Christian Terrorists

Mikeyali · March 30, 2010, 11:25am

When the raids on these guys were underway, actually a pretty sizable chunk of American militia groups had taken notice and were standing by to respond once the confusion cleared. However, when it was discovered that it was the Hutaree they pretty much let it go.

Apparently several of the Hutaree went to seek shelter with some of the local militia groups and were told to take a hike. I know this is hard to believe for most within the left but within the mainstream American militia movement they’re operating under a “No Fort Sumpters” mentality. They desperately want to maintain the moral high ground.

There’s a small part of me that thinks perhaps that’s why the feds went after the Hutaree in the first place. When you look to Waco or Ruby Ridge it’s easy to see that the feds targeted people whom it will be difficult to elicit sympathy for to provide a show of force against.

mike

RBlue · March 30, 2010, 1:19pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya know, I almost preempted this inevitable historically fallacious comparison, but decided against it. Muslims who DO NOT engage in murderous jihad are acting in direct defiance of both their scriptures and seminal leaders. That is the difference. Entirely lost on you I’m sure, but that is just the way it is, like it or not.[/quote]

Very fitting that you qualified your use of the word “jihad” with “murderous”. There is actually no consensus within the (incredibly large and diverse) Muslim community regarding the definition of jihad. In fact, the Qur’an (referring to the revelation as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad) and hadiths (referring to accounts of the Prophet’s life, doings, and sayings) are highly contested, and open to vastly differing interpretations.

If you examine the way in which the Qur’an is written, it uses highly metaphorical language, and it originally had no punctuation. This makes it very easy for different interpreters to arrive at different conclusions regarding the meanings of the book.

This is actually a very big topic for discussion, and there is a lot of reading out there, if you’re interested in developing an understanding of Islam and Muslims beyond the garbage spewed out by the mainstream media. A good starting point is The Anthropology of Islam by Gabriele Marranci.

[quote]Historical Christianity, neither in the scriptures nor in recognized tradition, teaches what these people are about. The Qur’an, Muhammad himself and the defining early leaders of Islam ALL taught and practiced barbaric jihad in the name of their god.
[/quote]

How did the Qur’an manage to practice “barbaric jihad”?

DoubleDuce · March 30, 2010, 1:27pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Why would the Republican guys here have to make a thread about this? Most here, I’d imagine, would not align themselves with these nutjobs.[/quote]

Yea, most would. They’re only one or two steps from being the same damned way… that’s why I think it’s funny. [/quote]

Rosie,

Why is it liberals always offer up ridiculous vague comparisons like this? Can you not argue with a persons actual views, so you compare them to nutjobs like this? Do I get to choose who you are “one step away” from?

How about you are one step away from Rosie O’Donnell. I don’t have to give any facts to back that up either, it just is. No one should listen to you cause you’re just like her. Everyone on this board should now address you as Rosie.

dmaddox · March 30, 2010, 2:08pm

I lol’d ^^

Tiribulus · March 30, 2010, 2:18pm

[quote]RBlue wrote:
<<<>>>
[/quote]
I just take the word and example of the guy who wrote it and it’s original practitioners. I couldn’t care less what some modern distortions try to define it as. Jihad is murderous. It’s a sacred doctrine of historic Islam. Those who practice it are faithful Muslims. Those who don’t are modern watered down heretical compromisers. Like pro choice Christians who don’t really take too much of the Bible seriously.

Theistic religions purport to be divine revelations. They are not subject to essential redefinition as people see fit. Islam included who’s central prophet and direct theological progeny left us a mountain of information removing all doubt. The west’s post modern stupor of misguided tolerance has most assuredly not yet claimed it’s last victims.

DoubleDuce · March 30, 2010, 2:22pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]RBlue wrote:
<<<>>>
[/quote]
I just take the word and example of the guy who wrote it and it’s original practitioners. I couldn’t care less what some modern distortions try to define it as. Jihad is murderous. It’s a sacred doctrine of historic Islam. Those who practice it are faithful Muslims. Those who don’t are modern watered down heretical compromisers. Like pro choice Christians who don’t really take too much of the Bible seriously.

Theistic religions purport to be divine revelations. They are not subject to essential redefinition as people see fit. Islam included who’s central prophet and direct theological progeny left us a mountain of information removing all doubt. The west’s post modern stupor of misguided tolerance has most assuredly not yet claimed it’s last victims.[/quote]

What about Judaism with the eye for and eye doctrines and no new testament reformation?

