Radical Homosexual Terrorism

Where better to protest bigots than at the places they gather. Sure couldn't go to the mall or star bucks. I went back and looked at the picture and they seemed only had a few clubs and no guns. They were done up like the middle east rag heads but you would be too if religion owned the cops and judges. The article didn't say they were done up like that. Besides they were pentecost and the pentecost are just plain annoying.

According to the last decades statistics from the FBI the Hate Crimes against LGBT ranks #3 for the total hates crimes in the US, it is increasing, and it is primarily fueled by religious beliefs.

Since many in this thread are being so flexible with the term 'terrorists' and all...

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by melatonin


You must have bumped your head or something. The story of Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple is VASTLY different. First of all, since Jesus was Jewish, he had every right to throw the corruption out of HIS place of worship. Also, Jesus did not go there for the purpose of causing a ruckus.

Can the same be said of this "Bash Back" group? NO!!!! They showed up at that church for the very purpose of causing trouble. You're comparing two VERY different situations that have ZERO relevance to each other. Your comparison is just not applicable at all.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

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

I respect you for saying that and not minimizing the whole thing as many others feel the need to do. And yes I concur in that my outrage is about this specific group and does not reflect on all homosexuals. However the absurd excuses for these irresponsible and dangerous actions made by many of the posters does reflect on them.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Sounds solid to me

I gave you a star

When I said earlier, the Churches have it coming; that was not me condoning the actions (which I had said then too), or threatening the Church, but being historical. It doesn't justify these actions...but they should be expected nonetheless. (because of the FBI reports in my prior post, as example)

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lightmare
You must have bumped your head or something. The story of Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple is VASTLY different. First of all, since Jesus was Jewish, he had every right to throw the corruption out of HIS place of worship. Also, Jesus did not go there for the purpose of causing a ruckus.

Can the same be said of this "Bash Back" group? NO!!!! They showed up at that church for the very purpose of causing trouble. You're comparing two VERY different situations that have ZERO relevance to each other. Your comparison is just not applicable at all.

Yes, it is.

Someone is offended by the actions of other people...

1. Jesus and the actions of some in Herod's temple.
2. A group of gays and the actions of Xians.

The group is motivated by this offence to act to disrupt a social gathering...

1. Jesus goes to temple, causes trouble
2. A group of gays go to a church, cause trouble.

They irritate people....

1. The temple leaders and others.
2. Church leaders and their congregation.

The irritated people punish the troublemakers...

1. Jesus is arrested (one explanation).
2. Gays are arrested.

Again, definition used by wham-man...

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.

If we ignore the foreign bit, then if we can apply to one, then also t'other. Although, I'm not sure that throwing tables or condoms is really that violent to the level of terrorism). We can argue motivations ('I'm a son of god I can do whatever I like because daddy said so' or 'I've teh gay let me live my life') all day, but I don't think that's the issue.

I know you justify Jesus' actions and deplore those of this gay group. I'm sure people in Palestine see Arafat as a freedom fighter, whereas many of you see him as a terrorist. All in the perception & biases.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Velvet Death
Where better to protest bigots than at the places they gather. Sure couldn't go to the mall or star bucks. I went back and looked at the picture and they seemed only had a few clubs and no guns. They were done up like the middle east rag heads but you would be too if religion owned the cops and judges. The article didn't say they were done up like that. Besides they were pentecost and the pentecost are just plain annoying.

Wow. How very enlightened.

Bigots gather at Church. Pentecosts are annoying (and I assume are therefor deserving of such treatment). Oh, and nice comment on 'rag heads'.


Eric

reply to post by melatonin


Nope. You're still dead wrong. Two points to make.

1. Jesus had gone to the temple for reasons which had NOTHING to do with causing trouble. His encounter with the money changers was an added bonus.

2. The gay group had absolutely NO buisness being at that church other than to cause trouble. They went to the church FOR THE EXACT PURPOSE OF CAUSING TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME NOW??????????????????????

reply to post by melatonin

EXCEPT that in Jesus' Day, the Temple was public.
This was a private church.
Moreover, Jesus was mad about what the priests were doing to God, not what they were doing to Him. Unselfishness!
I can't believe you're taking up for this!

Ah yes.... watch out, y'all, its...

AL GAYDA!

OMG OMG OMG OMG Jebus save us from those RPG and AK toting homosexuals, and the suicide bombing gays who go out to the music of the Village People.

