Posted on 12/12/2015 12:32:16 PM PST by Morgana
I'm sure you know very well how much some people who think all Christians are dupes of a giant fraud and who refuse to accept the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God like to encourage Christians to fight one another.
That is certainly possible.
I'm sure you know very well how much some people who think all Christians are dupes of a giant fraud and who refuse to accept the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God like to encourage Christians to fight one another.
I know that any religion that says Genesis 1-11 is mythology is a fraud (and furthermore calling G-d a liar). And one that does this while loudly accepting other miracles is hypocritical as well.
IPOC Ministries posted here that "Men like Ronnie and Tatsuo are now raising up, and discipling these new converts. As I say this about other men, please know that I am only boasting in Christ and His cross. In this video Ronnie, Koosha and the rest of their team covered the outside of schools in Las Vegas"
It takes a river of denial to assert these are not Evangelicals targeting Catholics in the videos.
It was you who said If these people were actually ever Muzzies, they'll get around to being violent sooner or later.
Is that limited that to only the few semi-retards who rudely waltzed up the center aisle of a church while a pastor was speaking, started handing out tracts, told people to repent and turn to Jesus ---- being semi-'tarded about it all because of just where it was they chose to engage in that sort of noisiness?
The way you had put it "if they were actually ever Muzzies" appears to be key to "they'll get around to being violent sooner or later". How would you know those particular 'tards so well to make the assessments that you did?
Why too could that not apply also to guys like Shoebat?
Just because (as far as I know) he hasn't been known to walk into churches which preach aspects of theology with which he disagrees, handing out tracts (which possibly tells people they are doing "Jesus" all wrong, yadda-yadda-yadda-sheesh! Oy Vey!) while noisily telling them to repent and turn to Jesus?
You now have said;
Reality huh? Reality that does not apply to certain particular former Muslims (as long as they regularly attack 'Protestants' they're a-ok) like Shoebat. Is that what you're saying?
And what of yourself? Whether you like it or not, your own words (if they truly had validity enough) could just as well be extended to apply to Walid Shoebat and yet other former Muslims also, provided they too engaged in internecine disputations (between Roman Catholics and those they perceive as 'Protestant'). Walid's certainly otherwise rudely confrontational enough in that regard.
Yet about that implying that it's me that is "a snarky twit" ---
Being snarky is one thing, it's a FR tradition. But to the combination you presented implied mention of my being so in, I must say;
Don't run your mouth at me with the name calling. Not here on the religion forum. Anywhere else -- fine. Hit me with your best shot. Then take cover, 'cuz it would be quite likely that you'd just might need some.
All three ended up in prison for attacking and beating someone who didn't agree with them. People who have been taught since they were infants that violence is part and parcel of faith have a very tough time not taking that attitude with them whatever they leave Iz Lame for.
When frustrated or contradicted in a way they can't counter, violence comes naturally to them and unless someone close to them has helped them work through that being an automatic and acceptable response they fall right back into it.
That's my personal experience.
That's long been a problem throughout history, not only for former Muslims. Though speaking of nowadays, you likely are on to something in that it can be more difficult to shed particular imprinted patterns and ways of thinking for those coming from Islamic cultures, with my own objections being along line of "your mileage" not may, but will vary.
Present-day cultural pockets within the United States can tend towards similar, roughly parallel serial failure in society (and parents) teaching and providing coping mechanisms which can be relied upon to avoid physical violence. Also, there truly are concurrently running, virtually unwritten but yet strongly imposed codes of conduct, that if one crosses (or is merely appearing to approach crossing) can lead to immediate fighting.
At least there was in Texas. A code of honor. Behave. Be polite. Or it will begin. It's not so much like that today, although this can be difficult to describe in words. It's like one has to have lived through it to understand. Those who are old enough coming from many places within the US can probably accurately enough grasp what I'm saying, the culture as a whole fifty years ago having not been entirely dissimilar due to intrastate US provincialism, and how many aspects have since changed.
Prior to (and continuing for a brief period soon after) the Council of Nicea, supporters of Alexander and Athanasius began persecuting (even to death) those who sided with Arius, and of course there was fighting, and not only a few killings too committed by Arians in return.
