[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=zk][quote=njtosd]Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism.[/quote]

BS.

The tenets of christianity are whatever christians decide to call them. Christians pick and choose which “tenets” to believe and to behave according to. They interpret their bibles whichever way they want and then claim they have “god” behind them when they behave badly (or well).

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg[/quote]

I will start looking to physicists for religious philosophy when physicists start looking to theologians for scientific support. No recognized Christian philosophy supports terrorism.

[njtosd]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism.[/quote]

BS.

The tenets of christianity are whatever christians decide to call them. Christians pick and choose which “tenets” to believe and to behave according to. They interpret their bibles whichever way they want and then claim they have “god” behind them when they behave badly (or well).

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg[/quote]

I will start looking to physicists for religious philosophy when physicists start looking to theologians for scientific support. No recognized Christian philosophy supports terrorism.

[njtosd]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism.[/quote]

BS.

The tenets of christianity are whatever christians decide to call them. Christians pick and choose which “tenets” to believe and to behave according to. They interpret their bibles whichever way they want and then claim they have “god” behind them when they behave badly (or well).

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg[/quote]

I will start looking to physicists for religious philosophy when physicists start looking to theologians for scientific support. No recognized Christian philosophy supports terrorism.

[njtosd]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism.[/quote]

BS.

The tenets of christianity are whatever christians decide to call them. Christians pick and choose which “tenets” to believe and to behave according to. They interpret their bibles whichever way they want and then claim they have “god” behind them when they behave badly (or well).

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg[/quote]

I will start looking to physicists for religious philosophy when physicists start looking to theologians for scientific support. No recognized Christian philosophy supports terrorism.

[njtosd]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism.[/quote]

BS.

The tenets of christianity are whatever christians decide to call them. Christians pick and choose which “tenets” to believe and to behave according to. They interpret their bibles whichever way they want and then claim they have “god” behind them when they behave badly (or well).

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg[/quote]

I will start looking to physicists for religious philosophy when physicists start looking to theologians for scientific support. No recognized Christian philosophy supports terrorism.

[njtosd]

Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism. Take a look at the Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, etc.) – considered by Christians to be almost on a par with the Ten Commandments. Something about Muslim immigration got this guy going, but that doesn’t make him a “Christian terrorist.”

Also, the fact that one crazy person found inspiration in the ramblings of another crazy person (the Unabomber) is not surprising, any more than the fact that there are crazy Americans that idolize Hitler (for reasons that I’ll never understand).

The only thing this all proves is that crazy people can do horrible things. Period.

[njtosd]

Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism. Take a look at the Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, etc.) – considered by Christians to be almost on a par with the Ten Commandments. Something about Muslim immigration got this guy going, but that doesn’t make him a “Christian terrorist.”

Also, the fact that one crazy person found inspiration in the ramblings of another crazy person (the Unabomber) is not surprising, any more than the fact that there are crazy Americans that idolize Hitler (for reasons that I’ll never understand).

The only thing this all proves is that crazy people can do horrible things. Period.

[njtosd]

Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism. Take a look at the Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, etc.) – considered by Christians to be almost on a par with the Ten Commandments. Something about Muslim immigration got this guy going, but that doesn’t make him a “Christian terrorist.”

Also, the fact that one crazy person found inspiration in the ramblings of another crazy person (the Unabomber) is not surprising, any more than the fact that there are crazy Americans that idolize Hitler (for reasons that I’ll never understand).

The only thing this all proves is that crazy people can do horrible things. Period.

[njtosd]

Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism. Take a look at the Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, etc.) – considered by Christians to be almost on a par with the Ten Commandments. Something about Muslim immigration got this guy going, but that doesn’t make him a “Christian terrorist.”

Also, the fact that one crazy person found inspiration in the ramblings of another crazy person (the Unabomber) is not surprising, any more than the fact that there are crazy Americans that idolize Hitler (for reasons that I’ll never understand).

The only thing this all proves is that crazy people can do horrible things. Period.

[njtosd]

Just for the record, I don’t think I would go so far as to call this “Christian terrorism.” In fact, I don’t believe there can be any such thing, as the tenets of Christianity (I’m Roman Catholic, for the record) are diametrically opposed to terrorism. Take a look at the Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, etc.) – considered by Christians to be almost on a par with the Ten Commandments. Something about Muslim immigration got this guy going, but that doesn’t make him a “Christian terrorist.”

Also, the fact that one crazy person found inspiration in the ramblings of another crazy person (the Unabomber) is not surprising, any more than the fact that there are crazy Americans that idolize Hitler (for reasons that I’ll never understand).

The only thing this all proves is that crazy people can do horrible things. Period.

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]Most coveted by whom?[/quote]I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.[/quote]

Actually, I believe SFR’s in 92106 far outnumber the SFR’s in 92014 and 92067 (not sure about 92037). Therefore, there are likely many more listings and sales in 92106 than the other areas.

In addition, there are Section 8 units (likely NOT complexes) in 92037 and 92014 but not in 92067.[/quote]

BG – I don’t see any response to my argument. The number of units in a locality doesn’t influence its desirability . . Price per square foot is as close as you can come to an apples to apples comparison.

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]Most coveted by whom?[/quote]I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.[/quote]

Actually, I believe SFR’s in 92106 far outnumber the SFR’s in 92014 and 92067 (not sure about 92037). Therefore, there are likely many more listings and sales in 92106 than the other areas.

In addition, there are Section 8 units (likely NOT complexes) in 92037 and 92014 but not in 92067.[/quote]

BG – I don’t see any response to my argument. The number of units in a locality doesn’t influence its desirability . . Price per square foot is as close as you can come to an apples to apples comparison.

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]Most coveted by whom?[/quote]I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.[/quote]

Actually, I believe SFR’s in 92106 far outnumber the SFR’s in 92014 and 92067 (not sure about 92037). Therefore, there are likely many more listings and sales in 92106 than the other areas.

In addition, there are Section 8 units (likely NOT complexes) in 92037 and 92014 but not in 92067.[/quote]

BG – I don’t see any response to my argument. The number of units in a locality doesn’t influence its desirability . . Price per square foot is as close as you can come to an apples to apples comparison.

[Author]

Posts