Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism

[sr71plt]

To say that all Christians are responsible for this murderer (you remember, this thread was about a murderer?) is like suggesting that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.

Thanks. My point as well. It's an Amicus approach.

 

[Verdad]

Thanks. My point as well. It's an Amicus approach.

Well, if we're being so perfectly just, and if we're rigorously challenging every spurious statement, what makes it acceptable to demonize Amicus?

He, too, is just a fellow poster, with his own opinions, which he's been presenting for years, spurring hundreds of fine debates. Whether you want to argue or ignore him is a personal matter, but isn't it in bad taste, if nothing else, to use him behind his back as a measuring unit for evil?

 

[freshface]

Well, if we're being so perfectly just, and if we're rigorously challenging every spurious statement, what makes it acceptable to demonize Amicus?

He, too, is just a fellow poster, with his own opinions, which he's been presenting for years, spurring hundreds of fine debates. Whether you want to argue or ignore him is a personal matter, but isn't it in bad taste, if nothing else, to use him behind his back as a measuring unit for evil?

I haven't seen sr71 call Amicus or Stella evil or demonize either of them. Do you disagree that Amicus is doctrinaire and closed minded in political threads?

 

[Verdad]

I haven't seen sr71 call Amicus or Stella evil or demonize either of them. Do you disagree that Amicus is doctrinaire and closed minded in political threads?

Not at all. But why not call someone close-minded and doctrinaire instead of tell them "you're Amicus number 2"? That's the difference between a valid observation and a cloaked ad hom.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, if we're being so perfectly just, and if we're rigorously challenging every spurious statement, what makes it acceptable to demonize Amicus?

He, too, is just a fellow poster, with his own opinions, which he's been presenting for years, spurring hundreds of fine debates. Whether you want to argue or ignore him is a personal matter, but isn't it in bad taste, if nothing else, to use him behind his back as a measuring unit for evil?

Amicus demonizes himself on this board--and does so heartily and purposfully.

He is playing games and being perfectly "just" to him would have him gone from here, in my opinion. (But no I wouldn't ban him if I had the power to do so or even ask him to leave. Doesn't mean I think he contributes anything constructive here whatsoever.)

I don't think the debates he spurs are in the least bit fine--they are designed and stoked to create and perpetuate divisions and ugliness.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

I used him to shock Stella into seeing the supposition that Amicus-like posting behavior isn't "owned" by one political spectrum--and that she was displaying the same zealotry from another corner of the auditorium. Of course she doesn't agree. But her reaction shows that she sees the comparison made and that it stings. If it makes her less of a zealot in subsequent threads, fine if me. I don't expect it will, though. (And then you ask why I bother to challenge, then. Because I think challenging zealotry of any stripe is appropriate--just as you thought challenging my use of Amicus was appropriate.)

 

[sr71plt]

Not at all. But why not call someone close-minded and doctrinaire instead of tell them "you're Amicus number 2"? That's the difference between a valid observation and a cloaked ad hom.

Why, because for some people you have to draw pictures. Stella absolutely perked up to the connection with Amicus on this thread that she didn't do when her over-the-top zealotry was pointed to in other ways on other threads.

She's quite obviously dumbstruck for actual discussion of the issue and has retreated to the inane. ("tough noogies") and bringing in the equally silly and off-topic supporters (safe bet).

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0311-20.htm

 

[THROBBS]

But see, that's just my point. By your beliefs, he shouldn't be judging. By his belief, he has a solemn obligation to save the non-believer from eternal damnation. You both call yourselves Christian-should Stella be able to equate you as the same thing? Are you, as a Christian, responsible for my brother's actions and beliefs? Should you have to apologize for him because you both label yourselves Christian, even though he would tell you that you aren't a Christian? If so, then by all means take her up on her challenge.

To say that all Christians are responsible for this murderer (you remember, this thread was about a murderer?) is like suggesting that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.

I get that.
Stella should not equate us, but I can see why she might.
I am not responsible for your brother's actions and beliefs. I am responsible for my own and to speak up. I do not "apologize" for him, I only try to make it clear that, as you note, there is a distinction between Christian denominations.

AND as Stella has noted (accurately)... a group of Christ-like (Christ behaven) Christians has not stepped up...very loudy.

(I am about to investigate the link she posted sojo.net)

This thread was about MANY terrorists and terroristic behavior...not just "a murderer"

 

[sr71plt]

IAND as Stella has noted (accurately)... a group of Christ-like (Christ behaven) Christians has not stepped up...very loudy.

And you know this how? As I already noted, at least in my church, the planned sermon was set aside yesterday and this issue was addressed--and, yes, in relationship to Christian fundamentalism. He was shot on Saturday, what do you expect to see on Monday? Lutherans tracking fundamentalists down with pitch forks?

As Fresh Face clearly said, what it is my responsibility to take ownership of/action against anyone else who choses to claim a common word with me when I haven't been consulted about that or made any claim of affiliation?

This is just reverse witch hunting. No better than those who are tracking abortion doctors down.

