Raids target Christian militia in Midwest

[feralkid]

Agreed - but I bet he IS tempted. After all, these are the people his administration is willing to call terrorists - something they are loathe to call al Qaeda.

The present administration has killed or captured more terrorists in one year than than the previous administration did in its entire second term.

Who cares if they are called al quaida or not? They are dead and no longer a threat to the U.S.

 

[werepossum]

The present administration has killed or captured more terrorists in one year than than the previous administration did in its entire second term.

Who cares if they are called al quaida or not? They are dead and no longer a threat to the U.S.

Source?

 

[feralkid]

Source?

Right, then we all get to witness your bare-assed deflections.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Moot point. They claim Christian, it gets Reported as "Christian". Sorry, that's how it works.

So Mao causes a hundred million to die. He says he's good, and if you were in China it would read that in the press.

Therefore Mao was good. That's how it works.

 

[zsdersw]

The wonderful thing about P&N is it provides a place where so many can say so much about that which they know virtually nothing. This thread is a perfect example at so many levels.

Indeed.

 

[werepossum]

Right, then we all get to witness your bare-assed deflections.

I guess I can't deflect something you just pulled out of your ass, right?

But then, that hardly needs deflection.

 

[woolfe9999]

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. One can claim to be a football, but that does not make it so. If you can find where Christ said to start shooting police or did so, then we have a basis for the first part.

A Christian is either one who believes in Christ as divine or one who follows Christ's teachings, depending on which definition you adhere to. You'll find both both as standard dictionary definitions.

The problem I have with all of this is that Christians seem fond of defining wrongdoers out of their religion, more so than other groups do. If a given act is not in accordance with bibical teachings, who is to say that such a person is not a Christian, instead of saying that the person is a Christian who did bad things, or a Christian who, in this case, failed to follow the teachings? Every religious person strays from religious teachings, as those teachings are interpreted by others adhering to the religion, at times. Who is to say when a given person has strayed far enough to be defined out of the religion?

Christians are big on allowing perpetrators of ordinary "bad acts" to "repent." However, when a person does bad acts *in the name of Christianity*, the usual response is that the person is not a real Christian. Why all the sudden is that person not a Christian, instead of a Christian who is a wrongdoer and who can repent? A child molster can be a Christian who strayed and can repent, but someone who commits an act of terrorism in the name of Christianity is just not a Christian?

The reason for the inconsistency is obvious - because people who commits bad acts in the name of Christianity tend to tarnish the image of the religion. Accordingly, it is convenient to define those people out of the religion. This seems to include large scale historical events, such as the crusades and the inquisition.

It may well be appropriate to point out that a Christian terrororist is not following the teachings of Christ when he commits a terrorist act, but saying that the person is "not a Christian" is just too convenient; too pat.

I remember when Baruch Goldstein shot up that mosque and killed all those people. It sparked a lot of anti-semitism - people generalizing from his behavior to the behavior of Jews in general. The response from Jews was to condemn the act, and to oppose the generalization; to say that his behavior was not typical of Jews. It was never to say that Goldstein was "not a Jew." Yet in Goldstein's delusional mind, he committed this atrocity in the name of Judaism. The temptation was there to define him out of the religion, I suppose. However, it seems to be more common with Christians to get very self-righteous about who does and does not belong to their religion, and to define people out of the group whenever it is convenient to do so.

Suppose a liberal went out and shot up a tea party rally. If I were to say, this person is not a liberal, because liberals believe in non-violence, how do you think that would fly around here, hmm?

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

How come we dont target Muslim militia groups? You know they have to exist. What gives the government the right to be upset just because a few rednecks have some guns? Maybe they will show up at your house if you purchase a firearm.

 

[werepossum]

A Christian is either one who believes in Christ as divine or one who follows Christ's teachings, depending on which definition you adhere to. You'll find both both as standard dictionary definitions.

