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.