A zealot is a zealot no matter of what stripe.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No matter what they may believe, they are not followers of Christ.

This was on the first page.

He's the boy who got didactic, not me, I responded to his comment by asking him what he was going to do about that besides whine.

srpt really has a hardon against me for being outspoken about my views and emotional reactions regarding religions, but that's his problem, not mine, ergo my dismissive comment.

I will continue to dismiss him, especially when he chooses to trivialise the death and suffering of hundreds of thousand victims of WWII by calling me a Nazi because I stated an opinion in strong language.

I will continue to talk about my experiences in an overly Xtian world, and you, srpt, can call me amicus if you choose, but it makes you look more spiteful than insightful, and certainly doesn't convince me that you are correct or even worth paying attention to.

Meanwhile! on the positive action side, I have done a few google searches for liberal Christian activist organizations-- found two. That's som sad results, maybe someone else can find more?

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0311-20.htm

http://www.sojo.net/

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This was on the first page.

He's the boy who got didactic, not me, I responded to his comment by asking him what he was going to do about that besides whine.

srpt really has a hardon against me for being outspoken about my views and emotional reactions regarding religions, but that's his problem, not mine, ergo my dismissive comment.

I will continue to dismiss him, especially when he chooses to trivialise the death and suffering of hundreds of thousand victims of WWII by calling me a Nazi because I stated an opinion in strong language.

I will continue to talk about my experiences in an overly Xtian world, and you, srpt, can call me amicus if you choose, but it makes you look more spiteful than insightful, and certainly doesn't convince me that you are correct or even worth paying attention to.

Meanwhile! on the positive action side, I have done a few google searches for liberal Christian activist organizations-- found two. That's som sad results, maybe someone else can find more?

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0311-20.htm

http://www.sojo.net/

http://www.elca.org/

 

[Verdad]

Amicus demonizes himself on this board--and does so heartily and purposfully.

He is playing games and being perfectly "just" to him would have him gone from here, in my opinion. (But no I wouldn't ban him if I had the power to do so or even ask him to leave. Doesn't mean I think he contributes anything constructive here whatsoever.)

I don't think the debates he spurs are in the least bit fine--they are designed and stoked to create and perpetuate divisions and ugliness.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

I used him to shock Stella into seeing the supposition that Amicus-like posting behavior isn't "owned" by one political spectrum--and that she was displaying the same zealotry from another corner of the auditorium. Of course she doesn't agree. But her reaction shows that she sees the comparison made and that it stings. If it makes her less of a zealot in subsequent threads, fine if me. I don't expect it will, though. (And then you ask why I bother to challenge, then. Because I think challenging zealotry of any stripe is appropriate--just as you thought challenging my use of Amicus was appropriate.)

Pilot, I applaud challenging of zealotry of any stripe. Indeed, it bothers me every time I see 'my' side act as badly as the 'other' side. I prefer to think we are able to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and it's disappointing when we stoop to the same old tricks. That higher standard is a pretty demanding place to be, though (not that I myself live up to it) so once it's invoked, I believe it binds us to a certain sportsmanship, which includes even the popular kicking targets.

No one, including you, has to agree with me—free speech is for all, and everyone can be challenged by anyone else—but I thought it worth pointing out.

As for Ami's debates, if he's given a great number of people from 'our' side a chance to hone their debating skills against him, I believe he's done well. People such as Xssve lately, and Pure, or Doc, or Sher, or Shang, or Stella, or any number of other fine minds in the history of this forum would likely not have written pages of excellent posts if there had been no one to argue.

Sorry for the threadjack, though. Carry on!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The only thing worse than politics to discuss is religion. And on a forum of erotic writers to boot.

What is wrong with you people!

Why aren't we discussing how to write erotica without using the seven deadly words?

 

[sr71plt]

I used a literary device/image. And it had the desired effect. So, I'll probably use it again when I think it fits.

(And no doubt I'll occasionally see it used on me--and if it fits, I hope I'll have the integrity to back up and take another look at what I was posting.)


(This posting was addressed to Verdad's last posting.)

 

[sr71plt]

The only thing worse than politics to discuss is religion. And on a forum of erotic writers to boot.

What is wrong with you people!

Why aren't we discussing how to write erotica without using the seven deadly words?

Well, some of us are on other threads. Don't see your posts there, though.

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.elca.org/

Thanks

 

[SimonBrooke]

The true followers had better get a movement going to reclaim their religion, then.

Getting on for two thousand years too late for that, sadly. I personally think that Jesus of Nazareth was an ethical teacher of the first order, but that Christianity as now practised is almost irredeemably evil.

 

[THROBBS]

And you know this how? As I already noted, at least in my church, the planned sermon was set aside yesterday and this issue was addressed--and, yes, in relationship to Christian fundamentalism. He was shot on Saturday, what do you expect to see on Monday? Lutherans tracking fundamentalists down with pitch forks?

As Fresh Face clearly said, what it is my responsibility to take ownership of/action against anyone else who choses to claim a common word with me when I haven't been consulted about that or made any claim of affiliation?