As some historians have noted, the sainted Athanasius not only did not condemn that sort of thing, but rather excused it --- until it was his own turn to be the hunted (which he later became, and remained, on off and on basis).
That was the first time in history within the Christian Church violence was condoned, if not said to be justified over issues chiefly of theological disagreement.
Later it went the other way of course, against the Arians, with requirement towards holding orthodox views enforced in a variety of ways, many of those not pretty, not pretty at all.
Just saying. Something to remember.
I didn't say they did. In fact, what I did say was much more plainly towards the opposite, in that whatever conversions there may have been were incomplete enough to not qualify as "have actually given their lives to Christ". I would say; Not successfully, fully enough anyway, I'd assume. Their behavior exhited immaturity on their part, to say the least.
Besides, what the guys seen in the video I saw were doing when they entered the one church, wasn't exactly "snark" either. So just what are you talking about now? Are you trying to link ME with those individuals?
It seems to me that you are still working working working at trying to pin this generally and widely upon pretty much any and every of those Christians who are not Roman Catholic, as if failure to "be a Catholic" is part of a fundamental cause all in itself for tendency towards violence engaged in for religious reasons.
That is what you've been up to, isn't it?
No more games.
Just admit that, if that's where you've been coming from/had in mind.
Then go look in the mirror and history, and at your own hand that (is always) jabbing finger of accusation at the faith of 'Protestants". See those fingures curled back pointing at yourself?
What's that now? Are you going to fume (and spew) that "you've never!" done such things!!! (like rudely intrude upon & interrupt a church service).
Well then, neither have I, and many, many millions of other Christians --- who just so happen to not be papists--- have not either.
have a nice day.
Oh really?
Your previous response was so bizarrely unfounded/disconnected to what I had said in comment #27 and before, I virtually had to enter into speculation as to what you were thinking, and trying to say.
Did I nail it, or what?
I left the door wide open for you to re-state, better stipulate just what it is and was that you were driving at in context of the rest of what has transpired in the course of this conversation, while attempting also as originally, to persuade yourself to examine the fuller consequence of things which you'd said in hopes of having yourself own up to that aspect of your own words, and reconsider them in light of yet other valid information such as aspects of history which I'd mentioned.
Allow me to lay things out more completely;
Walid Shoebat recently made claims towards "Protestants" being comparable to Muslims.
That meme has been playing out here on FreeRepublic --- as a few of the hard-case anti-Protestant Romanists have been experimenting with including variety of ways to play off that meme in their own repertoire -- not merely of their own "snark" but of snarling and slashing notes of viciousness aimed relatively indiscriminately at those ever so pesky Protestants.
I'm simply trying to cut that evil supposition pack-of-lies hatred off at the knees, before it spreads further and becomes a regularly occurring feature on the pages of this forum.
You can either assist in that effort (which is aimed towards having more peace here among ourselves, eventually) or yourself and others who have been using the kind of equating Protestants to Muslims through loose comparison games I'm talking about can fight me (tooth and nail?) all along the way.
I specifically state that I doubt that these people are even Christian and in response someone claims I'm furthering a "meme" that equates Protestants with Muzzies "
Man, someone who is that absurd is absolutely desperate to spread their BS.
Isolating one portion of that, making it out to be as if it was representative of the entirety of what's been going on here may fool yourself, but it's not working with me.
You can go back and restate things, while disavowing the insinuations that you'd been including, or not.
I see that so far you have not. Not one bit, nowhere in this conversation.
Will we be seeing in the future more of the "Protestant are like Muslims" in tending towards physical violence for reason of religion allegation ---as if throughout history Catholics have not been-never were, because they were (and still are, so the insinuations generally run) [allegedly] the only real Christians?
Make it plain. If you are going to live by insinuations, then when those come back to trouble & haunt --- that' not my fault.
I can't make you stop and re-assess just what else it has been that you appeared to be driving at, but only frame what that was, so that we'll all know --- or else things can be clarified.
Again, if your opinions are otherwise than I've been recognizing and identifying those to be, then feel free to clear up any false impressions I may have.
Zeroing in on one isolated comment just ain't working. Not without positive disavowal of the portions I've highlighted that are problematic.
