Unsure because I don't know what sort of theology he has been exposed to or embraced, other than this vague Knights Templar stuff. (And what decent church doesn't have a Templar Club. Be honest.)
Imagine that Christians truly were a fearsome force, and that pastors truly did send the faithful out every Sunday to wreak havoc. What would the result be?
Maybe that's another thread topic.
But the fact is (and it's a sad one) Christians seem more likely to mirror or mimic the secular life than live the Christian life. When they do well, they're just regular folks. When they really screw up, they're Christians.
Last edited by LuckyDan; 08-12-11 at 01:04 AM.
The man is whatever he said he was. Because the same ideas the influence one person to act in the name of something, also influence another. If he says he's a christian, and as far as I know, his whole deal was preservation of Christianity in Europe, and hating on Muslims... so yeah, seems to me that he is. Only he can truly know what he believes in. And every person who identifies as part of a group represents a small part of that group. There is no escaping that fact. Every member, good or bad, makes a difference.
Still, much as I personally oppose religion, I would use his example to show how bigotry is dangerous. And the exclusivist mentality of both Christianity and Islam foster such bigotry. Violent nuts need to be stopped, and yes, the ideologies that create them should be dispensed with as well.
But as to the wacky claim that James is making above that the actions of a few violent extremists truly speak for the rest of the group... Well, they do a little. But no one really thinks that a whole bunch of militant Christians are going to go out and start killing Muslims (except maybe the tea party). What is truly pained in a bad light here is the danger of preaching to people that one arbitrary group is better than another. Historically, violence is always the result of that teaching. That's what is evil here. The divide between us that we have artificially created and now protect with death. That needs to go.
The defensiveness of this thread is not needed, for the accusation has not been made. Unlike the constant accusations toward the billion Muslims in the world based on the actions of a few hundred. No one really ever accuses you of being evil psychopaths. You're our neighbors. We know better than that. You would be better neighbors without all the religion, but no one is really accusing you of anything. We accuse the faith, and the organization of a few things. But largely, we know our neighbors better than that. Muslims are becoming out neighbors, and we're getting to know them. They're not different from us, or from you.
No one thinks this man is representative of the general Christian population. He certainly wishes he was. But more than reject and disown him, you need to do what needs to be done to prevent the next one from taking up his cause. Same as Muslims do. Same as Jews need to smack Israel around and tell those people to behave. And so do I have to tell the really crazy atheists to chill out, and that a nativity scene at a mall on Christmas isn't something to get flustered over.
I sense I've gone off on several different topics, some of which carry over from the other thread, and some starting way back in a thread on another side about those Westboro @$$holes.
"Only love can conquer hate" -Marvin Gaye
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
The last time that happened, 11 million people died. That was the Holocaust. The result would be the mass murder of pretty much everyone who wasn't like them, and then probably a straight up civil war. And the Christians would unequivocally be the bad guys. Just like the fundamentalist Muslim warlords who conquer more peaceful, modernizing Middle Eastern nations.Imagine that Christians truly were a fearsome force, and that pastors truly did send the faithful out every Sunday to wreak havoc. What would the result be?
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
There is not now nor has there ever been any evidence that this wacko is a Christian, Tis is a ploy by Liberal Atheist bastards to obfuscate.
If you buy into this yoy're a damn fool who puts politics before the facts. This guy might claim to be a Chistian but the facts say otherwise.
If you but into this you have be an idiot who puts you hate for Jesus ahead of even your twisted political leanings.
Last edited by Councilman; 08-12-11 at 02:57 AM.
Jesus tell me the story again about how the Obama administration took down DP yesterday to stop you from bravely breaking the news about Obama and the black liberation theology.
Wake, making a poll doesn't change facts. Breivek did have Christian elements both in his manifesto and in his reasoning.
I'm not saying these things to paint Christianity negatively, but it was odd how NO ONE DID THAT.
And then Fox News jumped up and accused everyone of doing it, when all was said was "He Had Christian ideals in his manifesto".
HOLY ****ING CHRIST **** DICK ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PIHEIL"DFAIOFAHSLHASD
Somebody shoot me.
Last edited by Jetboogieman; 08-12-11 at 02:58 AM.
I wonder what he said on the matter?
Is Anders Breivik a 'Christian' terrorist? - Times Union
"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised (sic) and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."Well, see what a little research can do, it can answer all your questions for you painlessly. He is a christian, by his own words. No poll needed."I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
1.) At 15 he chose to be baptized. This can tell us only a few things. The first is that he may have been Christian at age 15. The second is that he may have undertaken the baptism as a cultural symbol rather than as a religious affirmation. What we need to know is WHEN he developed his unique definition of Christianity having two faces, a religious face and a cultural face. As an adult he rejected the religious face and clung to the cultural face. If at 15 he had already developed this unique viewpoint then his baptism had nothing to do with developing a relationship with god and was instead a symbolic bonding of an individual to a christian culture.
2.) His later writings should have more relevance that his earlier deeds. He clearly states that he's not religious, see above. Here is what you omitted from your quote:
"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised (sic) and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."
But he also fiercely disagrees with the politics of most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
"Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man," he writes. "I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
The real problem is that some people see his being a christian as negatively impacting christianity, so they either support or deny his belief based on that. This is a false argument. His actions had nothing to do with christianity, but to do with his interpretation of that christianity. In the same way that muslim terrorists do not represent the muslim faith, nor christians who blow up abortion clinics do not represent the christian faith with those actions, his actions do not reflect on the faith of christianity. Once you remove that part from the equation, you can look at his words logically, and he clearly, by his own words, is christian.
For a self-affirmation to be valid it has to be checked against reality. He writes this about his position:
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform.
He's disclaiming a religious tie to Christianity and proclaiming a cultural tie to Christianity. His view on this issue makes allowance for a category of people he labels as Christian Atheists. Think about that - people who believe in Jesus/God and who also reject Jesus/God. The only way to make sense of Christian Atheists is to define Christian as a cultural identifier - now that term is something like European (embedded in a culture that was born in the Christian experience) Atheist.
No, the real problem is that some people want to cram him into Christianity so that they can make a meta-point, as you're doing, so that the same meta-point can be extended to Islam. This is as transparent as glass. Logic, and evidence, are thrown out the window in order to advance a nakedly plain political argument.The real problem is that some people see his being a christian as negatively impacting christianity, so they either support or deny his belief based on that.