• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Anders Breivik an Atheist or a Christian?

What is Anders Breivik?


  • Total voters
    21

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...m-sentiment-mainstream-54.html#post1059721870

Basically, IS Anders Breivik a Christian? I'm getting a lot of conflicting data from Christian organizations to, lol, Media Matters.

Can you help me with this? It seems Breivik will eternally be deemed a Christian to further their pro-Islam.stance.

I'm currently searching for his own words, and I could really use your help with this. If it is so cut-and-dry, then let's put this issue to bed.
 
By his own words, he considers himself Protestant and moderately so. Yes, he is a Christian.

While at first blush, it seems from his manifesto that he is an extremist/fundamentalist Christian, that does not appear to be the case if you actually read it. It appears as though he sees Christianity as a cultural and perhaps even ethnic label - like "Jewish" - and his extremism stems from that.
 
By his own words he acknowledges that he is not a christian. What he does in his manifesto is he creates new definitions for Christianity. For instance, if someone declared themselves to he a homosexual who is not attracted to a person of the same sex but is attracted to members of the opposite sex, then no matter how much this person declared themselves to be a homosexual, they wouldn't qualify.

Breivik's own words:

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 declaring that there exist two categories of Christians, those who are religious and those who admire the cultural, social,identity and moral artifacts which arise within societies which are dominated by "religious Christians."

There certainly is a category for people who qualify under his definition but they're not Christians. They'd be better described as Westerners or Post-Enlightenment adherents, or Western Civilization fans.

He's as confused as that nutty Christian preacher who thought she could simultaneously be a Muslim.
 
"Can you help me with this? It seems Breivik will eternally be deemed a Christian to further their pro-Islam.stance. " Lol so anyone who disagrees with you is pro-Islam now? Sorry,he was a Christian and saying that doesn't make me "pro-Islam." It means I look at facts.
 
"Can you help me with this? It seems Breivik will eternally be deemed a Christian to further their pro-Islam.stance. " Lol so anyone who disagrees with you is pro-Islam now? Sorry,he was a Christian and saying that doesn't make me "pro-Islam." It means I look at facts.

I'm having a hard time swallowing what you're pushing in that you looking at facts and concluding that he is a Christian don't compute. Wanting him to be a Christian and massaging the facts rings far truer.
 
By his own words he acknowledges that he is not a christian. What he does in his manifesto is he creates new definitions for Christianity. For instance, if someone declared themselves to he a homosexual who is not attracted to a person of the same sex but is attracted to members of the opposite sex, then no matter how much this person declared themselves to be a homosexual, they wouldn't qualify.

Breivik's own words:

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 declaring that there exist two categories of Christians, those who are religious and those who admire the cultural, social,identity and moral artifacts which arise within societies which are dominated by "religious Christians."

There certainly is a category for people who qualify under his definition but they're not Christians. They'd be better described as Westerners or Post-Enlightenment adherents, or Western Civilization fans.

He's as confused as that nutty Christian preacher who thought she could simultaneously be a Muslim.

If this is true then no he is not a Christian.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...m-sentiment-mainstream-54.html#post1059721870

Basically, IS Anders Breivik a Christian? I'm getting a lot of conflicting data from Christian organizations to, lol, Media Matters.

Can you help me with this? It seems Breivik will eternally be deemed a Christian to further their pro-Islam.stance.

I'm currently searching for his own words, and I could really use your help with this. If it is so cut-and-dry, then let's put this issue to bed.

this is a reply to you from another thread. (which you conveniently ignored by the way). it says it all.


But you see that's the difference.

I'm not saying that, to get at you. Im not saying it, to paint Christianity in a bad light.

He wasn't a Christian in a conventional sense or what a christain should be.

The terrorists of 9/11 are not Muslims in a conventional sense. And are not what a Muslim should be.

That is why when bigots attempt to link 9/11 to the general Muslim population I shall stand with them.

And why when you use words like "pro-Islam" you're exposing your own fear, your own bigotry and your own stupidity.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...m-sentiment-mainstream-54.html#post1059721870

Basically, IS Anders Breivik a Christian? I'm getting a lot of conflicting data from Christian organizations to, lol, Media Matters.

Can you help me with this? It seems Breivik will eternally be deemed a Christian to further their pro-Islam.stance.

I'm currently searching for his own words, and I could really use your help with this. If it is so cut-and-dry, then let's put this issue to bed.

I wouldn't trust a damn thing media matters says. Whether or not that man is a Christian who the hell cares other retards trying to use the man to paint all Christians in a negative light.
 
this is a reply to you from another thread. (which you conveniently ignored by the way). it says it all.

I did no such thing. Do you not think people decide to respond to more important posts the morning after, rather than when delirious? Perhaps your skittish and impulsive behavior speaks for you.
 
this is a reply to you from another thread. (which you conveniently ignored by the way). it says it all.

That reply suffers from poor command of details.

It's logically structured like this:

Religion (pick Christianity or Islam)
Someone who claims to be religious does something bad.
Bigots try to link the bad actor to the religion.

Where Jetboogieman fails is in the first premise, that religions are interchangeable and mean the same thing as they intersect with the broader world.

Islam is a religion that is not merely professional, meaning it's not something that defines a relationship between an adherent and their god. Rather it is a total civilizational handbook. So, just on this one aspect there is a serious diversion between Islam and Christianity developing, especially with respect to how they interact with broad society.