Would it kill you to confess that so-called "Protestants" can do a good job of raising people up within Christian sensibilities --- at least well enough that they do not typically resort to violence over issues foremost being difference of religion and religious sensibilities? They accomplished this without being within realm of Roman Catholicism too. Is that's what's bugging you? That Protestants can be just as good if not better? They certainly can be nearly just as bad, when they are bad, I won't dispute that side of the larger truths of the matter.
So just to clear things up, is it your contention that all Protestants are heretics and/or Satanists or that all heretics and/or Satanists are Protestant ?
Goodbye, creep.
Thank you for the long series of personal attacks.
They clearly show to what extent the Christian trait of loving your neighbor as yourself dwells in the heart of so many around FR who attack Catholics.
Muslim converts would eventually turn back to violence, so you seemed to say. Attack #1.
I objected to that since it was too broadly sweeping --- including when or if that accusation were to be applied even to shallow and immature alleged converts who would take it upon themselves to enter some other church's facilities, began handing out tracts, and essentially (rudely) tell the people assembled there they were doing things wrong, etc. There can be a place for that kind of thing, but generally not in the middle of some church service that one is not a regular attendee of.
What those bozos seen in the video did is out-of-order disruptive, of that there's been no disagreement on my part. As for my just now included "there can be a place for that kind of thing"; if a person is a regular attendee/member of a particular assembly, then there are processes that can be gone through if there is disagreement, etc.
I had reminded you that according to your original statement guys like Shoebat could also qualify in the initial would eventually turn to violence allegation that you'd made. You had doubled down on that, in comment #20 saying
in the next line right after you had asked, as I knew you would (missing the point I was making);
Other than the "invading services" portion (that I know of anyway, give it time, give it time, according to your own formula?) Shoebat does do the rest , namely as you put it, "condemning others and what they believe". Here of late he has taken to regularly slamming Protestants fairly viciously and widely generally, citing a few isolated examples of something he takes pains to characterize in the worst light, then holding those items up as if they are representative of all the rest. Inductive reasoning on display. You also, here on this thread have engaged in presenting the work product of inductive reasoning as if it were as the deductive type.
Apparently still(?) trying to salvage something of the comment to which I had expressed initial disagreement in wise-guy fashion by pointing to Shoebat, and portions of what he's been up to lately, you mentioned three alleged converts to Christianity who were involved with church groups you seemed to not approve of, or were deficit in some way, as if those three potentially statistical anomalies, by those few examples, proved your point.
That's going from the specific to the general, so must be opened up to wider sampling and consideration. This you did not do, nor seem to grasp is required, but just kept on holding on to the same initial comment you made, having modified that only with saying those persons were not Christians at all. It seemed, in context of the rest of the conversation, to have also been implied that they "were not Christian" because they were not Romanists, like Shoebat.
If like Walid, Muslim converts to Christianity had their own web pages where they could (figuratively, like Shoebat does) tear into the hides of so-called Protestant individuals out there (wherever they are) it would have been entirely different? That which Shoebat indulges himself with (upon the occasions to which I'm referring) is all excused and justified because it lacks the church service intrusion factor?
Oh wait --- it's because of that AND that since the "attacking" is against those dreaded Protestants that would make it ok. Right? Can you see the point I was trying to make? I don't believe you are so dense to have entirely missed it, though honestly perhaps I wasn't clear enough. If so, I am now, I think.
So what of it? Would it be all ok if it was so-called Protestants who were being (figuratively, by words) attacked?
I think you likely saw the point when I first snarkily suggested it. And you've still not apologized/retracted the added insult you handed to my own person in reply. How many "attacks" on your own part that adds up to so far, I'm not entirely sure, but two at least, before I did anything but be a wiseacre.
Recall too that you made comment to me on this thread about what I said to yet another soul here. I did not begin this conversation with you. (#12). In response to my having said that I didn't think the particular bozos who interrupted that church service were eventually going to turn towards violence (at least they did not appear to me they were planning and intending upon later engaging in violent assault, I should have further clarified after posting) you said it would be only a matter of time until the guys who entered into that Catholic church service turned violent.
After my own continuing examination & challenges to your comments, in reply you then tried to make it out to be that those people were not converts to Christianity at all. Maybe there's something to that. Maybe not. I gave you that much. If that were the case, that could change everything, I suppose.
