Radical Homosexual Terrorism

While we are bashing all homosexuals over the actions of a few, let's start a thread where we can bash all Christians based on the actions of a few. Or better yet, how about Bush or Obama supporters, or any group we disagree with. Oh wait . . . they've already been posted.

Never mind.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
what kind of church is it that they have security guards to begin with?

A smart one. There have been church shootings and churches get threats against them all the time.

The Catholic Churches in Alabama would get threats from the
fundamentalists from time to time.
(this was in the 1990s when we were there)

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Terrorism is inducing fear for an agenda...

Legal definition of Terrorism

Terrorism means activities against persons, organizations or property of any nature committed by an individual or individuals acting on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest:

1. that involve the following or preparation for the following:
a. use or threat of force or violence; or
b. commission or threat of a dangerous act; or
c. commission or threat of an act that interferes with or disrupts an
electronic communication, information, or mechanical system; and

2. when at least one of the following applies:
a. the effect is to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian
population or any segment thereof, or to disrupt any segment of the
economy; or
b. it appears that the intent is to intimidate or coerce a government,
or further political, ideological, religious, social or economic
objectives or to express (or express opposition to) a philosophy
or ideology.

www.nhlgc.com...

Radical Jewish Terrorism!

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

18Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Awful, dreadful. Thank Zeus in the story he was punished for such terrorism. Could lead to all sorts of copycat outrage.

reply to post by dantrav


i do not agree or disagree completely , but have you considered mental/psych terror, ...wouldnt have to be physical , i mean people can terrorize someone with a look.. but really? it all seems of the point of what both sides are claiming and "striving" for hunh?

reply to post by melatonin


Melatonin: Brilliant and star for you!

Calling what happened at the church terrorism is a bit of a stretch. It seems more on the line of them being hooligans moreso than anything else.

On a side note, did anyone else giggle when they read this? It just made a funny mental image in my head.

This article is written from a Pentecostal website.

Let me know when you have both an opposing and un-bias report on this same event.

reply to post by Annee


Uh... that's the Houston chronicles faith section and there's also a link to the Boston edge in OP. Please try to at least read the OP before complaining.

There is already another thread on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by melatonin


This objection is known as “Tu Quoque,” or the “You too! fallacy.” It is a fallacious means of reasoning. It falls under the category of “fallacies of relevance “.

However in truth you didn't even get the "you too" fallacy part right. Jesus had all authority to kick hucksters out of the temple, it was his Father's house. It really doesn't compare to a large group of masked persons invading a worship service, vandalizing a church with offensive graffiti, screaming obscenities and pulling the fire alarm to imply arson was taking place and create havoc. In a large building this panic can certainly cause grave danger.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Your biblical ignorance shines through, but I've grown to expect that from you. Jesus was referring to himself - his body was the temple - they destroyed it - and it did rise in three days.

Demonstrated ineptitude aside, even if I grant your failed analogy it is fallacious reasoning as explained above and quite telling of the weakness of your position when one resorts to pointing their finger to unrelated events that happened 2000 years ago. :shk:

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

The gays need to stop this nonsense, it just makes them look bad. They should be trying to project an image of themselves as better people than the Christians, which isn't too hard with all the fundamentalists and their intolerance. The gays could take a lead from Jesus (unlike most of the idiot Christians), and be tolerant, and love their neighbours, and turn the other cheek, show these fake Christian fundamentalists what Jesus was really about.

reply to post by bloodcircle

So anyone claiming that this 'attack' was somehow to garner support for equality for gay people who wish to marry, need to rethink this particular situation.

These clowns are not something to support, they are nothing more than a dismally weak hybrid attempt at being a gay 'anonymous'.

Exactly if the terrorist apologists would actually do a little research on this group as you have done; they would see that their goal is terrorism and they make every effort to promote that idea. It's only a matter time before someone is seriously hurt or killed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, they hit a pentecostal church last week and the Mormons this week. Islam is less tolerant of homosexuals than Christianity, in fact many Islamic nations enforce the death penalty for homosexuality. I wonder if they plan to attack any mosques?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Exactly if the terrorist apologists would actually do a little research on this group as you have done; they would see that their goal is terrorism and they make every effort to promote that idea. It's only a matter time before someone is seriously hurt or killed.

NEVER! Terror! More TERROR! I want Terror and HAVOC!!

Seriously, this is what you want all us gays and terrorist apologists to say in this thread right? Would that get a reply?

You are right. It is only a matter of time before somebody is at least hurt, possibly even killed. Their actions are unacceptable.

'Their' being the focal word. 'Their' being these specific people. 'Their' not being the gay people in America.

Definitely a clear cut case of terrorism. How dare they offend these good Christian's sensibilities? And expose their innocent children to such vile amoral acts of lewdness?

Under the Obama iron fist fascist regime there will be no Homeland Security to protect us. We are all doomed!!

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

This objection is known as “Tu Quoque,” or the “You too! fallacy.” It is a fallacious means of reasoning. It falls under the category of “fallacies of relevance “.

Of course. But Tu Quoque is not always a logical fallacy when pointing out inconsistency.

I never said either was acceptable. or that it was acceptable because Jesus apparently did something similar.

I'm expecting you to apply the same standards to each situation. I think both were not devasting, a bit out of order, but protesting is not terrorism. Perhaps the Jesus situation was a bit more violent.