The problem I have with all of this is that Christians seem fond of defining wrongdoers out of their religion, more so than other groups do. If a given act is not in accordance with bibical teachings, who is to say that such a person is not a Christian, instead of saying that the person is a Christian who did bad things, or a Christian who, in this case, failed to follow the teachings? Every religious person strays from religious teachings, as those teachings are interpreted by others adhering to the religion, at times. Who is to say when a given person has strayed far enough to be defined out of the religion?

Christians are big on allowing perpetrators of ordinary "bad acts" to "repent." However, when a person does bad acts *in the name of Christianity*, the usual response is that the person is not a real Christian. Why all the sudden is that person not a Christian, instead of a Christian who is a wrongdoer and who can repent? A child molster can be a Christian who strayed and can repent, but someone who commits an act of terrorism in the name of Christianity is just not a Christian?

The reason for the inconsistency is obvious - because people who commits bad acts in the name of Christianity tend to tarnish the image of the religion. Accordingly, it is convenient to define those people out of the religion. This seems to include large scale historical events, such as the crusades and the inquisition.

It may well be appropriate to point out that a Christian terrororist is not following the teachings of Christ when he commits a terrorist act, but saying that the person is "not a Christian" is just too convenient; too pat.

I remember when Baruch Goldstein shot up that mosque and killed all those people. It sparked a lot of anti-semitism - people generalizing from his behavior to the behavior of Jews in general. The response from Jews was to condemn the act, and to oppose the generalization; to say that his behavior was not typical of Jews. It was never to say that Goldstein was "not a Jew." Yet in Goldstein's delusional mind, he committed this atrocity in the name of Judaism. The temptation was there to define him out of the religion, I suppose. However, it seems to be more common with Christians to get very self-righteous about who does and does not belong to their religion, and to define people out of the group whenever it is convenient to do so.

Suppose a liberal went out and shot up a tea party rally. If I were to say, this person is not a liberal, because liberals believe in non-violence, how do you think that would fly around here, hmm?

- wolf

Liberals aren't against violence except when it's directed toward child molesters and murderers and other "victims of society". Against Bush and Rove it's practically mandatory.

Seriously, I agree, they are Christian terrorists (if indeed they are terrorists at all, and it SOUNDS like they are.) The only differences are of scale (vastly larger percentage of Islamic terrorists) and the distortion of doctrine - the latter part of the Koran orders the faithful to kill Jews and Christians even though earlier parts refer to them as "of the Book", as opposed to godless or polytheistic heathens. Nowhere in Jesus' ministry did He call for murder for those who believe differently, you have to go back to the Old Testament for that kind of violence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A Christian is either one who believes in Christ as divine or one who follows Christ's teachings, depending on which definition you adhere to. You'll find both both as standard dictionary definitions.

The problem I have with all of this is that Christians seem fond of defining wrongdoers out of their religion, more so than other groups do. If a given act is not in accordance with bibical teachings, who is to say that such a person is not a Christian, instead of saying that the person is a Christian who did bad things, or a Christian who, in this case, failed to follow the teachings? Every religious person strays from religious teachings, as those teachings are interpreted by others adhering to the religion, at times. Who is to say when a given person has strayed far enough to be defined out of the religion?

Christians are big on allowing perpetrators of ordinary "bad acts" to "repent." However, when a person does bad acts *in the name of Christianity*, the usual response is that the person is not a real Christian. Why all the sudden is that person not a Christian, instead of a Christian who is a wrongdoer and who can repent? A child molster can be a Christian who strayed and can repent, but someone who commits an act of terrorism in the name of Christianity is just not a Christian?

The reason for the inconsistency is obvious - because people who commits bad acts in the name of Christianity tend to tarnish the image of the religion. Accordingly, it is convenient to define those people out of the religion. This seems to include large scale historical events, such as the crusades and the inquisition.

It may well be appropriate to point out that a Christian terrororist is not following the teachings of Christ when he commits a terrorist act, but saying that the person is "not a Christian" is just too convenient; too pat.