Secondly, Islam is, from the ground up, a warrior religion. It divides the world into two realms, The House of Peace and The House of War. It is chock full of commands to adherents on what they must do to advance the rise of Islam, commands which violate what most people see as behavior conforming to a religious template. Then there is the issue of how all 5 of the major schools of Islam have no dispute on the notion that death is the appropriate punishment for one who seeks to leave Islam. This has an astounding effect on religious homogeneity in Islamic societies. Again, there is no counterpart in modern Christianity to killing people who want to leave the fold.

Christianity went through reform and it spawned the Enlightenment. Islam is still stuck in the 6th Century warrior ethos. Calling them both religions doesn't make them fully equivalent.

The upshot of the above is that those "bigots" who link 9/11 and other terrorism to Islam have a pretty damn strong case for their position in that Jihad and other tactics are mandated by Islamic text. There is nothing in Christian texts or practiced doctrine (assuming just for this comment that Breivik was motivated by religious doctrine or fervor) which instructs adherents to go on a killing spree.
 
I did no such thing. Do you not think people decide to respond to more important posts the morning after, rather than when delirious? Perhaps your skittish and impulsive behavior speaks for you.

you could always comment on jetboogiemans post that i pasted here now. i believe he was spot on.

what say you?
 
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:
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
 
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.

This happens with pretty much every faith in the modernized parts of the world. Comfortable people tend do be more secular. Wealth makes us not need mysticism anymore. It's not just Christianity. It's certainly Judaism, and it's Islam, too. There's an awful lot of Muslims in America who are American first, and Muslim second, just like you or I are American first. At least, I hope we both are.

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?

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.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...m-sentiment-mainstream-54.html#post1059721870

Basically, IS Anders Breivik a Christian? I'm getting a lot of conflicting data from Christian organizations to, lol, Media Matters.

Can you help me with this? It seems Breivik will eternally be deemed a Christian to further their pro-Islam.stance.

I'm currently searching for his own words, and I could really use your help with this. If it is so cut-and-dry, then let's put this issue to bed.

The minute one uses Media Matters a source is the same minute they lose credibility. Media Matters opinion doesn't matter because they are as bias in favor of Liberals as MSNBC.

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:
If you buy into this yoy're a damn fool wo puts politics before reality

Oh the irony of this statement is worthy of 100's of pages of essays after anyone with half a brain has studied some of your posts.

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:
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."

"I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

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 wonder what he said on the matter?

Is Anders Breivik a 'Christian' terrorist? - Times Union





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'm an atheist so I have no dog in this hunt, but what you posted doesn't support your argument and you conveniently clipped his quote in order to falsely slant your argument.

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."​
 
I'm an atheist so I have no dog in this hunt, but what you posted doesn't support your argument and you conveniently clipped his quote in order to falsely slant your argument.

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."​

Which does not make him not a christian. Just because you do not support this church or that does not make you not a christian. He says he is a christian. It's his decision. Therefore he is a christian. He claims to have a personal relationship with the christian god. Therefore, he is a christian.

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.
 
He says he is a christian. It's his decision.

If I say that I am a tree, does that mean that I am a tree?\

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.

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.

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.
 
For someone with no dog in this hunt, there's an awful lot of crashing around blasting off at imagined anti-Christians.
 
For someone with no dog in this hunt, there's an awful lot of crashing around blasting off at imagined anti-Christians.

1.) I'm lying and really am a Christian but pretend not to be.
2.) I'm anti-liberal, so if they're anti-religion I'll argue in defense of religion.
3.) My argument is the most parsimonious and I like to attack weaker arguments.

Hint: The answer is #3.
 
1.) I'm lying and really am a Christian but pretend not to be.
2.) I'm anti-liberal, so if they're anti-religion I'll argue in defense of religion.
3.) My argument is the most parsimonious and I like to attack weaker arguments.

Hint: The answer is #3.

Well not really.

You're good with words (and colouring inside the lines I'm sure) but long sentences and paragaphs don't mask obvious denial and smoke screens.
 
Well not really.

You're good with words (and colouring inside the lines I'm sure) but long sentences and paragaphs don't mask obvious denial and smoke screens.

A good hypothesis must take ALL of the available facts and incorporate them into a whole. The other lines of argument that have been floated in here selectively use some facts and conveniently ignore others in order to advance their points.

Christian Atheist anyone. Hello. Bueller. Bueller?
 
I don't get it, right wingers. Why all the fuss to try and distance yourselves from this man? I mean sure, I get that none of you espouse his ideas of a crusade and killing people but ideologically speaking, he is a right wing Christian fundamentalist. When it's the left's turn we actually acknowledge that the guy is a leftist (see Ayers, Weathermen Group etc.) while trying to ensure that the person is labelled accurately within the leftist subsections of ideological thought(ie. socialist, communist, progressive etc.). What we distance ourselves from is their actions as that is what makes them fundamentalists. I've never seen anybody on the left claim that the left isn't environmentally conscious and believes in having policies which reflect that. What we, the modern left, distance ourselves from is senselessly violent action in order to achieve said goals. Yet the right wing almost NEVER takes any kind of responsibility for those who not only espouse their ideas but also promote violence within their ranks. They do it with Hitler, homegrown terrorists etc. The right is almost too afraid to claim their terrorists, leaders, etc. George Bush wasn't a Conservative. McVeigh wasn't right wing. McCarthy wasn't right wing. It's kind of silly. Acknowledging that you share ideological beliefs with somebody doesn't make you a fundamentalist. It's how you go on about said beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom