That's my point. You'll respond if Clyde or someone that has the same beliefs as you pose those types of questions, but refuse to answer when it's someone that doesn't share your beliefs.

 

So...sue me! Or...stomp on my head after you've pushed me down.

That's my point. You'll respond if Clyde or someone that has the same beliefs as you pose those types of questions, but refuse to answer when it's someone that doesn't share your beliefs.

 

ok...So I went back, and I haven't actually responded to Clyde. But I have responded to others in this thread, which happens to be started by Clyde. Still, my record is unblemished in responding to extremist messages.

ok...So I went back, and I haven't actually responded to Clyde. But I have responded to others in this thread, which happens to be started by Clyde. Still, my record is unblemished in responding to extremist messages.

 

:lol:

:lol:

 

(takes a bow) Why thank you sir.

Which is what I originally thought until he kept going and going. In retrospect, I can now see what he was trying to do, but still finding it hard to understand the method since I am not a student; nor is he my teacher.

 

It's just Clyde being Clyde. Don't get upset about it. Whenever Clyde posts any thing in this forum, I spend time thinking about what he's up to before I respond (of course, he's usually up to no good ) . Actually his method is good for the brain; sort of a walking, talking brain teaser, helping me to keep my mental facilities sharp as I move towards the golden years. Clyde, you're all right (for a CovCath fan that is :laugh:).

Clyde's posting style in P&R is to try and back posters into a corner where they have no alternative but to look hypocritical.

 

Appreciate the info. :thumb:

 

The defense rests...

We agree. You've figured out the point. That was my goal.

 

I agree with your overall point in the thread, that you have to be careful when painting with a broad brush; however, there is a difference between Muslims and Christians. Sure, both have radicals that do not reflect the majority of its people, but the Islamic radicals are much more outspoken and the attacks are more frequent.

 

Take this article, for example. I originally saw the story on 60 Minutes (with Lesley Stahl) a while back. I was fascinated. The story is about a former extremist who spent much of his time promoting Jihad idealogy. Now, he spends his time fighting the spread of the Jihadist idealogy.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/60minutes/main6425491_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

If Christian leaders form a powerful sect that openly & overtly attack (or promote attacks) individuals or groups of people that they disagree with, then the comparison becomes valid. Until then, Clyde's analogy fails, in my opinion.

 

Although Dr. Tiller's murder was unfortunate, it was only a matter of time. Sadly, many people knew this (although some wouldn't admit it.) Yes, those protests were fueled by Christian ideals; however, I have not seen a Christian sect that has actually condoned the murder. Instead, it was one individual who took matters into his own hands.

And if this indeed was your original opinion, it should have been stated up front rather than to waste the time of everyone (such as myself) who thought you were being serious.

 

Sometimes you have to take people through an exercise for them to get the point. I think many figured it out quickly.

I agree with your overall point in the thread, that you have to be careful when painting with a broad brush; however, there is a difference between Muslims and Christians. Sure, both have radicals that do not reflect the majority of its people, but the Islamic radicals are much more outspoken and the attacks are more frequent.

 

Take this article, for example. I originally saw the story on 60 Minutes (with Lesley Stahl) a while back. I was fascinated. The story is about a former extremist who spent much of his time promoting Jihad idealogy. Now, he spends his time fighting the spread of the Jihadist idealogy.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/60minutes/main6425491_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

If Christian leaders form a powerful sect that openly & overtly attack (or promote attacks) on individuals or groups of people that they disagree with, then the comparison becomes valid. Until then, Clyde's analogy fails, in my opinion.

 

Although Dr. Tiller's murder was unfortunate, it was only a matter of time. Sadly, many people knew this (although some wouldn't admit it.) Yes, those protests were fueled by Christian ideals; however, I have not seen a Christian sect that has actually condoned the murder. Instead, it was one individual who took matters into his own hands.

 

Here's the part that bothers me. By saying "it was only a matter of time", to me, it's tacitly condoning the murder. Whether it's a denomination, or a collective of Christians of all denominations, by shrugging and basically saying "it was only a matter of time." we DO condone it. I guess I look at things differently than many. I don't think it matters whether it's one murder or 40,000; one radical or a whole country of them. The fact that religion is used to justify violence is abhorrant and against all true religious ideals. But even more heinous to me is that Christians are able to put aside their own feelings of association by saying that "he doesn't believe as I do" with relatively little outrage, and then turn around and condemn another faith's radicals and lump them all together as the targets of our Christian outrage. It's so hypocritical.

Clyde's posting style in P&R is to try and back posters into a corner where they have no alternative but to look hypocritical.

