I will start looking to physicists for religious philosophy when physicists start looking to theologians for scientific support. No recognized Christian philosophy supports terrorism.[/quote]
I actually hate religion bashing debates. However, the key word is “recognized”. Does Christianity have a supreme council that decides recognition? And this is a serious question, I don’t know. It used to be the Vatican. And anybody with a modicum of historical understanding knows how the Holy Roman Empire operated, whom was the supreme recognizer. Just a hint, they used to burn scientists at the stake BECAUSE they did not look to theologians for scientific support.
Anyway, as far as “terrorism” is concerned- it’s a “snarl word” – nothing else, and contains little or no meaningful information:
Quote The terms snarl words and purr words were coined by S. I. Hayakawa (1906-1992)–a professor of English and general semantics before he became a U.S. senator–to describe highly connotative language that often serves as a substitute for serious thought and well-reasoned argument.
Breivik, did however, show similar thought patterns, through his writings, that aligned with a certain “funded” political narratives that is intertwined with religion. Very similar to Al Qaeda, in which, there is a “holy war” taking place – where all is lost if people of good conscious don’t take up arms for the “cause”. It was a call to arms. He thought that Norway’s political system was getting manipulated by certain forces in contradiction to values that he holds as extremely important to maintenance of “culture”. And I also think a very good case that can be made, that the root cause of any “terrorism”, in the modern day context, is not religion, but feeling politically disenfranchised. Religion seems to be the shield under which one hides – often in contradiction to core religious doctrine.