DBCooper · March 30, 2010, 2:22pm

[quote]RBlue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya know, I almost preempted this inevitable historically fallacious comparison, but decided against it. Muslims who DO NOT engage in murderous jihad are acting in direct defiance of both their scriptures and seminal leaders. That is the difference. Entirely lost on you I’m sure, but that is just the way it is, like it or not.[/quote]

Very fitting that you qualified your use of the word “jihad” with “murderous”. There is actually no consensus within the (incredibly large and diverse) Muslim community regarding the definition of jihad. In fact, the Qur’an (referring to the revelation as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad) and hadiths (referring to accounts of the Prophet’s life, doings, and sayings) are highly contested, and open to vastly differing interpretations.

If you examine the way in which the Qur’an is written, it uses highly metaphorical language, and it originally had no punctuation. This makes it very easy for different interpreters to arrive at different conclusions regarding the meanings of the book.

This is actually a very big topic for discussion, and there is a lot of reading out there, if you’re interested in developing an understanding of Islam and Muslims beyond the garbage spewed out by the mainstream media. A good starting point is The Anthropology of Islam by Gabriele Marranci.

[quote]Historical Christianity, neither in the scriptures nor in recognized tradition, teaches what these people are about. The Qur’an, Muhammad himself and the defining early leaders of Islam ALL taught and practiced barbaric jihad in the name of their god.
[/quote]

How did the Qur’an manage to practice “barbaric jihad”?

[/quote]

Spot on. Weren’t some people in another thread justifying violence by referring to “an eye for an eye” in the Bible? Does that mean that Christianity is an inherently violent religion? Of course not. Shit. People reveal their ignorance in more and more unwittingly blatant ways everyday on this forum…

Tiribulus · March 30, 2010, 2:24pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve been waiting all day for this one.

These people have nothing whatever to do with any historical expression of the Christian faith. They are acting in direct contradiction to both the Biblical gospel and every single even vaguely orthodox protestant tradition in 2000 years of church history. Believe it. They are dangerous whackjobs that even the ever so radical Michigan Militia denounces as extreme. People can call themselves anything they want. That doesn’t make it so.[/quote]

Not to get nit picky but I’m not sure if you just said protestant tradition in 2000 years of Church History. [/quote]
That’s what I said and yes I am aware that the protestant reformation is generally accepted to have begun (myself included BTW) with Luther’s 95 theses and the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral in 1517.

Tiribulus · March 30, 2010, 3:02pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]RBlue wrote:
<<<>>>
[/quote]
I just take the word and example of the guy who wrote it and it’s original practitioners. I couldn’t care less what some modern distortions try to define it as. Jihad is murderous. It’s a sacred doctrine of historic Islam. Those who practice it are faithful Muslims. Those who don’t are modern watered down heretical compromisers. Like pro choice Christians who don’t really take too much of the Bible seriously.

Theistic religions purport to be divine revelations. They are not subject to essential redefinition as people see fit. Islam included who’s central prophet and direct theological progeny left us a mountain of information removing all doubt. The west’s post modern stupor of misguided tolerance has most assuredly not yet claimed it’s last victims.[/quote]

What about Judaism with the eye for and eye doctrines and no new testament reformation?
[/quote]
These are theological points it is practically impossible to adequately address on in internet forum. At least for me. Suffice it to say that the “eye for an eye” thing was a punishment for being convicted of a crime and yes the function of the Mosaic law and the nation of Israel as whole for that matter, was brought to an understanding of fulfillment in the New Testament. Much of the books of Romans and Hebrews are detailed expositions on exactly that for instance. Also, the whole of Christian doctrine is utterly devoid of the idea conversion by force and or violence if not. It is in fact an absolute impossibility. Conversion or extermination IS Islam if the prophet and his students are to be taken seriously.

There’s plenty of divinely ordained violence in the Old Testament. It was selective and purposeful and had nothing whatever to do with forced conversion. It also ended with the same fulfillment mentioned above. Again, not very conducive to comprehensive explanation on an internet forum.

[quote]The Book of Hebrews, first three verses:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high[/quote]
What follows is that comprehensive explanation.

