[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude. DUDE !!1!

Just because some wackos (that called themselves Christians) did stuff doesn't mean the Christian Faith condones it.

The Christian Faith is grounded in the Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament writings. You will find *nothing* justifying the crusades and other stuff like it in the NT.

-t

"And Joshua charged the people with an oath at that time, saying: 'Cursed be the man before the Lord that riseth up and buildeth this city, even Jericho; with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it'". (Joshua 6:26). "The people raised the war cry, the trumpets sounded. When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there. At once the people stormed the city, each man going straight forward; and they captured the city. They enforced the curse of destruction on everyone in the city; men and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep, and the donkeys, slaughtering them all. -- Joshua 6:20-21"

[OldManMac]

Some of you people need to pull your heads out of your arses, and realize that focusing on Hasan's religious beliefs are an easy out for avoiding other reasons for the attack.

Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Are an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre | Media and Technology | AlterNet

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

When Christians were persecuted and martyred in the first centuries AD, they didn't (by and large) resort to any violent tactics against their oppressors.

It's inherently against the spirit of the Christian faith.

While this is true, that didn't stop anyone.

Early Christians were expecting the end of time within their lifetime and didn't care about overcoming tyrannical government. (On the contrary, many yearned for martyrdom.) Once apocalyptic Christianity faded away and Christianity became institutionalized, political and/or violent tactics became normalized.

[hyteckit]

Hmm... what happens when a White guy shoots and kills his fellow soldiers?

Caused by stress?

Sgt. John M. Russell kills 5 fellow soldiers at Iraq base. Sgt John Russell was also from Texas.

Army IDs Sgt. John M. Russell as the shooter who killed 5 fellow soldiers at Iraq base

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Newsflash:

The murder rate among the military population is about the same as the murder rate among the civilian population. Why?

Because sometimes people go crazy and kill each other, and wearing a uniform or not doesn't seem to change that fact.

That said... Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Did someone actually cite that without their tongue being planted firmly in cheek? Does any one anywhere with any soft of a functioning brain actually believe that's an actual condition? I must have imagined it, because surely we haven't devolved as a society that far yet.

If the guy was shouting Allahu Akbar as he shot people (as some are reporting) then why not just call a spade and spade and (if all the facts bear it out) admit it was the action of a radical Muslim? PC stupidity won't allow it? Knee-jerk bullcrap compels some to seek a moral equivalence to Christianity or Judaism no matter how much of a pretzel one has to twist into to do so?

Why not just call a spade a spade and move on? I don't understand how some have invested so much of themselves in a worldview that's blind to certain issues just because they are politically incorrect.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wow! Actually Pre-TSD does exist!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If the guy was shouting Allahu Akbar as he shot people (as some are reporting) then why not just call a spade and spade and (if all the facts bear it out) admit it was the action of a radical Muslim? PC stupidity won't allow it? Knee-jerk bullcrap compels some to seek a moral equivalence to Christianity or Judaism no matter how much of a pretzel one has to twist into to do so?

Sometimes, insanity manifests itself as religious fervor. From all reports, it seems this guy has been slowly descending into madness for a while.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If the guy was shouting Allahu Akbar as he shot people (as some are reporting) then why not just call a spade and spade and (if all the facts bear it out) admit it was the action of a radical Muslim?

If a serial killer who believed himself to be a devout Christian made a habit of leaving a cross on all of his victims would you call him a "radical Christian" or just a lunatic? That's the double standard that some object to. The problem with drawing a conclusion about Hasan's use of the phrase is that it's not clear whether it indicates motivation for the attack or whether it simply indicates his personal feelings of religious piety, or both.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If a serial killer who believed himself to be a devout Christian made a habit of leaving a cross on all of his victims would you call him a "radical Christian" or just a lunatic? That's the double standard that some object to.

The big difference being:

Christianity tells its followers to be nice to everyone.
Islam tells its followers to kill infidels.

Go read the documentation, people.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Newsflash:

The murder rate among the military population is about the same as the murder rate among the civilian population. Why?

Because sometimes people go crazy and kill each other, and wearing a uniform or not doesn't seem to change that fact.

That said... Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Did someone actually cite that without their tongue being planted firmly in cheek? Does any one anywhere with any soft of a functioning brain actually believe that's an actual condition? I must have imagined it, because surely we haven't devolved as a society that far yet.

