Christian Terrorism: Is It Possible for a Christian to be a Terrorist?
Rosie O'Donnell, that bastion of intelligentsia said it openly in the wake of 9-11:

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We're a democracy here."

Yes, we all must be on our guard against those Christian terrorists trying to blow up buildings as they yell “Jesus Ackbar!”

It sounds silly, but there are actually people who justify the events of 9-11 by trying to compare Christians who do bad, even evil deeds, to a Muslim who practices Jihad.

So let's take a look at the two shall we? And maybe we can come to some better, less childlike conclusions.

What is a Christian
To begin with, we have to get a clear definition of what a Christian is or is not. A Christian, by definition, is a follower of Christ. The word was a derogatory term, first used in Antioch, to label those who converted to becoming “Christ followers.” The reason it was considered derogatory was because the word meant “little Christ”, often said with a sneer or a snarl, much as one might call a grown man “little man.”

What makes a Christian a Christian, by definition, is their faith and body of doctrine. First is the profession of faith with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, usually followed by a Believers' baptism. And while denominations may vary as to when these things occur and in which order, there's still the ultimate confession and the desire to “be like Christ.”

For several years there were bracelets floating around which sported the letters WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do. For most people, it was a fad that could be fun for some and annoying for the non-Christian. But overall, it did force the conversation: what WOULD Jesus do?

A Christian, a follower of Christ, knows we're told to obey the laws of the land as long as said law doesn't cause us to personally do that which is repugnant to God. For example: where the law of the land allows abortion, we can verbalize against it; protest peacefully; and even petition the courts for legal changes.

What we cannot do, is take the law into our own hands. Only- and I do mean ONLY- if the law required the Christian woman to get a forced abortion does she have the right to take whatever action is necessary to protect her unborn child. And that likely would not entail shooting an abortion doctor.

So a Christian is one who is required, in their own book, to respect the laws of the land. Does that mean all Christians do? Some don't. The man who shot George Tiller clearly didn't and he is condemned for it. But there is a UNIVERSAL body of teaching, even within the staunchly prolife Catholic church which teaches against “eye for an eye”.

In the shooters mind, however, it wasn't about an “eye for an eye.” Scott Roeder, however twisted he may seem, had a reason which made sense to him and, if you think about it, doesn't have to be a “Christian” idea:
"Because of the fact pre-born children's lives were in imminent danger, this was the action I chose."

Roeder was correct. The lives of unborn children were in imminent danger from Dr. Tiller, since he performed only abortions. No, it doesn't give Roeder the right to kill Dr. Tiller. But Roeder wouldn't have to be a “Christian” to draw his conclusion. ANY Prolife person could easily draw the same conclusion, be they Jewish, Atheist, or Buddhist.

The problem was in Roeders' decision on how to react to the problem. There's a laundry list of things he could have done- and should have done- including getting good counseling for his building anger at Tiller.
Had he received some good, New Testament counseling, it's highly unlikely Tiller would be dead today:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19
“Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?'” Matthew 26:52-54

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Romans 13:1-14

“Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” Ephesians 4:26-27

The God of Christianity, Jesus Christ, clearly taught his followers a way of peace, and that it's not our place to carry out our own vengeance on others.

What Is A Muslim?
By definition, a Muslim is a person who surrenders to Allah. Many people will argue that Islam does not teach these violent acts which have been going on, around the world, since the 1970's. And it makes sense to say that most Muslims are not performing these acts. But there seems very little doubt that there's enough violence encouraged by Allah in the Koran to argue that it could easier to misinterpret the Koran than to misinterpret the New Testament.

To understand the problem of why it is many Muslims do not accept terrorism while others do, one has to understand the writing of the Koran and it's timeline division. The first period, known as the Meccan period, was written at a time when Islam was new, when Mohammed had little, if any, power. And when they were trying to accumulate new converts.

During this time, the early Sura's (verses) entreated the Muslim to ask “the people of the book” (Jews and Christians) about matters of faith. This was a period of tolerance on the part of Mohammed and his followers; a time when Jihad was a personal struggle for greater spirituality and to be more pleasing to Allah.

The Medina period, which came after the rejection of Islam by Jews and Christians, was not as nice a period. By this time, Mohammed had amassed a rather large following and had made some in-roads into the cultures around him.

