Good thing this isn’t a Protestant bashing thread posted by a Catholic.
Oh, wait a minute........
So someone quoting Scripture and basing their belief on it is now "Protestant Bashing"?
There we have it, relying on Scripture has formally been declared to be "Protestant Bashing", thanks for clearing that up.
The man has substituted one religion which owes its predominance much to the arm of flesh for another, and like such, he can become so rabid he ceases to be rational.
REFUTATION of Walid Shoebat's Them Damned Catholics
....Shoebat's modus operandi is to employ misrepresentations and arguments using specious arguments, while ignoring that evangelicals are the most conservative, pro-Israel, anti-Islam Christian group in the West (as if one could be a Christian otherwise). Yet Shoebat's target is evangelicals, and resorts to invoking liberal Protestants in attacking them for things Catholicism examples, while he offers no documentation for his imbalanced view of history.
His cousin, interviewed in the report, stated that he had never known Shoebat to have ties to any movement, and that his claims of being a former terrorist were "for his own personal reasons". According to CNN, their reporters in the United States, Israel and the Palestinian territories found no evidence to support Shoebat's claims and "neither Shoebat nor his business partner provided any proof of Shoebat's involvement in terrorism."
A 2008 Jerusalem Post article raised questions regarding the authenticity of Shoebat's account, and reported that Bank Leumi had no record of an attack on its Bethlehem branch between 1977 and 1979. In addition, Shoebat's uncle also denied that such an attack took place. Such an incident was also not reported by Israeli news outlets according to Omar Sacirbey's 2010 Washington Post article.
The Jerusalem Post article also reported a contradiction in Shoebat's response to the question whether word of the bombing made the news at the time. He replied, "I don't know. I didn't read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days." However, according the same article, he had told Britain's Sunday Telegraph in 2004 that "I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb." During his telephone interview, Shoebat was unable to recall the date or time of year of the attack. He told the Sunday Telegraph in 2004 that he was pressured by teachers to adopt an extreme Islamic philosophy. His uncle, who still lives in Beit Sahour, said religion did not play a major role in Walid's education, which he described as ideologically mild, and that there was no attack on Bank Leumi.
Thus while Shoebat's own claims about himself may be true, they seem to be basically based simply on his word. These are not the days of a socially close and conscionable society (and with limited travel) in which a person's personal truth claims are easily verified by those who knew the person, but one in which fraud and misrepresentation can easily more often be the case, Ergun Caner (who likewise claimed to be a radical Muslim convert) being a clear example, and it is also an age in which multitudes believe unsubstantiated claims. It is mandated in Scripture that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (Mt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1) Thus the apostles and others gave witness of the words and deeds of the Lord Jesus, and Luke carefully complies his record from eyewitnesses, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:4)
While Shoebat has helped the case against Islam, his adulation of Catholicism and railing accusations against evangelicals, along with his own unsubstantiated claims, place him with Muslims who also attack true Christians.
Below is the text of Shoebat's railing accusations, with my response within [italicized brackets]...