Tiribulus · March 30, 2010, 3:00pm

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
<<< People reveal their ignorance in more and more unwittingly blatant ways everyday on this forum…[/quote]
And in this area you just did.

DoubleDuce · March 30, 2010, 3:03pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]RBlue wrote:
<<<>>>
[/quote]
I just take the word and example of the guy who wrote it and it’s original practitioners. I couldn’t care less what some modern distortions try to define it as. Jihad is murderous. It’s a sacred doctrine of historic Islam. Those who practice it are faithful Muslims. Those who don’t are modern watered down heretical compromisers. Like pro choice Christians who don’t really take too much of the Bible seriously.

Theistic religions purport to be divine revelations. They are not subject to essential redefinition as people see fit. Islam included who’s central prophet and direct theological progeny left us a mountain of information removing all doubt. The west’s post modern stupor of misguided tolerance has most assuredly not yet claimed it’s last victims.[/quote]

What about Judaism with the eye for and eye doctrines and no new testament reformation?
[/quote]
These are theological points it is practically impossible to adequately address on in internet forum. At least for me. Suffice it to say that the “eye for an eye” thing was a punishment for being convicted of a crime and yes the function of the Mosaic law and the nation of Israel as whole for that matter, was brought to an understanding of fulfillment in the New Testament. Much of the books of Romans and Hebrews are detailed expositions on exactly that for instance. Also, the whole of Christian doctrine is utterly devoid of the idea conversion by force and or violence if not. It is in fact an utter impossibility. Conversion or extermination IS Islam if the prophet and his students are to be taken seriously.

There’s plenty of divinely ordained violence in the Old Testament. It was selective and purposeful and had nothing whatever to do with forced conversion. It also ended with the same fulfillment mentioned above. Again, not very conducive to comprehensive explanation on an internet forum.

[quote]The Book of Hebrews, first three verses:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high[/quote]
What follows is that comprehensive explanation.[/quote]

So you would or would not say that peaceful non-violent jews are the watered down version of their true faith? Shouldn’t true believers still practice stoning and so forth?

KeepAwaySheeple · March 30, 2010, 3:16pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Rosie,

Why is it liberals always offer up ridiculous vague comparisons like this? Can you not argue with a persons actual views, so you compare them to nutjobs like this? Do I get to choose who you are “one step away” from?

How about you are one step away from Rosie O’Donnell. I don’t have to give any facts to back that up either, it just is. No one should listen to you cause you’re just like her. Everyone on this board should now address you as Rosie.[/quote]

Well said!! I really did lol.

Tiribulus · March 30, 2010, 3:24pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< So you would or would not say that peaceful non-violent jews are the watered down version of their true faith? Shouldn’t true believers still practice stoning and so forth?[/quote]
This is a fair and understandable question, but modern Judaism in any flavor bares very little resemblance to the religion of the Old Testament as a whole so whether or not they practice this or that individual teaching misses the point. However, yes, if they were to be faithful to their pre Christian roots then the levitcal law would still be binding to the letter.

If you’re really interested read the first 5 chapters of Paul’s letter to the Romans and the entire book of Hebrews. Judaism’s last chapter is being written by Jesus Christ. It makes no difference how else they practice whatever, or not. he is the center of the covenant bound within the Godhead in eternity, relayed to Abraham on Earth, promised throughout ancient history and brought to final defining fulfillment in his death, burial, resurrection and ascension. Israels’ whole history BC was an Earthly illustration of spiritual instruction to post resurrection saints of all races. Always was. Again, the book of Hebrews goes into minute detail as do the writings of Paul.

anon31651765 · March 30, 2010, 4:29pm

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Spot on. Weren’t some people in another thread justifying violence by referring to “an eye for an eye” in the Bible? Does that mean that Christianity is an inherently violent religion? Of course not. Shit. People reveal their ignorance in more and more unwittingly blatant ways everyday on this forum…[/quote]

Absolutely they were. And there were people justifying violence as well against the government- which is exactly what these nutjobs were going to do.

All religions get violent when their power is threatened, like anything else. And the people that blindly follow them are the sheep that strap the bombs to themselves- don’t matter whether they wearing a cross or a turban or whatever else.

