OT – Norway

[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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
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]

Arraya: And here is where the connection to Christianity starts to fray, because the “Christianity” that Breivik is referencing is far more an identification with the Old World Christianity (tied to land, ethnicity, common cause and values) than any modern Christian faith or denomination. One need look no further than the large red Templar cross on the cover of his manifesto to get that.

Its akin to Osama and al-Qaeda’s jihad against “Crusaders”, a harkening back to the days of old when things were simpler and more easily understood. Its far easier to radicalize someone that way, the reach back to “the Good, Old Days”, in spite of the fact that they really (historically speaking) weren’t all that good.

Hence my admonition to actually read what he wrote and understand the context/subtext before reflexively reaching for the anti-Christian hammer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
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]

Arraya: And here is where the connection to Christianity starts to fray, because the “Christianity” that Breivik is referencing is far more an identification with the Old World Christianity (tied to land, ethnicity, common cause and values) than any modern Christian faith or denomination. One need look no further than the large red Templar cross on the cover of his manifesto to get that.

Its akin to Osama and al-Qaeda’s jihad against “Crusaders”, a harkening back to the days of old when things were simpler and more easily understood. Its far easier to radicalize someone that way, the reach back to “the Good, Old Days”, in spite of the fact that they really (historically speaking) weren’t all that good.

Hence my admonition to actually read what he wrote and understand the context/subtext before reflexively reaching for the anti-Christian hammer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
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]

Arraya: And here is where the connection to Christianity starts to fray, because the “Christianity” that Breivik is referencing is far more an identification with the Old World Christianity (tied to land, ethnicity, common cause and values) than any modern Christian faith or denomination. One need look no further than the large red Templar cross on the cover of his manifesto to get that.

Its akin to Osama and al-Qaeda’s jihad against “Crusaders”, a harkening back to the days of old when things were simpler and more easily understood. Its far easier to radicalize someone that way, the reach back to “the Good, Old Days”, in spite of the fact that they really (historically speaking) weren’t all that good.

Hence my admonition to actually read what he wrote and understand the context/subtext before reflexively reaching for the anti-Christian hammer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
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]

Arraya: And here is where the connection to Christianity starts to fray, because the “Christianity” that Breivik is referencing is far more an identification with the Old World Christianity (tied to land, ethnicity, common cause and values) than any modern Christian faith or denomination. One need look no further than the large red Templar cross on the cover of his manifesto to get that.

Its akin to Osama and al-Qaeda’s jihad against “Crusaders”, a harkening back to the days of old when things were simpler and more easily understood. Its far easier to radicalize someone that way, the reach back to “the Good, Old Days”, in spite of the fact that they really (historically speaking) weren’t all that good.

Hence my admonition to actually read what he wrote and understand the context/subtext before reflexively reaching for the anti-Christian hammer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
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]

Arraya: And here is where the connection to Christianity starts to fray, because the “Christianity” that Breivik is referencing is far more an identification with the Old World Christianity (tied to land, ethnicity, common cause and values) than any modern Christian faith or denomination. One need look no further than the large red Templar cross on the cover of his manifesto to get that.

Its akin to Osama and al-Qaeda’s jihad against “Crusaders”, a harkening back to the days of old when things were simpler and more easily understood. Its far easier to radicalize someone that way, the reach back to “the Good, Old Days”, in spite of the fact that they really (historically speaking) weren’t all that good.

Hence my admonition to actually read what he wrote and understand the context/subtext before reflexively reaching for the anti-Christian hammer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
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.[/quote]

Zk: Relax. I wasn’t speaking about you, and you’ll notice whom I called out at the end. Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT) and his specific bigotry when it comes to Christianity. If memory serves, your slash was against religion generally, and I actually agree with that.

You might want to draw the distinction between religiosity and spirituality, but, beyond that, I take no issue with what you said.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
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.[/quote]

Zk: Relax. I wasn’t speaking about you, and you’ll notice whom I called out at the end. Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT) and his specific bigotry when it comes to Christianity. If memory serves, your slash was against religion generally, and I actually agree with that.

You might want to draw the distinction between religiosity and spirituality, but, beyond that, I take no issue with what you said.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
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.[/quote]

Zk: Relax. I wasn’t speaking about you, and you’ll notice whom I called out at the end. Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT) and his specific bigotry when it comes to Christianity. If memory serves, your slash was against religion generally, and I actually agree with that.

You might want to draw the distinction between religiosity and spirituality, but, beyond that, I take no issue with what you said.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
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.[/quote]

Zk: Relax. I wasn’t speaking about you, and you’ll notice whom I called out at the end. Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT) and his specific bigotry when it comes to Christianity. If memory serves, your slash was against religion generally, and I actually agree with that.

You might want to draw the distinction between religiosity and spirituality, but, beyond that, I take no issue with what you said.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]
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.[/quote]

Zk: Relax. I wasn’t speaking about you, and you’ll notice whom I called out at the end. Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT) and his specific bigotry when it comes to Christianity. If memory serves, your slash was against religion generally, and I actually agree with that.

You might want to draw the distinction between religiosity and spirituality, but, beyond that, I take no issue with what you said.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT)
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT)
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT)
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Its all of a piece with Brian’s general bigotry (and thank God Breivik wasn’t FAT)
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[Author]

Posts