If the guy was shouting Allahu Akbar as he shot people (as some are reporting) then why not just call a spade and spade and (if all the facts bear it out) admit it was the action of a radical Muslim? PC stupidity won't allow it? Knee-jerk bullcrap compels some to seek a moral equivalence to Christianity or Judaism no matter how much of a pretzel one has to twist into to do so?

Why not just call a spade a spade and move on? I don't understand how some have invested so much of themselves in a worldview that's blind to certain issues just because they are politically incorrect.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Wow! Actually Pre-TSD does exist!

Yep, it's real. It appears that the shooter was quite upset about the possibility of going into a combat zone. Whether this was due to being scared shirtless or not wanting to be party to the deaths of fellow Muslims or something else is at this point irrelevant. I think it would have been better for all concerned if he'd just deserted though. As it is, he's in the best trauma hospital the Army has (Brooke Army Medical Center) under heavy armed guard, and if he survives, he'll stand a Court Martial. His actions may earn him a firing squad...

[Chuckit]

Of course, the military wouldn't have looked very kindly on him if he had deserted either.

[BadKosh]

There was one person who, after being forced into practicing the Muslim faith as a small child, later escaped his captors and with help from the King of Romania and his army took out a few thousand of the Muslim horde. You might remember Vlad Tepes? Vlad the impaler? He impaled not only Muslims but was pretty much intolerant of all varieties of immorals and criminals. I think he was supposed to be Roman Catholic, but I can't find reliable info on this aspect. He was partly responsible for repelling the Muslims(Ottoman empire) from eastern Europe in the 1450's.

[nonhuman]

Just found out that a friend of mine (Iraq vet, now civilian counsellor for the army specializing in PTSD, used to work at Walter Reed) actually knew this guy and lived 3 doors down from him here in Maryland. No useful insights, but man...

[Wiskedjak]

if a mass murderer says "God help me" while he's killing his victims, does that make his actions those of a radical Christian?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

There was one person who, after being forced into practicing the Muslim faith as a small child, later escaped his captors and with help from the King of Romania and his army took out a few thousand of the Muslim horde. You might remember Vlad Tepes? Vlad the impaler? He impaled not only Muslims but was pretty much intolerant of all varieties of immorals and criminals. I think he was supposed to be Roman Catholic, but I can't find reliable info on this aspect. He was partly responsible for repelling the Muslims(Ottoman empire) from eastern Europe in the 1450's.

Old Vlad knew how to handle the arabic war culture. That is, the only way to get them to stop attacking you is to show them that you're more brutal than they are.
Which is why we're having so many problems in Iraq - we can't do that because it'll offend voters' sensibilities back home. You can see incidents of this kind of behaviour still evident in the way they strung up those guys on that bridge during the opening moves of the war. This is the only thing they understand.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

if a mass murderer says "God help me" while he's killing his victims, does that make his actions those of a radical Christian?

If you can find a bit in the New Testament which encourages a follower to go kill people, then yes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you can find a bit in the New Testament which encourages a follower to go kill people, then yes.

So, you're saying the Old Testament has no relevance to Christian behavior?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

There was one person who, after being forced into practicing the Muslim faith as a small child, later escaped his captors and with help from the King of Romania and his army took out a few thousand of the Muslim horde. You might remember Vlad Tepes? Vlad the impaler? He impaled not only Muslims but was pretty much intolerant of all varieties of immorals and criminals. I think he was supposed to be Roman Catholic, but I can't find reliable info on this aspect. He was partly responsible for repelling the Muslims(Ottoman empire) from eastern Europe in the 1450's.

Vlad III ruled the princely kingdom of Wallachia sporadically in the mid-15th Century. Wallachia was positioned perilously between the hostile Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and both Vlad III and his father had to make pragmatic political decisions to maintain their kingdom's autonomy, alternating in their allegiances between the Hungarians and the Ottomans when it was profitable. In fact, Vlad III repeatedly paid tribute to the Ottoman Sultan in 1456 (once only days after pledging allegiance to the Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus) and famously sacked Hungarian Saxon villages in Wallachia and Transylvania in 1458-59 because of trade disputes, frictions with the Saxon-linked nobility in Wallachia, and a desire to take back territory which had been lost to the Hungarians several years earlier (in particular, a famous episode at a village named Brasov, which is what the majority of the "impaler" descriptions cite). This led the Hungarians to support a pretender to the throne, charging that Vlad had sided with the Turks.

