Logical step?

[Chaigidel]

in the most recent shootings in america; the shooter left a note in which he said that christians were responsible for so much evil that he would kill as many as he could without remorse.

now is this a logical step for those that feel certain religions are entirely responsible for greatest evils in the world?-- because obviously the shooter felt he was doing the right thing, felt he was punishing them ( I also heard that this boy was raised iin a religious family but im unsure about whether he was saying christians were evil from a atheist or christian perspective)--this does in some ways prove that atheist motivations can be as responsible as any religious motivation, thus can you truly blame the entire religion or belief?
isnt it just the choices we make that are responsible for all the "wrong" in the world?

discuss.

[Irishman]

No crime warrants murder or death; no injustice is solved with violence. The only way this is the logical step is if one is not thinking logically.

[Gaidin]

No crime warrants murder or death; no injustice is solved with violence. The only way this is the logical step is if one is not thinking logically.

There are plenty of ways to think logically and come up with a crime that warrants death. Remember, logic is about given conditions and rules, and what can be derived from them.

With the right given(or even subsequently derived) condition or rule, ie, something like 'Eye for an eye', the death penalty is quite logical. And there's not a damn thing that one can do to dismiss it as illogical.

[Chaigidel]

obviously being willing to take life is kinda illogical( in most cases) but there was an avenue there; he took it.

he spoke of the evil of chriistians and that they deserved to be punished; perhaps he saw himself as a religious punisher rather than any sort of atheist one; but either way the avenue was there simply because some people have said it before;--- Isnt it a logical step for the sentiment I mean. if you are against something it is logical to attack it.

[Dracula]

This is the logical step of hatred,yes . I huess that is why your army dropped bombs over Serbia on the Easter with inscriptions "Happy Resurrection " .

[Kiki52]

I have trouble understanding your question but I think the shooter who was killed by that woman Jeanne or whatever was troubled. I think though that while many people hate Christianity, it is a very dangerous place to tread into the idea that Christians should be killed.

The shooter man was probably mentally unstable.

I think that many Christians have given Jesus a bad name, a name he doesn't deserve. That is why I like the Lakota Native Americans, they call Jesus the "Yellow Hand" and respect him but do not wish to think of him in white man's terms. However, I need to talk with my Native American friend about this though. The real Jesus though to her was suppressed, but his message is way different than how he is portrayed now, supposedly the real Jesus was more peaceful and loving and not this sorta semi-war hero like he is becoming more now in this day and age.

But we should not in any way think it is good to kill Christians, because one murdering people is bad and two... well think of it this way:

That woman named Jeanne Assam on Yahoo last night was protrayed as a hero, and there was a picture of her with a stern face and an American flag in the background. This type of picture represents a type of picture that denotes some sort of militancy, we our proud of "our heroes" (Christian Americas Heroes) and this type of imagry leads the profane masses to accept a sort of Christian American fascism. We need more security everywhere, then before you know it, it'll lead America down to a police state where people are always afraid then it'll become the end times before you know it. This is just like 9/11 where those people who died were used for propaganda purposes (though I do agree that Indian Denver professor took it a bit too far). It makes me sick seeing these images like of that jackbooted thug Jeanne shown as some way to promote Christian fascism (and police state) in America.

Of course, another more... mature religion is following a similar concept but it did this.

If Chrisitans are persecuted, they can become dangerous to everyone. Do not rouse the fear of Christian America, and before you know it you unleash a beast unlike any other the world has seen. Muslims and Hindus and pagans and atheists all alike become fair game to Christians once you start persecuting them.

Whoever thinks Christians should die is putting all people of all religions at risk because then the Christians will go into super-defensive mode and bring forth the coming of armaggedon. So therefore, we need to understand each other and love one another. War is not the awnser.

[The Good]

I have trouble understanding your question but I think the shooter who was killed by that woman Jeanne or whatever was troubled. I think though that while many people hate Christianity, it is a very dangerous place to tread into the idea that Christians should be killed.

The shooter man was probably mentally unstable.

I think that many Christians have given Jesus a bad name, a name he doesn't deserve. That is why I like the Lakota Native Americans, they call Jesus the "Yellow Hand" and respect him but do not wish to think of him in white man's terms. However, I need to talk with my Native American friend about this though. The real Jesus though to her was suppressed, but his message is way different than how he is portrayed now, supposedly the real Jesus was more peaceful and loving and not this sorta semi-war hero like he is becoming more now in this day and age.

But we should not in any way think it is good to kill Christians, because one murdering people is bad and two... well think of it this way:

That woman named Jeanne Assam on Yahoo last night was protrayed as a hero, and there was a picture of her with a stern face and an American flag in the background. This type of picture represents a type of picture that denotes some sort of militancy, we our proud of "our heroes" (Christian Americas Heroes) and this type of imagry leads the profane masses to accept a sort of Christian American fascism. We need more security everywhere, then before you know it, it'll lead America down to a police state where people are always afraid then it'll become the end times before you know it. This is just like 9/11 where those people who died were used for propaganda purposes (though I do agree that Indian Denver professor took it a bit too far). It makes me sick seeing these images like of that jackbooted thug Jeanne shown as some way to promote Christian fascism (and police state) in America.