Yet too, that could still apply to Shoebat (not actually Christian, just one who talks a good game Christian?) just about as well for reason of his own indulging himself in loose-talk slanders of those Christians whose own heritage can trace through those, who for whichever reasons, abandoned Roman Catholicism during the Reformation. All that's missing there is Shoebat barging into church services of others part of the telling them the are wrong, condemned, etc. He's recently been equating Protestants from the Reformation with Islamic extremists. You might say "so what" that's his right --- I'm not challenging his right, but instead am trying to show you that under your own formula Shoebat and those like him are not any better than those pesky Protestants who dare to criticize the RCC, particularly those who do so from varying amount of ignorance and bigotry.
Most "Protestants" which I know of don't spend much time (if at all) in that sort of thing anyway, having long ago by now moved on so to speak. Yet since Shoebat was a Muslim once, and is telling some (Christian) people they are all wrong -- doing so rudely I may add, even comparing them to modern-day Muslim extremists, in the end, it's Shoebat who who still engages in Muslim-like thinking. That there are those Romanists who are thrilled and cheer when from criticizing the Islam which he has supposedly abandoned, he turns to fire broadsides at the swarming fleets of little 'Protestant' rowboats and captain's gigs (and few of the swankier motor yachts who maybe should switch back to sail & oar power, lol) tells me about what dwells in their own hearts.
When I bring the issue up, then of course(!) it's all my fault, my own "bad heart" and lack of love and I'm just a hater, blah, blah, blah don't you dare point out our hypocrisies you hater! It would be to laugh, if it wasn't enough to make a grown man groan.
These kind of things, the past and ongoing tensions have been there all along, lurking under the surface. It matters not if you had spoken directly to those aspects in this thread. You've said plenty of things in the past, been challenged, and have never backed down an inch, never tempering or lessening the worst of allegations. Those kind of things did come rushing to the surface in your second to latest reply, however. That sort of foul nastiness has been there all along. So much for yourself trying to appeal to "I never said that" sort of thing. You have not earned the right to make that automatic kind of appeal to common courtesy and consideration, having forfeited what should be extended to everyone by default, by yourself having too rarely extended that towards others unless making a game of it.
In regard to the converts from Islam you mentioned that eventually had (allegedly) assaulted people who disagreed with themselves, ending up in prison for doing so, you mentioned that those converts from Islam (apparently?) lacked "someone close to them" to help them work through their Islam- sourced problem of tending towards violence to solve dispute. It's fine and well enough to make mention of that kind of need, --- but there was still the example of Shoebat (and his own hate-mongering) left hanging. Apparently nobody has helped him deal with his Islamic anger problem? He's still angry, or has reverted back to anger.
I had added mention of historical facts to remind one and all that even among nominal Christians, no one major group among those who have disagreed with one another have been free from resorting to violence. That additional referencing past history of serious problems among Christians went apparently ignored. Your following replies appeared to not take any of those kind of considerations into account.
Then there was a bizarre reply from you (that could not have been based on logic in regards to what I'd said to you) which mentioned people intruding into a "mass". We'd already dealt with that...so at that point in the conversation that reply made no sense, after which I had to guess at connecting dots from comments made in recent days and weeks from across numerous threads, a few of which had been linked to Shoebat that had included his own comparison and equating of Muslims with Protestants.
You did not trouble yourself to disavow a single point which I'd guessed towards, but instead turned towards mockery as some form of defense.
You appear to be willing to extend a hand out to receive, but when it's time to give back something in return all I've ever been offered from you are serpents and small stones tossed in my direction, this time yourself doing so while lecturing about "love" and whining about "people who attack Catholics".
I've not been here on this thread criticizing (or "attacking") Catholics indiscriminately, or in total --- I've been criticizing your own personal way of thinking and speaking.
To equate the two so casually (as you did in your last reply) is to again engage loose form of inductive reasoning which although has it place in the larger scheme of things, is also famous for producing misleading results.
Correct - they are saying the words you would expect from extremely rude Evangelicals, but words can be learned. It just is not something I’ve seen before except — gasp — by Muslims.
Yup, time for the Knights. LV Police said they didn’t do anything wrong,’ but to me they are, at minimum, Disturbing the Peace.
Someday, they will love us; once they recognize our King.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.