Vlad was a ruthless, pragmatic political figure living between two hostile empires he despised fairly equally. He wasn't some sort of holy warrior. Most of the impaling we know about was committed against Christians (and written about only because the Hungarians were trying to marshall support against him).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you're saying the Old Testament has no relevance to Christian behavior?

That's right, yes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's right, yes.

soooo ... the whole 10 Commandments thing?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

soooo ... the whole 10 Commandments thing?

Superseded by the two.

1) Love God, believe in Christ.
2) Be excellent to each other.

Which is basically the gist of the ten anyway (stealing your neighbours crap or loving up his wife ain't being excellent to him).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Superseded by the two.

1) Love God, believe in Christ.
2) Be excellent to each other.

Which is basically the gist of the ten anyway (stealing your neighbours crap or loving up his wife ain't being excellent to him).

I find it interesting that God's teachings can differ so much between an Old Testament and a New Testament that you're able to completely write off what was God taught in the Old Testament. Did he change his mind or do you just not like what he said?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Did he change his mind

You'd have to ask Him that.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

or do you just not like what he said?

How so?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You'd have to ask Him that.

How so?

Well, you're pretty clear that you believe that the much harsher teachings from God in the Old Testament aren't relevant to Christians. So, I can only draw one of two conclusions:

1. That the omnipotent and infallible God changed his mind about how he wanted to influence his followers ... indicating that he perceived an error in his previous course of action.

2. That you choose to ignore the Old Testament teachings of God. Is there somewhere in the New Testament where God says "Oops ... don't listen to what I say in the Old Testament. My bad"?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, you're saying the Old Testament has no relevance to Christian behavior?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's right, yes.

That may be your personal belief but it's far from a universal belief across Christian denominations.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, you're pretty clear that you believe that the much harsher teachings from God in the Old Testament aren't relevant to Christians. So, I can only draw one of two conclusions:

1. That the omnipotent and infallible God changed his mind about how he wanted to influence his followers ... indicating that he perceived an error in his previous course of action.

2. That you choose to ignore the Old Testament teachings of God. Is there somewhere in the New Testament where God says "Oops ... don't listen to what I say in the Old Testament. My bad"?

Like I said, you'll have to go ask God.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That may be your personal belief but it's far from a universal belief across Christian denominations.

I dare you to try to find me one universal belief across "Christian" denominations.

If I decide to call myself a Frenchman it doesn't mean I am one.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I dare you to try to find me one universal belief across "Christian" denominations.

I suspect it might be a universal Christian belief that the words written in the Bible are those of God.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Like I said, you'll have to go ask God.

cop out

What is it that invalidates the teachings of the Old Testament?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

cop out

What is it that invalidates the teachings of the Old Testament?

Antinomianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be honest, I've no urge to get into this now. Too busy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Antinomianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antinomianism:
1. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.[/quote]
Well, that certain paints an interesting picture. Antinomian Christians believe they aren't bound by any law, be it scriptural, civil or moral. To be honest, I think that might be *more frightening* than the follower of a religion that might preach violence.

2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal.

So, ummm ... moral relativism?

To be honest, I've no urge to get into this now. Too busy.

lol

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I dare you to try to find me one universal belief across "Christian" denominations.

Jesus of Nazareth is Christ, the son of God?

My point was that there are serious ongoing theological debates between Christians who believe that Jesus created an entirely New Covenant, replacing all that was directed before by God, and those who believe that some earlier teachings of God must still be adhered to.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Jesus of Nazareth is Christ, the son of God?

I think you'll find that not even that one is universal.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My point was that there are serious ongoing theological debates between Christians who believe that Jesus created an entirely New Covenant, replacing all that was directed before by God, and those who believe that some earlier teachings of God must still be adhered to.

Thing is, at a certain point, one feels the law inside one's self. No need for bits of paper with a big list of them on there.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

1) Love God, believe in Christ.
2) Be excellent to each other.

3) Except to the towel-heads?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

3) Except to the towel-heads?

4) Not quite sure what Sikhs have to do with any of this.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

if a mass murderer says "God help me" while he's killing his victims, does that make his actions those of a radical Christian?