Of course, another more... mature religion is following a similar concept but it did this.

If Chrisitans are persecuted, they can become dangerous to everyone. Do not rouse the fear of Christian America, and before you know it you unleash a beast unlike any other the world has seen. Muslims and Hindus and pagans and atheists all alike become fair game to Christians once you start persecuting them.

Whoever thinks Christians should die is putting all people of all religions at risk because then the Christians will go into super-defensive mode and bring forth the coming of armaggedon. So therefore, we need to understand each other and love one another. War is not the awnser.

Quoted for truth. I am a peaceful Christian who has no hatred of anyone what so ever. The thing to hate is the sin, not the person. And yes, it would be a bad idea for atheists to persecute Christianity, it would result in millions of lives lost, and would be senseless. Regarding a war, if it is to defend Christianity itself, then it must be fought. I stand up for all I believe in.

Also, I agree with your point about some "Christians" giving Jesus Christ a bad name, that is usually done through hypocracy, racism, and so on. Christians should have no hatred, the Bible doesn't teach to hate someone based on their beliefs or ethnicity. People like the ones you are describing make a bad example of what being a Christian should involve.

[The Prophet]

The next logical step would be to shoot Pat Robertson or some Wahabi preacher in the face. Not mall goers.

Not that I'm advocating shooting Robertson or a wahabi in the face.

[Chaigidel]

well I just wish people like this would do the decent thing and just shoot themselves.--- before killing anyone else.

[Bokks]

You can keep dreaming about that one.
I didn't know that this happened in the US, I thought it was somewhere else.
Boy, see what yuo TWC people have done to me! I'm an American that's grown to be more internationally minded than domestically!

This has the danger--maybe the original intent-- to become one of the other "atheism=evil" threads. Before that happens, I'd say this:
The kid was obviously crazy. Insane. Mentally. there's no way that atheis, or religion, drove him to do what he did. Insanity did that. Atheism does not equal hatred, it equals... nothing, it's just as valid a belief as religions are.

This is the logical step of hatred,yes . I huess that is why your army dropped bombs over Serbia on the Easter with inscriptions "Happy Resurrection " .

Who's country did that? Certainly not the US, certainly not the UK!

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

Is this one of those "Atheist bashing thread" ?

[Chaigidel]

nah its more of a "realize who is responsible" thread --- just like lector said this person was responsible for his actions no matter what systems of belief he held.-- I often hear about religion being naturally evil so to speak; and a bad influence over humanity-- I am just saying humanity is the bad influence.

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

nah its more of a "realize who is responsible" thread --- just like lector said this person was responsible for his actions no matter what systems of belief he held.-- I often hear about religion being naturally evil so to speak; and a bad influence over humanity-- I am just saying humanity is the bad influence.

Your both right. But i doubt it will change anything. Bashing threads like "Why Atheism is a stupid...." "Islamic teddy bear shreder..." "Christian`s are bad...." will always pop-up.

[Chaigidel]

yeah but I am still not clear on this guys motivations-=--was he ultra religious and felt the christians werent acting christian enough?
(he apparently was raised ultra religious)
or was he violently lashing out at a religion he had become disillusioned with?

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

He probably did it, because he thought christians were not putting into practice the "christian values", and that they only want to seem christian but they are not acting like "real ones", hence he considered them as a sort of "imposters" or "hypocrites".

[Chaigidel]

apparently he was also rejected from the missionary school which he attacked

[Justice and Mercy]

apparently he was also rejected from the missionary school which he attacked

And then he tried to justify his actions. He had the "best of intentions".

That's way too common.

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

Then it`s very clear what happend. They rejected him, probably for being "over religious" which is a very close step to "fanaticism", and the "saint" that he is, wanted to smite those imposters because they wouldn`t let him to share the wisdom of god, and in his "piety" decided they should die. (since that is what a misionary supossed to do, share the teaching`s of god)

[Irishman]

There are plenty of ways to think logically and come up with a crime that warrants death. Remember, logic is about given conditions and rules, and what can be derived from them.

Yes and I dont think any of those systems of morals are worth anything. This is ethics we are talking about.

And yeah, I can dismiss the 'an eye for an eye' set of morality and law as irrational.

If you want to get into a discussion of the death penalty, that is a different topic. All in all, your right, it can be a rational step if one uses irrational rules.

[Justice and Mercy]

Yes and I dont think any of those systems of morals are worth anything. This is ethics we are talking about.

And yeah, I can dismiss the 'an eye for an eye' set of morality and law as irrational.

If you want to get into a discussion of the death penalty, that is a different topic. All in all, your right, it can be a rational step if one uses irrational rules.

I may be mistaken, did you just make the non-existant distinction between "ethics" and "morals".