I love this attitude of, “Well, Christianity is different” that pervades this shithole.

haas · March 30, 2010, 4:31pm

Group arrested not Christian or militia, insider says

anon31651765 · March 30, 2010, 4:36pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Why would the Republican guys here have to make a thread about this? Most here, I’d imagine, would not align themselves with these nutjobs.[/quote]

Yea, most would. They’re only one or two steps from being the same damned way… that’s why I think it’s funny. [/quote]

Rosie,

Why is it liberals always offer up ridiculous vague comparisons like this? Can you not argue with a persons actual views, so you compare them to nutjobs like this? Do I get to choose who you are “one step away” from?

How about you are one step away from Rosie O’Donnell. I don’t have to give any facts to back that up either, it just is. No one should listen to you cause you’re just like her. Everyone on this board should now address you as Rosie.[/quote]

This from the same douche who thinks the Civil War was about taxes? Spare me cunty. I’d take Sarah Palin seriously before I took you seriously.

And “rosie?” That’s fuckin pathetic. Very, very pathetic.

anon31651765 · March 30, 2010, 4:38pm

[quote]haas wrote:

Group arrested not Christian or militia, insider says[/quote]

So a Christian milita is trying to distance themselves from this Christian militia by saying that they’re neither “Christian” nor “militia,” even though their activities and statements clearly identify them as a Christian militia?

Ahh, it all makes sense now.

DoubleDuce · March 30, 2010, 4:43pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Spot on. Weren’t some people in another thread justifying violence by referring to “an eye for an eye” in the Bible? Does that mean that Christianity is an inherently violent religion? Of course not. Shit. People reveal their ignorance in more and more unwittingly blatant ways everyday on this forum…[/quote]

Absolutely they were. And there were people justifying violence as well against the government- which is exactly what these nutjobs were going to do.

All religions get violent when their power is threatened, like anything else. And the people that blindly follow them are the sheep that strap the bombs to themselves- don’t matter whether they wearing a cross or a turban or whatever else.

I love this attitude of, “Well, Christianity is different” that pervades this shithole. [/quote]

I kind of agree with both you and trib. I agree that if you get down to nuts and bolt of religious text, most aren’t all that different. I also don’t think anyone here is studied enough on all the different religious documents to make an unbiased thorough comparison.

Let me preface this by saying that I’m not arguing for or against any religion. I’m not saying any major religion has it right or wrong.

I do however think that Islam is different in it’s present practices. Don’t several of the major schools of Islam preach violence? Do the others move to eradicate the violence from their own religion by all reasonable means?

Other religions have been more outgoing at removing barbarism. Hell, even sects like Mormonism stamped out polygamy in their ranks by every means possible. (legally separated, condemned the practice, kicked out people who did it, sued over polygamous churches using the Mormon name, eventually change their name, ect.) Pretty much all religions have done horrible things, and even have barbaric teachings in their scripture. However, I don’t fault present day ones who do all in their power to end such practices.

Am I wrong to think Islam hasn’t done this?

DoubleDuce · March 30, 2010, 4:55pm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Why would the Republican guys here have to make a thread about this? Most here, I’d imagine, would not align themselves with these nutjobs.[/quote]

Yea, most would. They’re only one or two steps from being the same damned way… that’s why I think it’s funny. [/quote]

Rosie,

Why is it liberals always offer up ridiculous vague comparisons like this? Can you not argue with a persons actual views, so you compare them to nutjobs like this? Do I get to choose who you are “one step away” from?

How about you are one step away from Rosie O’Donnell. I don’t have to give any facts to back that up either, it just is. No one should listen to you cause you’re just like her. Everyone on this board should now address you as Rosie.[/quote]

This from the same douche who thinks the Civil War was about taxes? Spare me cunty. I’d take Sarah Palin seriously before I took you seriously.

And “rosie?” That’s fuckin pathetic. Very, very pathetic. [/quote]

Dear Rosie,

And as always, attack the messenger by some tangent comparison rather than addressing the actual issue. You just repeated the same act that I was making fun of you for.

By the way, I’ve never argued the civil war was about taxes, AND I don’t care for Palin. I have always maintained that the civil war was about one collective summarizing topic of which both slavery and taxes are sub issues. If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be making claims about my beliefs. But I digress, because this has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the point in my post.

And comparing you to Rosie was supposed to be pathetic. I was intending to to parallel the level of wit in your own comparison.

Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

anon31651765 · March 30, 2010, 4:54pm