I remember when Baruch Goldstein shot up that mosque and killed all those people. It sparked a lot of anti-semitism - people generalizing from his behavior to the behavior of Jews in general. The response from Jews was to condemn the act, and to oppose the generalization; to say that his behavior was not typical of Jews. It was never to say that Goldstein was "not a Jew." Yet in Goldstein's delusional mind, he committed this atrocity in the name of Judaism. The temptation was there to define him out of the religion, I suppose. However, it seems to be more common with Christians to get very self-righteous about who does and does not belong to their religion, and to define people out of the group whenever it is convenient to do so.

Suppose a liberal went out and shot up a tea party rally. If I were to say, this person is not a liberal, because liberals believe in non-violence, how do you think that would fly around here, hmm?

- wolf

I suggest you take that argument up with Christ.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

[woolfe9999]

I suggest you take that argument up with Christ.

I think your biblical quote is off point to my post. I was not arguing about what scriptures say or do not say. But if you really want to skip over everything I said and instead argue a bible quote, fine. Your quote says you have to follow God's will to be saved. Of course, Christianity allows people who have sinned to repent. So what is your point? That belief alone won't get you into heaven? I know you think that is on point to who is or isn't a Christian, but it actually isn't. It has more to do with how you get to be saved versus damned. I suppose the sinner who doesn't repent is a failed Christian, or if you want to callt he person a non-Christian, fine. How convenient it all is though. Any time a person does wrong, they aren't part of "my group" anymore. That's how Christians are never bad, because by definition they can't be right? Can we all do this with whatever group we are in. Fine. Modern liberalism has a central tenet non-violence. Hence, anyone who commits an act of violence, or advocates it, is not a liberal, and no criticism can ever go to liberals for being violent. Case closed.

- wolf

 

[Cheeseplug]

What gives the government the right to be upset just because a few rednecks have some guns?

They are obviously upset just because they had some guns, not that they planned to murder a police officer and then bomb the funeral procession to try to spark a revolt.

 

[Modelworks]

Christians are big on allowing perpetrators of ordinary "bad acts" to "repent." However, when a person does bad acts *in the name of Christianity*, the usual response is that the person is not a real Christian. Why all the sudden is that person not a Christian, instead of a Christian who is a wrongdoer and who can repent?

What separates the two is why the person says he is doing it. If someone cheats on his wife and says he did it because he wanted to be with another woman and was weak in will power and did it even though he knew it was wrong, then yes that person can still be called a Christian and he can repent for it. The caveat to that would be that if before he cheated on his wife he thought I can do it and just repent for it later , that is NOT a case where repenting would be acceptable. God isn't a fool, there isn't any I can do what I want and repent later. No revolving door where I can sin all I want and just repent later. If that was your intention from the start you better have one major life altering experience later to get God to forgive. Repenting is for people that made a mistake without thinking through what they were doing, not for someone who is using it to get by doing any sin they want. Only God knows the difference and whether the person is sincere in their repenting.

A child molster can be a Christian who strayed and can repent, but someone who commits an act of terrorism in the name of Christianity is just not a Christian?

If the child molester did the act, he can claim that he believes in Christianity but he cannot claim to be doing what Christianity says he should do. A terrorist who kills and claims to be a Christian can still be a Christian, but he cannot claim Christianity as the reason for the killing. Whether he will be forgiven for it is between him and God.

The reason for the inconsistency is obvious - because people who commits bad acts in the name of Christianity tend to tarnish the image of the religion. Accordingly, it is convenient to define those people out of the religion. This seems to include large scale historical events, such as the crusades and the inquisition.

The reason is because people like to categorize people in groups, it makes things easier for them . It is easier for someone to say that Christians were responsible because someone claims they did it for Christian reasons than it is for people to find out why the person is claiming they did it and whether Christianity actually supports what they did. Historical events are a prime example of what can happen when people follow leaders and not the actual bible. People during the crusades relied on the church to tell them what the bible said, many had no access to the text and others couldn't read. Their was no way to challenge what was being said. Now though if a priest says go kill someone I can pick up the bible and say look here it says you are wrong.