If a bunch of rabble rousers feel oppressed and go to a church and do a bit of non violent mayhem, and are labelled Terrorists, then maybe we can start attaching names like Facist, Bigot, Religious Fundementalist, Hypocrite, etc etc etc to certain keyboard judges, who are pimping their divisive and hate filled agenda in this thread, with gross exaggerations in their usage of certain terminology.

Originally posted by Clearskies

EXCEPT that in Jesus' Day, the Temple was public.
This was a private church.
Moreover, Jesus was mad about what the priests were doing to God, not what they were doing to Him. Unselfishness!
I can't believe you're taking up for this!

True, but I don't think terrorist acts are differentiated by whether they happen in public or not. A bomb set off inside a Jerusalem nigthclub is just as much a terrorist act as one set off in an Iraqi market.

And so if terrorists are unselfish and act on offence to others or their welfare, it becomes a justified act? You might want to think/pray that through.

I'll leave you all to dance around the issue.

Catch ya later, perhaps...

lightmare
Nope. You're still dead wrong. Two points to make.

1. Jesus had gone to the temple for reasons which had NOTHING to do with causing trouble. His encounter with the money changers was an added bonus.

If you say so. He was pretty noughty in the run up. Even the fig tree got it. Jesus was a militant. A militant hippy socialist. Hence he took it out on the bourgeoisie. It could well have been the second time he commited such terrorism.

2. The gay group had absolutely NO buisness being at that church other than to cause trouble. They went to the church FOR THE EXACT PURPOSE OF CAUSING TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME NOW??????????????????????

so they aren't allowed to attend a church? Rhetorical. Don't bother.

They went with the purpose of causing trouble, I agree. No need to shout. Makes you look desperate.

Catch you later too, if I'm unlucky.

Originally posted by Terran Blue
Ah yes.... watch out, y'all, its...

AL GAYDA!

lol

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Jesus HATED the fact that the Hebrew religion had become a circus, with priests confiscating 'unworthy, blemished' sacrificial lambs, bulls and mite-infested doves, and then selling them back at the entrance of the Temple FOR A PROFIT.
It was a corrupt system, far from what God had wanted and also, Jesus didn't throw condoms at children and adults.

Originally posted by Terran Blue
Ah yes.... watch out, y'all, its...

AL GAYDA!

OMG OMG OMG OMG Jebus save us from those RPG and AK toting homosexuals, and the suicide bombing gays who go out to the music of the Village People.

ROFLMAO, star for you.
I am glad to have some laughs on this thread.


[edit on 11-17-2008 by Velvet Death]

At any rate, I know that these bash back people are going to get a LOT of prayers, now.
At least something good can come from it.

If these guys did this in my community all hell would break lose! We wouldn't tolerate homos pulling our fire alarms one bit I tell you. This must have been one of those churches with mostly elderly people.

If this isn't terrorism why do they need masks?

If this isn't terrorism why do they need weapons?

And why the hell would they want the country to marry them if the country marries on Christian terms? Aren't they against the word of God? Tradditional marriage honors The Word of God, this completely contradicts what they're asking for.

reply to post by melatonin

Come on now, Mel. I know you're not that freaking dense. Why then do you insist on acting like you are? Your pathetic attempt to derail this thread by injecting non-applicable relativist implications indicates intellectual ineptitude on your part. I say again...I know you're not that dense. SO STOP ACTING LIKE YOU ARE!

Not one of your POINTLESS SPECULATIONS have done anything to change the FACTS that have been presented to you on this subject.

By being purposely blind and deaf to the FACTS which have been presented quite clearly, you not only insult our intelligence, but your own as well.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Lightmare]

Originally posted by Velvet Death

Originally posted by Terran Blue
Ah yes.... watch out, y'all, its...

AL GAYDA!

OMG OMG OMG OMG Jebus save us from those RPG and AK toting homosexuals, and the suicide bombing gays who go out to the music of the Village People.

ROFLMAO, star for you.

Originally posted by topsecretombomb

And why the hell would they want the country to marry them if the country marries on Christian terms?

1. There are LGBT Christians
2. Not all marriages are denominational. I just attended one that had zero Christianity in it. And they were 'married'

Aren't they against the word of God?

According to many Christians.

Traditional marriage honors The Word of God, this completely contradicts what they're asking for.

According to many Christians.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The pink panther wasn't gay. He liked...... 'the ladies'!

reply to post by Clearskies


And so did you at one point in your life.

Things can change for him too apparently

Anyways... this was just for humor. And a play on the recent buzz-phrase 'Pink Panthers', which is used synonymously with this radical homosexual agenda crap.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]