However in truth you didn't even get the "you too" fallacy part right. Jesus had all authority to kick hucksters out of the temple, it was his Father's house. It really doesn't compare to a large group of masked persons invading a worship service, vandalizing a church with offensive graffiti, screaming obscenities and pulling the fire alarm to imply arson was taking place and create havoc. In a large building this panic can certainly cause grave danger.

Whatever.

There is not that much difference at all. The actions are very similar. It wasn't Jesus' temple. The dudes built it. They worshipped there. They never asked some bearded crusader to throw their tables around and manhandle their goats. For some reason the Jews still don't accept him. So the 'fathers house' business is neither here nor there.

The gay crusaders are motivated by ideology, much like Jesus. Both actions were forced on the people involved, both involved disturbing a social event.

The point is that both situations were viewed as justified by those undertaking the actions. You want one set of actions to be deplorable, the other to be acceptable, when there is little real difference.

Protesting is, and has always been, a method of motivating social change. It was 2000 years ago, and it is now.

Your biblical ignorance shines through, but I've grown to expect that from you. Jesus was referring to himself - his body was the temple - they destroyed it - and it did rise in three days.

Eh? I think that might be the first time in whenever I've even bothered to post some biblical tripe.

I find it rather inane, but it illustrated how using such applied definitions of terrorism can easily be applied elsewhere.

Demonstrated ineptitude aside, even if I grant your failed analogy it is fallacious reasoning as explained above and quite telling of the weakness of your position when one resorts to pointing their finger to unrelated events that happened 2000 years ago. :shk:

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Nah, the issue is you that you are now applying inconsistent standards. As I noted, I have only just said that I think both are not terrorism, they were protests. But I think the Jesus situation looked rather more violent.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
what kind of church is it that they have security guards to begin with?

A smart one. There have been church shootings and churches get threats against them all the time.

The Catholic Churches in Alabama would get threats from the
fundamentalists from time to time.
(this was in the 1990s when we were there)

I guess you do not care much for reading the threads that you reply on. That answer was already given and I already threw it back. Fail, try again.

reply to post by melatonin


It's astonishing how eager you are to equate vandalizing lewd homosexual anarchists with Jesus Christ chasing con men out. And talking about inconsistent standards, you attempt to use a two thousand year old event that you probably will claim as fictional if it suits your purposes. Or are you now asserting that the Bible is accurate?

Again you don't address that Jesus action was that of a single man facing many when in this case of anti-Christian terrorism we are talking about a mob of masked invaders vandalizing a church full of people and pulling a false fire alarm. You only believe that they are comparable because you are unaware his authority. Where as I know he had all authority. Your false perception of an inconsistent standard is simply an argument from ignorance. Whether you believe it or not he had all authority. It was really just a cheap shot to amuse your atheist bedfellows and bears very little relevance to the topic at hand.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I know this is completely off topic. So no need to reply or anything.

But as an anarchist myself, I want to say this group is using the term 'anarchist' for theatrical value and nothing more. It has a negative stigma in the States. People equate it to chaos and mayhem and nonsense like this. They are using it for this purpose, not because they are familiar and supporting anarchistic political or socio-economical ideology.

Cool, carry on...

This thread is extremely depressing. It truly saddens me to see reactions to the op that run the gamut of 'homophobic Christians had it coming' to 'well, I don't condone their actions but...' (I'm clearly paraphrasing here).

It particularly sticks in my craw when there is opposition to the term 'terrorism'. That's like obsessing about someone stepping on your new sneakers after he shot you in the abdomen. If after you are reading the OP you are prompted to argue nomenclature instead of condemning the actions of the harassing party, that's a problem.

For the record, I agree that using the term 'terrorism' in this case is an exercise in hyperbole, but who cares?

The actions by these anarchist/homosexuals are reprehensible.

Eric

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It's astonishing how eager you are to equate vandalizing lewd homosexual anarchists with Jesus Christ chasing con men out. And talking about inconsistent standards, you attempt to use a two thousand year old event that you probably will claim as fictional if it suits your purposes. Or are you now asserting that the Bible is accurate?

I don't care either way.

Some might be accurate, some not. It's not even an issue for the purposes I'm using it. Whether we see it as story or Truth(TM), neither are important. The situations can still be compared.

Again you don't address that Jesus action was that of a single man facing many when in this case of anti-Christian terrorism we are talking about a mob of masked invaders vandalizing a church full of people and pulling a false fire alarm. You only believe that they are comparable because you are unaware his authority. Where as I know he had all authority. Your false perception of an inconsistent standard is simply an argument from ignorance. Whether you believe it or not he had all authority. It was really just a cheap shot to amuse your atheist bedfellows and bears very little relevance to the topic at hand.

Aye, the situations aren't identical. Doesn't matter whether it was a single bearded man or many men in gimp masks. Neither are relevant. Just the actions. A single palestinian woman wearing a belt full of explosives is no less a terrorist than the a group of Irgun Israelis.

The situations are identical enough to show the inconsistency you want to apply. In each case, people were offended by others actions which motivated action. In both, people enter and disrupt a public place. In both, the people think they are justified in acting. Either both are deplorable actions or neither are. I don't think either would be classed as terrorism. Just protesting.