OT – Norway

[blahblahblah]

I think whatever my television tells me. Right now it is telling me to be vewy afwaid of cwistian fundamentalists. Who knows when they might attack!

If anyone needs me I am hiding under the sofa — but don’t tell the scawy cwistian fundamentalists! I don’t want them to find me.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Uh, just out of curiosity, who here has read Andrew Berwick’s (Anders Breivik’s) manifesto from cover to cover? That’s rhetorical, since its 1,518 pages.

To say that he’s Christian, or was inspired by American right-wingers, only captures a small part of the total. But, as befits good bigots everywhere, don’t miss an opportunity to smear Christianity by lumping this bugshit crazy mofo in with them.

For the record, he also draws inspiration, though not common cause, with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in terms of approach and the viral spread of the message.

And, Brian, that “right-wing Christian terrorism” has already been here. Oklahoma City, 1995. Your grasp of history, like your grasp of facts, grows ever more attenuated.[/quote]

Bigots? Allright, Allan, I’ll play. Assuming you’re man enough to admit it was me (edit: or that I was among those whom) you were calling a bigot, lets start with you explaining how I’m a bigot.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Uh, just out of curiosity, who here has read Andrew Berwick’s (Anders Breivik’s) manifesto from cover to cover? That’s rhetorical, since its 1,518 pages.

To say that he’s Christian, or was inspired by American right-wingers, only captures a small part of the total. But, as befits good bigots everywhere, don’t miss an opportunity to smear Christianity by lumping this bugshit crazy mofo in with them.

For the record, he also draws inspiration, though not common cause, with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in terms of approach and the viral spread of the message.

And, Brian, that “right-wing Christian terrorism” has already been here. Oklahoma City, 1995. Your grasp of history, like your grasp of facts, grows ever more attenuated.[/quote]

Bigots? Allright, Allan, I’ll play. Assuming you’re man enough to admit it was me (edit: or that I was among those whom) you were calling a bigot, lets start with you explaining how I’m a bigot.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Uh, just out of curiosity, who here has read Andrew Berwick’s (Anders Breivik’s) manifesto from cover to cover? That’s rhetorical, since its 1,518 pages.

To say that he’s Christian, or was inspired by American right-wingers, only captures a small part of the total. But, as befits good bigots everywhere, don’t miss an opportunity to smear Christianity by lumping this bugshit crazy mofo in with them.

For the record, he also draws inspiration, though not common cause, with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in terms of approach and the viral spread of the message.

And, Brian, that “right-wing Christian terrorism” has already been here. Oklahoma City, 1995. Your grasp of history, like your grasp of facts, grows ever more attenuated.[/quote]

Bigots? Allright, Allan, I’ll play. Assuming you’re man enough to admit it was me (edit: or that I was among those whom) you were calling a bigot, lets start with you explaining how I’m a bigot.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Uh, just out of curiosity, who here has read Andrew Berwick’s (Anders Breivik’s) manifesto from cover to cover? That’s rhetorical, since its 1,518 pages.

To say that he’s Christian, or was inspired by American right-wingers, only captures a small part of the total. But, as befits good bigots everywhere, don’t miss an opportunity to smear Christianity by lumping this bugshit crazy mofo in with them.

For the record, he also draws inspiration, though not common cause, with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in terms of approach and the viral spread of the message.

And, Brian, that “right-wing Christian terrorism” has already been here. Oklahoma City, 1995. Your grasp of history, like your grasp of facts, grows ever more attenuated.[/quote]

Bigots? Allright, Allan, I’ll play. Assuming you’re man enough to admit it was me (edit: or that I was among those whom) you were calling a bigot, lets start with you explaining how I’m a bigot.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Uh, just out of curiosity, who here has read Andrew Berwick’s (Anders Breivik’s) manifesto from cover to cover? That’s rhetorical, since its 1,518 pages.

To say that he’s Christian, or was inspired by American right-wingers, only captures a small part of the total. But, as befits good bigots everywhere, don’t miss an opportunity to smear Christianity by lumping this bugshit crazy mofo in with them.

For the record, he also draws inspiration, though not common cause, with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in terms of approach and the viral spread of the message.

And, Brian, that “right-wing Christian terrorism” has already been here. Oklahoma City, 1995. Your grasp of history, like your grasp of facts, grows ever more attenuated.[/quote]

Bigots? Allright, Allan, I’ll play. Assuming you’re man enough to admit it was me (edit: or that I was among those whom) you were calling a bigot, lets start with you explaining how I’m a bigot.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.

[njtosd]

[quote=Arraya][quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.[/quote]

When I speak of Christian philosophy – I refer to the actual stated tenets of the religion. The basic beliefs of the Roman Catholic church are stated in the Nicene Creed. Protestants have somewhat divergent beliefs, but if you go to the website for Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) you will find a description of their religion. Etc. But, as I’m sure you know, you will find that all stress peacefulness and love of your neighbor.

Simply because someone calls themselves Christian doesn’t make it so – but people do believe that it provides them with a shield, as you say. And for what it’s worth, the Report of the 9/11 Commission points to political (and cultural) disenfranchisement as significant factors in the terrorist attacks of that date. And I use the word terrorism or terrorist because you can’t always spend thousands of words refining a concept. Reasonable debate requires some “summary” type words.

[njtosd]

[quote=Arraya][quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.[/quote]

When I speak of Christian philosophy – I refer to the actual stated tenets of the religion. The basic beliefs of the Roman Catholic church are stated in the Nicene Creed. Protestants have somewhat divergent beliefs, but if you go to the website for Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) you will find a description of their religion. Etc. But, as I’m sure you know, you will find that all stress peacefulness and love of your neighbor.

Simply because someone calls themselves Christian doesn’t make it so – but people do believe that it provides them with a shield, as you say. And for what it’s worth, the Report of the 9/11 Commission points to political (and cultural) disenfranchisement as significant factors in the terrorist attacks of that date. And I use the word terrorism or terrorist because you can’t always spend thousands of words refining a concept. Reasonable debate requires some “summary” type words.

[njtosd]

[quote=Arraya][quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.[/quote]

When I speak of Christian philosophy – I refer to the actual stated tenets of the religion. The basic beliefs of the Roman Catholic church are stated in the Nicene Creed. Protestants have somewhat divergent beliefs, but if you go to the website for Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) you will find a description of their religion. Etc. But, as I’m sure you know, you will find that all stress peacefulness and love of your neighbor.

Simply because someone calls themselves Christian doesn’t make it so – but people do believe that it provides them with a shield, as you say. And for what it’s worth, the Report of the 9/11 Commission points to political (and cultural) disenfranchisement as significant factors in the terrorist attacks of that date. And I use the word terrorism or terrorist because you can’t always spend thousands of words refining a concept. Reasonable debate requires some “summary” type words.

[njtosd]

[quote=Arraya][quote=njtosd]

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:

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/f/snarlpurrfaq.htm

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.[/quote]

When I speak of Christian philosophy – I refer to the actual stated tenets of the religion. The basic beliefs of the Roman Catholic church are stated in the Nicene Creed. Protestants have somewhat divergent beliefs, but if you go to the website for Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) you will find a description of their religion. Etc. But, as I’m sure you know, you will find that all stress peacefulness and love of your neighbor.

Simply because someone calls themselves Christian doesn’t make it so – but people do believe that it provides them with a shield, as you say. And for what it’s worth, the Report of the 9/11 Commission points to political (and cultural) disenfranchisement as significant factors in the terrorist attacks of that date. And I use the word terrorism or terrorist because you can’t always spend thousands of words refining a concept. Reasonable debate requires some “summary” type words.

[Author]

Posts