Well most of us wouldn't be shocked to learn he was a fundie nutbag. All this tiptoeing by lefties is almost as annoying as the mouth-frothing on the right. What a sad and retarded world we live in.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Well most of us wouldn't be shocked to learn he was a fundie nutbag. All this tiptoeing by lefties is almost as annoying as the mouth-frothing on the right. What a sad and retarded world we live in.

And, Fox News would be inciting people to call for the expulsion of all Christians from the military?

[besson3c]

edit: too late

[k2director]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Extremely troll-tastic thread. Typical.

From the NY Times: “When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad.

Can you really not see this situation is far different that Victor Benjamin, quoted in the NY Times, thinks? Can you really not sort that out?

If a Muslim shoots up a post office, but all indications are that he shot up the post office because he was fired, or was going bankrupt, or had lost his family in a custody battle, or had been wronged by a supervisor, or just had a mental break, then YES, I would say that's "Going Postal", and is no different than lots of other episodes of workplace violence we've seen. His religion would be completely beside the point.

But if a Muslim shoots up a post office (or an army base) because he sees that as a religious duty or act....to kill people who may be shipping out to fight other Muslims, or to prevent his own posting to a war zone where he may need to fight fellow Muslims or contribute more directly to the fight against them, then, yes, **THAT IS JIHAD**. And that's what happened in Texas a few days ago.

What's wrong with you that you can't tell the difference?!

Of course, I can answer that question for myself: to acknowledge that a native-born American and high-ranking Army officer (you'd think they'd be fairly patriotic, wouldn't you??) would kill fellow soldiers because of his Muslim views and his desire to not fight fellow Muslims even when his country requires it is **HIGHLY DISTURBING**. As posters have already said in this forum, it opens the door to a lot of uncomfortable questions about how Americanized Muslims really have become in this country. It flies in the face of liberal values that bend over backwards to not judge another person's culture. Even worse, asking questions that Hasan's act raises can run right along the boarder between legitimate questions and discrimination/racism.

That's why so many of you are doing everything you can to sweep an act of Islamic violence under the rug and call it typical "workplace violence" or "psychotic break" or "post traumatic stress" or anything but the truth.

That's why the New York Times, the bastion of American liberalism, has run a MAJOR EDITORIAL today....not about the mounting evidence of Hasan's religious motivation, but about the Effects of Combat Stress for Caregivers:

Combat Stress and the Fort Hood Gunman - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

In the New York Times, the *only* story that has anything to do with Hasan's act and Islam is a story about how American Muslim groups have issued statements condemning Hasan and how they're bracing for a new round of discrimination.

But, of course, the Obama administration is just as motivated to call this anything BUT an act of Islamic extremism. Having an American Major murder a group of soldiers because he thought Islam required it doesn't look good when you've staked a major part of your foreign policy on:

1) Extending an "open hand" to the Muslim world

2) Avoiding an armed confrontation with Iran over its development of nukes

3) Dilly-dallying over a decision on whether to commit more troops to Afghanistan, or whether to begin the process of cutting and running (even though Obama repeatedly called Afghanistan the "Necessary War" during his campaign).

4) A commitment to close Guantanemo (which is running very late as it is)

5) To rollback Bush's "oppressive" wire-tapping laws which "discriminate" against particular groups in this country.

**SO MUCH** of Obama's policies would be damaged by the admission that Hasan acted out of Islamic extremism. You can bet that Obama's administration is doing everything it can to distract people from that conclusion. He's already issued a statement urging Americans to not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan, and is hoping the country simply gets back to fretting about his disastrous 10.2% unemployment rate, or the health care train wreck. Those are far safer issues for Obama than a high-ranking American Muslim officer who murders American soldiers because of his Islamic values.

Given all this, it's easy to see why denial is so popular around here...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you're saying the Old Testament has no relevance to Christian behavior?

There are very few bits even in the Old Testament that could reasonably be read as encouraging people in general (rather than some particular character in the book) to kill, particularly if both parties are not Jewish (in which case they wouldn't be particularly interested in Christian interpretations of their law anyway).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There are very few bits even in the Old Testament that could reasonably be read as encouraging people in general (rather than some particular character in the book) to kill,

"very few" does not equal "none"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If a serial killer who believed himself to be a devout Christian made a habit of leaving a cross on all of his victims would you call him a "radical Christian" or just a lunatic? That's the double standard that some object to.

