Those who assert that the terrorist was acting consistent with the Bible are potentially as dangerous as he is.
While religious violence was sanctioned for Israel in a limited context, under the New Testament the Bible does not offer any sanction for physical religious violence, such as,
1. Christians killing others due to their contrary views.
2. the church using violence in correcting false beliefs among church members
3. the church exercising such to rule over those without
4. the church exercising such to expand the physical territory of the church
A possible exception might be in order to save others from being hurt in an immediate situation, but that is hardly a religious context. And historically, rather than religious violence, many Christian Evangelical “fundamentalist” groups have chosen to be complete pacifists.
The early church and its individuals in the New Testament, being under the New Covenant (which Jesus instituted at His death), never used violence. Rather, “we do not war after the flesh, For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against..spiritual wickedness..” (2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) Thus “the weapons of our warfare” spiritual, “By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..” (2Cor. 6:7) While the Crusades are often invoked as an example of church instituted and promoted killing, that was the result of men assuming superior authority over Scripture, along with ignorance of the latter among the laity.
The N.T. does sanction the just use of the sword by the civil government, (Rm. 13:1-7) and while that is based upon moral views in any country, yet the N.T. itself separates the powers. (Mt. 22:21; Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:12)
In contrast, as Jesus kingdom is not of this world, and hence His subjects do not use the sword in order to expand it, the Qur’an makes not such distinction and does promote religious violence. (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html) Its mundane monologue of theology lacks the context and clarity needed to restrict what “war” against Islam is, and its exhortations to religious violence to simply being in a defensive context, while physical retaliation and fighting is clearly sanctioned and commanded, such as until all the religion of the land be of Allah. (Qur’an:8:39)
As for the atheists and liberals who love to lump all religions together as blood thirsty, know that more killing and oppression has been done under the recent rise of atheism than by religion during this period, from Mao to PolPot to Communism, as its objectively baseless moral reasoning can easily sanction anything as reasonable to achieve its ends. And liberalism’s disciples have exampled their willingness to use violence as well. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/03/16/liberal_violence_five_names_you_should_know/page/full http://pushbacknow.net/2011/01/16/history-of-liberal-violence
It is instructive to read Knowing the Enemy by Mary Habeck
(I’ve almost finished it). The book discusses what the jihadis actually believe.
While the book exclaims over and over again that jihadi thought is not generally accepted by most Muslims, my problem with the Muslim world is that very few come out publically and condemn jihadi thought and actions.
Zuhdi Jasser, Walid Shoebat, and a couple of others are the exception, not the rule.