It may well be appropriate to point out that a Christian terrororist is not following the teachings of Christ when he commits a terrorist act, but saying that the person is "not a Christian" is just too convenient; too pat.

He can be a Christian, but cannot claim to be doing what he did because of Christian reasons. There is a line their that many people fail to see or are too lazy to bother finding out. Islam is another example. Media makes it out like every time a terrorist act happens all people who follow Islam cheer when nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[piasabird]

So what is the argument about what is a christian? What is the point? O'Bamma went to church and he claims to be a christian. Hillary and Bill Clinton also went to church from time to time also. I wonder why there is not a presidential chapel designed to be safe and secure? That way he could invite people to come to church at the whitehouse chapel. It could be set up for multiple religious groups.

People in Power use to claim it was in the name of the church because it was the POPE in some areas where the authority for their position was derived from.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Looks like the law believes that these guys are no serious threat. They are now out on bond.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64302A20100504

Nine members of a Christian militia group accused of plotting to kill police and wage war on the U.S. government were ordered freed on bond on Monday by a judge who said prosecutors failed to show they posed a real threat.

 

[Throckmorton]

Looks like the law believes that these guys are no serious threat. They are now out on bond.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64302A20100504

It's OK, they're Christians.

 

[Infohawk]

Looks like the law believes that these guys are no serious threat. They are now out on bond.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64302A20100504

Seems like the judge thought it was enough to keep them on house arrest with electronic surveillance. I wonder: were their weapons taken from their homes first? Hope the government has better evidence at trial

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What separates the two is why the person says he is doing it. If someone cheats on his wife and says he did it because he wanted to be with another woman and was weak in will power and did it even though he knew it was wrong, then yes that person can still be called a Christian and he can repent for it. The caveat to that would be that if before he cheated on his wife he thought I can do it and just repent for it later , that is NOT a case where repenting would be acceptable. God isn't a fool, there isn't any I can do what I want and repent later. No revolving door where I can sin all I want and just repent later. If that was your intention from the start you better have one major life altering experience later to get God to forgive. Repenting is for people that made a mistake without thinking through what they were doing, not for someone who is using it to get by doing any sin they want. Only God knows the difference and whether the person is sincere in their repenting.

If the child molester did the act, he can claim that he believes in Christianity but he cannot claim to be doing what Christianity says he should do. A terrorist who kills and claims to be a Christian can still be a Christian, but he cannot claim Christianity as the reason for the killing. Whether he will be forgiven for it is between him and God.

The reason is because people like to categorize people in groups, it makes things easier for them . It is easier for someone to say that Christians were responsible because someone claims they did it for Christian reasons than it is for people to find out why the person is claiming they did it and whether Christianity actually supports what they did. Historical events are a prime example of what can happen when people follow leaders and not the actual bible. People during the crusades relied on the church to tell them what the bible said, many had no access to the text and others couldn't read. Their was no way to challenge what was being said. Now though if a priest says go kill someone I can pick up the bible and say look here it says you are wrong.

He can be a Christian, but cannot claim to be doing what he did because of Christian reasons. There is a line their that many people fail to see or are too lazy to bother finding out. Islam is another example. Media makes it out like every time a terrorist act happens all people who follow Islam cheer when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Excellent post on a subject that's so commonly misunderstood by most. :thumbsup:

 

[Thump553]

The government's case must be horrible, for I can't otherwise envision any federal judge (or magistrate) releasing suspected terrorists from physical custody before trial.

 

[Theb]

They look like extras from Idiocracy

 

[werepossum]

Looks like the law believes that these guys are no serious threat. They are now out on bond.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64302A20100504

From what I've read the guy making bombs turned out to be the FBI undercover agent. Not too kosher for the FBI to send in a guy to make some bombs, then arrest them for having bombs.