If the person superscribed to a radical sect of Christianity that preached some equivalent of jihad, martyrdom for killing 'infidels' etc, then yes, I'd call him a radical Christian. Again, what's the problem with calling a spade a spade? I don't have anything staked in any of this that makes me unable to deal with things as they may happen to be, I just wonder why so many others appear to.

Here's an idea- if there's suddenly a big spate worldwide of Christians doing exactly as you said, why don't we just deal with it when that happens? As for now, why not just deal with the fact that there does tend to be a lot of violence perpetrated by people subscribing to radical Islamic beliefs? (If this guy is one of them or not, doesn't change that fact.) There have even been a few foiled attempts by radical militants to strike military bases that were foiled before they were allowed to happen. Guaranteed, the same people would be making up excuses for those being something other than what they were had they been carried out, as well.

What stake to people have in denying this? What rose-colored belief system are they afraid of having shattered, should they have to face realities that are counter to it?

The problem with drawing a conclusion about Hasan's use of the phrase is that it's not clear whether it indicates motivation for the attack or whether it simply indicates his personal feelings of religious piety, or both.

I don't have a problem with not drawing a conclusion, just that it's silly not to at least consider that committing a radical act (killing innocent people) while yelling a religious phrase, might be a pretty good indicator of a radical religious belief. Why the need by some to not have to deal with that?

We're not talking about a guy who just stressed out and just killed himself- he went nuts and killed a bunch of innocent people that had nothing to do with whatever so-called 'stress' he had. It's total bullshit not to examine the real motivations for such an act, and come up with some bullshit Pre-TSD that's actually a joke now being bandied about as reality.

[ort888]

Okay, you convinced me. I hate Muslims now.

So what's my next course of action?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Yep, it's real.

heh. I guess Apple will be putting out the MacBook Wheel any day now then.

It appears that the shooter was quite upset about the possibility of going into a combat zone. Whether this was due to being scared shirtless or not wanting to be party to the deaths of fellow Muslims or something else is at this point irrelevant.

I don't find it any sort of reasonable excuse that someone who's upset about the possibility of going into a combat zone... joins the military. This is bullshit on so many levels. And the logic here: so it follows that someone affraid of going into "a combat zone" where they may be required to pick up a gun and shoot at armed combatants and be shot at (and actually this guy was a medical officer, so actual he wouldn't have) deals with their "Pre-TSD" by CREATING a combat zone, shooting at innocent, unarmed people and killing them, and is shot at himself.

I don't buy it- citing some stress motivation is ridiculous on so many levels. The guy hadn't been in combat, and wasn't going to be in direct combat. He proved by his actions that he had an extreme violent streak and willingness to kill innocent people. A nutty religious motivation makes a lot more sense. If that's where the chips happen to fall, what stake to some people have in denying it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A nutty religious motivation makes a lot more sense. If that's where the chips happen to fall, what stake to some people have in denying it?

Only if that's what you *want* to believe. It's certainly one possibility. But, there are lots of reasons that can cause people to snap ... nutty religious motivation is only one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Okay, you convinced me. I hate Muslims now.

So what's my next course of action?

Still waiting for the answer to that myself...

[besson3c]

k2director: are you Abe?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Okay, you convinced me. I hate Muslims now.

So what's my next course of action?

I would tell you, but you might actually do it and I wouldn't want to be responsible.

So I'll just say: get off your mom's computer already.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Only if that's what you *want* to believe. It's certainly one possibility. But, there are lots of reasons that can cause people to snap ... nutty religious motivation is only one.

But if it is a nutty religious motivation- what is it that makes you reluctant to face it?

So what's at stake for you in this NOT being religiously motivated? What's at stake for you that requires a knee-jerk reaction when religious-based facts are pointed out, to the point of the obvious "attack the messenger" approach that many are adopting here against anyone who points them out? What's at stake for you in twisting into pretzel logic to and prove that Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or whatever other religions have any moral equivalence to radical Islamic beliefs, in order to downplay the facts about radical Islam?

Do tell. I find this fascinating.

[hyteckit]

Christians go over to Iraq to kill terrorist. Muslims call them infidels.

Muslims come to the US to kill infidels. Christians call them terrorists.