefs. Psychologically, fanatics tend to be somewhat unstable. To varying degrees of course. It's hard to tell at times to what degree here because we're in cyber space. Although sometimes we can gain great insight through the words expressed & the obsessive behavior . However, it's still nothing more than an educated guess.
Do you guys ever wonder why the number of non LDS Christian posters here is increasing in taking you folks to the woodshed on these threads? Most seem to be fellow Evangelicals, & as w/ many of my Evangelical friends here locally, they are embarrassed by your fanatical actions. They're embarrassed that you claim to represent their views.
Does that translate into the possibility that one of the fanaticals here could actually shoot a Mormon bishop?, someone, a poster, we really know virtually nothing about? Perhaps, but I would think it highly unlikely in this case. Stranger things have happened...........Ireland/England anyone?
Also, EJ, I'm not a lawyer........your misrepresentations never do stop do they?
As you look at the following definition of fanatic, see if these definitions don't apply to your presence here on FR. I'm back to having fun. Best wishes to all for a great week.
fa·nat·ic Noun /fəˈnatik/
Synonyms:
adjective: rabid, bigoted, phrenetic, frenetic
noun: zealot, bigot
fanatics plural
A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause A person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, esp. an activity a fitness fanatic
fa·nat·ic Adjective /fəˈnatik/ Filled with or expressing excessive zeal his fanatic energy Web definitions
a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill
marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fanatic
Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanatic
A person who is zealously enthusiastic for some cause, especially in religion; Fanatical; Showing evidence of possession by a god or demon; frenzied, over-zealous http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fanatic
fanaticism - excessive intolerance of opposing views http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fanaticism
I give it a 5.5 though, overdone and all too familiar hyperbole and unsubstantiated accusations...
Not enough to overcome the fact you find accusing fellow freepers of murder something to giggle about...
Don't worry, that is not possible so even a 10 would have fallen short...
So that is one point for you.
Since my misreprenrtaion never stop, care to go for 2, 3, or more?
Should be easy, and as I have just now demonstrated without use of any excuses, rhetoric or diversion I can admit to being wrong when fact presents itself. It could be a lesson for you.
So you could really just hammer me into the ground as a liar with proof of all these non stop misrepresentations...
I'm game, what say you Reno?
How nice of you, hold that thought please.
With that being said, I look at those I referred to as the Christian Jihadists, & for the better part, I see them as fanatics (please see defintion below), one trick pony's if you will.
Ah, you lost it reno. I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public. You like definitions - here's one that fits you to a tee
HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective
Oh, but this gets better - how so?
Does that translate into the possibility that one of the fanaticals here could actually shoot a Mormon bishop?, someone, a poster, we really know virtually nothing about?
Yet that doesn't stop you from making the inferrence now does it Reno. I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
Incapable of winning on the ISSUES, you have to whine in this fashion, tsk tsk reno.
I also don't consider myself having "been taken to the woodshed".
Unless of course, you're talking about being accused of bearing some responsibility for the Bishop's death, smeared by ad hominem and personal attacks, lying, obfuscating, dismissing comments, etc. You know, all of those activities that make for such stimulating and adult conversation.
I tip my hat to you all, you've done an outstanding job.
The mere fact that you and your fellow mormons would stand on the side of those bearing false witness against others solely because we disagree with your theology and doctrine and have the courage to do so openly, says more about you than us. I am now much more aware and informed of who is behind some of those keyboards. It's been an eye-opening experience.
Hope you have a great week.
As for being zealous, why be apologetic about it? It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:18)
I mean, what, Reno? Lds missionary zeal is commendable, but other zeal from other sources is condemned?
I suppose Mormon missionaries can give up 2 full years of their lives to go around & weekly, if not daily, talk about the universal apostasy & restoration...yet if Christians object to this term of "apostate" imposed upon them by Mormons & Mormon missionaries, and if we do so zealously, then you trot out your list of labels...and liberal-tactic like, treat other posters the way we see liberals do it all the time.
Little substantive discussion & dialogue. Just paint them as extremists so they can be readily dismissed. (Reno, that's also what the MSM does)
...they are fanatical in their actions & beliefs. Psychologically, fanatics tend to be somewhat unstable.
So are we to conclude, then, Reno, that anyone who yields two years of prime-time life, leaving family, girlfriend, family contact, behind to follow 70+ rules that effectively treat you like a 10-12 yo, riding a bike for two years along with a backpack, bothering people door-to-door to impose their religious viewpoint upon others during their 70-hour work weeks...that these "fanatics" are "somewhat unstable"? Fanaticism for thee but not for others?
Jihadists of any kind tend to try & impose their will/opinions upon the rest. They believe that it's their way or the highway. There's no room for opposing opinions, theirs is all that matters.
So, do you realize that also qualifies most Mormon missionaries as "jihadists." The Lds missionaries I've encountered "tend to try & impose their will/opinions upon" their unwilling subjects answering doorbells & knocks. These Lds missionaries tend to "believe that it's their way" -- 'cause if they feel they are not making headway with a given prospect, they hit "the highway. There's no room for opposing opinions, theirs" (their version of the Mormon "gospel") "is all that matters."
Does that translate into the possibility that one of the fanaticals here could actually shoot a Mormon bishop?, someone, a poster, we really know virtually nothing about? Perhaps, but I would think it highly unlikely in this case. Stranger things have happened..
You know if I thought the way that you do, I'd be all over the supposed "propensity" that there's something about being a one-time member of the Mormon church that somehow "weighs in" & produces mass-murderers. What do I mean? If you combine this shooting with the last church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO, what did the shooters have in common? One-time membership in the Mormon church.
I mean, if I took your line of thinking, I'd say, "Hmmm...we don't see all these ex-Presbyterian shooters, or ex-Methodist shooters, or ex-Nazarene shooters...or ex-charismatic shooters...but here we see these ex-Mormon shooters." If I took your line of thinking, I might wonder, "Hmm...are they brainwashing their members to leave the church & go shoot up other churches?"
Sometimes behavior is indeed contagious & epidemic; yet, these shooters also had mental issues apart from any religious standing.
Otherwise, though, why the constant barrage of going around & labeling people as "anti-Mormons" and "Christian jihadists?" Is that so you don't have to deal with what they're saying? You can just label them up front, so that you don't have to deal with them as individual people making truth claims that competes with yours?