It was during the time in Medina, when Mohammed and his followers were experiencing starvation, that they began raiding caravans. This didn't go over so well with the locals- as one can imagine. Passages written during the Medina period tend to be more violent, less tolerant, and generally more full of edicts to do acts of violence against the “enemies” of Allah.
The above is by no means detailed, but it provides a general backdrop and explains why some (a sizable hunk) of Muslims read into the Q'ran to commit acts of terror: it's hard to tell which period is which (unless one has a Q'ran that breaks it down) and unless one discounts the passages which command the Muslim to attack non-Muslims.

The below verses come from the Q'ran and are often cited by those who promote acts of terrorism:

Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Quran 9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

Quran 8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Quran 8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

Quran 9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."

Quran 47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives.

Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

"If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men." (Sura 9.39)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

All of the above verses were written during the Medina period. One could say this shouldn't matter. But it does, and mainly because of the principle of substitution:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (Sura 2:106)

It's very important to note that this passage was written during the Medina period, which means the passage was later and explanatory. Basically it's saying that anything written during the Meccan period and which deals with a specific issue is null and that this new revelation given at the Medina period takes it's place.

Encouraging Terrorism?
In order to support the idea that Christians are terrorists, or that their book condones terrorism in any way, one has to find passages within the New Testament which condone acts of terrorism. The fact is, there are no such passages in the New Testament texts.

A Christian isn't following their God, Jesus, when they break the law by imbibing in what can be taken as a terrorist act. Certain passages have been cited by Christianity's detractors as “evidence” that Christ encouraged terrorism.

Two passages in the New Testament which are use are found in Luke chapter nineteen and Matthew chapter ten:

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)

Unfortunately, most detractors of Christianity seldom read the bible. When one turns to Luke 19, one finds Christ telling a parable (a story with a message) about a wealthy land owner. Within the context of the parable, Christ is telling his audience what the landowner said. This is not a case of Christ telling His audience to bring his enemies to Him and slay them.

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35).

Again, the passage isn't advocating violence. Please note that it doesn't say to use a sword to slay your family. The fact that Christ says that He, Christ, was “sent to set” families against one another is indicative of this not having anything to do with killing people.

If one reads the passage in the context of a chapter, one finds that Christ isn't talking about a sword of violence, rather, a sword of division in the context of faithfulness to Him and His message. The division, we're told, is a natural outcome of rejecting the religion of one's birth to follow Christ.
If you don't believe this happens, talk to Abdul Rahman who, in 2006, became internationally known when an Afghani court sentenced him to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity. And he isn't alone, either.

As a convert to Christianity myself, when I left the religion of my birth it wasn't well received. When I became a born again Christian, I experienced familial shunning as well as the shunning of people who had been close friends. A natural outcome of a decision to follow Christ and yes, he warned that this could happen.

So you ask, what has all of this to do with terrorism? Could you please name any instance in modern history where a person who rejected Christianity was ever given the death penalty for so doing? Can you point to any passage in the New Testament which says to kill those who reject Christ?

Conclusion:
Islam certainly has the potential for breeding terrorists, if for no other fact that their holy book doesn't impose contextural limits in those passages talking about slaying the infidel. The New Testament does not.
Would a Christian (a genuine follower of Christ) resort to terrorist acts in order to obtain a desired goal?

“Christian terrorist” is an oxymoron. The Christian is to attempt to be a peacemaker. They're also to follow the law of the land (which omits terrorist acts as a means of dealing with issues.) Also:

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath" (Romans 12:19).

"It is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19).

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay" (Hebrews 10:30)

"Overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21)

"He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8)

Comparing these passages- known by nearly all Christians- with the passages from the Koran on how to deal with enemies (in particular the Medina period, which supplanted the more peaceful Meccan period).

Is this to say ALL Muslims favor terrorism? No. Clearly that isn't the case.
But what is clear is that, if one compares the books, a person is far less likely to become a terrorist as a Christian than if they're Muslim, especially if they do a literal reading of their scriptures.

Christian terrorist? An oxymoron. Islamic terrorist? Well, there's a reason why the Taliban, Al Queda, The Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terrorist groups exist and kill without reservation. Maybe it's because their source book makes it manditory.