 

Oh I see some people are sensitive. There's no corner to back anyone into. If I would have come on here and said "we can't blame Muslims as a whole" people would most likely have said "sure what's your point" without some of them realizing that they're already doing that (let me be clear when I say "they" that I don't mean everyone). Sometimes you have to put in terms that offend them (ie Christians are to blame for the murder of Dr Tiller) to get to realize how absurd it is to make such blanket statements. You, obviously, are highly intelligent and didn't need such a walk down that path. Not all are as sharp as you.

Here's the part that bothers me. By saying "it was only a matter of time", to me, it's tacitly condoning the murder. Whether it's a denomination, or a collective of Christians of all denominations, by shrugging and basically saying "it was only a matter of time." we DO condone it. I guess I look at things differently than many. I don't think it matters whether it's one murder or 40,000; one radical or a whole country of them. The fact that religion is used to justify violence is abhorrant and against all true religious ideals. But even more heinous to me is that Christians are able to put aside their own feelings of association by saying that "he doesn't believe as I do" with relatively little outrage, and then turn around and condemn another faith's radicals and lump them all together as the targets of our Christian outrage. It's so hypocritical.

 

As I wrote my response, I knew that some would get stuck on the part where I said "it was only a matter of time." That was not the best choice of words, but sadly I feel that it's the truth. I am not condoning the murder AT ALL. But, the facts of the matter are that abortion is a controversial issue with strong feelings on both sides. The debate gets even more heated when it is late-term or partial birth abortions. I think that Dr. Tiller was aware of the potential consequences of continuing his practice. Sadly, it was inevitable that someone was going to "take him out" if he continued to perform these late-term abortions.

 

Although the Christian faith disagrees with abortion, I do not think it preaches to or prepares its constituents to perform overt acts of destruction to those people who conduct the procedures. If it does, I have not seen it. Therein lies the difference, in my opinion.

Oh I see some people are sensitive. There's no corner to back anyone into. If I would have come on here and said "we can't blame Muslims as a whole" people would most likely have said "sure what's your point" without some of them realizing that they're already doing that (let me be clear when I say "they" that I don't mean everyone). Sometimes you have to put in terms that offend them (ie Christians are to blame for the murder of Dr Tiller) to get to realize how absurd it is to make such blanket statements. You, obviously, are highly intelligent and didn't need such a walk down that path. Not all are as sharp as you.

 

Who are these "they" you're talking about? No one has blamed Muslims as a whole. And if you aren't speaking of people on BGP, then who exactly are you trying to reach?

As I wrote my response, I knew that some would get stuck on the part where I said "it was only a matter of time." That was not the best choice of words, but sadly I feel that it's the truth. I am not condoning the murder AT ALL. But, the facts of the matter are that abortion is a controversial issue with strong feelings on both sides. The debate gets even more heated when it is late-term or partial birth abortions. I think that Dr. Tiller was aware of the potential consequences of continuing his practice. Sadly, it was inevitable that someone was going to "take him out" if he continued to perform these late-term abortions.

 

Although the Christian faith disagrees with abortion, I do not think it preaches to or prepares its constituents to perform overt acts of destruction to those people who conduct the procedures. If it does, I have not seen it. Therein lies the difference, in my opinion.

 

Make no mistake, I'm not condoning abortion. But what I do find extraordinarily un-Christianlike is the contradiction of outrage over abortion, and the nonchalant shrugging off of the snuffing out of other lives. And then, the outrage over non-Christian acts of violence, and the generalization of entire faiths based upon the radicals of said faiths, and the disassociation of Christians with radicals of their own faith.

 

It's absolutely galling to me... the hypocrisy. And I have a REALLY hard time reconciling it all.

Who are these "they" you're talking about? No one has blamed Muslims as a whole. And if you aren't speaking of people on BGP, then who exactly are you trying to reach?

 

Some people associate all (or most) Muslims with terrorism. The same could be said about many people of Middle Eastern descent.

Make no mistake, I'm not condoning abortion. But what I do find extraordinarily un-Christianlike is the contradiction of outrage over abortion, and the nonchalant shrugging off of the snuffing out of other lives. And then, the outrage over non-Christian acts of violence, and the generalization of entire faiths based upon the radicals of said faiths, and the disassociation of Christians with radicals of their own faith.

 

It's absolutely galling to me... the hypocrisy. And I have a REALLY hard time reconciling it all.

 

I see what you're saying. Personally, I am not shrugging off either abortion or the murder of Dr. Tiller. Both, in my opinion, are equally wrong. I try to be a realist and I truly feel that it was only a matter of time before Dr. Tiller's practice was ended - whether it be voluntarily or involuntarily. It's not right, and I am not condoning it. But I am not in the least bit surprised.