This is just reverse witch hunting. No better than those who are tracking abortion doctors down.

A zealot is a zealot no matter of what stripe.

Now YOU sound stupid.

I know this because I have not heard them.... therefore they (we) are not being very loud. And THIS incident is not the first or even WORST.

You do not not have to take any more responsiblity than your conscience provokes you to. free will and all.

>> I << am not "hunting" anyone... I only intend to speak up for what I believe and distinguish and DISTANCE myself from those who share ONLY a name (word) and not a belief system.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Getting on for two thousand years too late for that, sadly. I personally think that Jesus of Nazareth was an ethical teacher of the first order, but that Christianity as now practised is almost irredeemably evil.

It would appear that you, too, are getting all your information from the conflict-obsessed media . . . or possibly Dawkins/Hitchens. This is unfortunate. Stella, at least, has done research on her own.

 

[amicus]

I was informed that my pseudonym has been bandied about bodaciously on this thread and my nose was itching anyways...so...

A good many years ago I wrote an OP Ed piece entitled, "You want to stop the Violence; Stop the Violence!"

It was an anti abortion piece and I described the procedure of D&C,

"...Dilation (dilatation) and curettage literally refers to the dilation (opening) of the cervix and surgical removal of the contents of the uterus. It is a therapeutic gynecological procedure as well as a rarely used method of first trimester abortion.[1][2] It is commonly referred to as a D&C..."

It is both an invasive and violent procedure, by definition, but not nearly as inhumane as, 'partial birth' abortion which the late Dr. Tiller specialized in. In his case, the moving, squirming fetus, minutes before birth is executed by puncturing the skull and sucking the brains out with a vacuum device.

That is just one method of taking the life of an unborn child, there are many others such as a strong saline solution injected into the child which virtually burns it to death.

I somewhat tempered my OP Ed piece by recommending that the Rule of the Prudent Man, be considered prior to any abortion. That 'rule' advises the prudent man to withhold action if there is risk to human life and well being in the balance.

Since 'when' human life begins has been a focal point of the abortion debate, and since the possibility that life exists at the instant of conception, then the 'prudent man' does not risk destroying life except in cases where the host mother's life is threatened.

The allusion to world war two Nazi Death Camps and abortion has been made, and could any nation have prevented that holocaust, they had the moral right to do so.

Those who believe that life begins at conception and that to take that life without cause, is comparable to what the Nazi's did and they feel an obligation to take measures to protect that life.

Had there been no abortion violence to respond to, the laundry list provided by the Threadstarter, would not exist as all attempts to stop abortions are caused by the fact that abortions are being performed daily.

If you want to stop the violence; Stop the Violence. A prudent man does not risk committing a moral violation when the premise of life is unclear or uncertain.

Abortion, like the Holocaust, is a dark chapter in the history of man.

"..
Main Entry:
zeal Listen to the pronunciation of zeal
Pronunciation:
\ˈzēl\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English zele, from Late Latin zelus, from Greek zēlos
Date:
14th century

: eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something : fervor.

Do I have eagerness and ardent interest in the abortion issue; do I have fervor concerning the death of a child, does that make one a 'zealot'? If so, then so be it.

Amicus...that reminds me of the story of an American soldier stationed overseas in ww2 who was forbidden to disclose his location to his wife. "I find I have new zeal and energy in my new location..."

new-zeal-and

 

[Verdad]

This is the last time I defended your butt!

I'll let someone else take you on, though, if they're in the mood. The weather is just too warm and lovely for getting in the boxing ring.

 

[amicus]

Hi, Verdad, me too, have a dozen four inch pots of the gourd variety to transplant and the weather is perfect for it...enjoy your day...



ami

 

[Pure]

same idea as above:

ami echoes randall terry:

Randall Terry, the founder of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against George Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kansas in 1991, issued a statement about today's killing of the abortion doctor.
In his comments, Terry does not grieve for Tiller or denounce the murder but seems more concerned about President Obama's reaction and what it bodes for the pro-life movement.

"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.

Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

===

ami's defintion is good, too:

//: eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something : fervor. //


we're lucky to have those like randall and ami whose 'fervor' leads them to approve citizens who act on their vision of God's law; these men of zeal are not deterred by small items such as the human 'law of the land.'

the accused, one scott roeder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_tiller_shooting

did not hesitate to become an executioner in the service of God's law, as he saw it.

apart from God, it's a rational and utilitarian act to take one life to preserve several others.

rationality will do, if fervor is lacking. we must thank ami for demonstrating both.

 

[THROBBS]

....

apart from God, it's a rational and utilitarian act to take one life to preserve several others.

Yes, that is apart from God.

And rationalized.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Whaty makes anybody think that the killer is a Christisn, even a professing one? A suspect has been captured. I don't know what the evidence is, or if he is guilty at all. However, the attached article makes no mention of his religion. Suspect in Tiller's death supported killing abortion providers, friends say

It didn't atttach. I will try it again.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/69151.html