Norway Terrorist NOT a Christian

[Jen+4dc]

It is very uncomfortable to observe (or hear about) someone's self-identification as something close to your own heart, which that person then uses as motivation for some reprehensible act.

 

The only hope is that through one's discomfort with that juxtaposition, we can become better people ourselves, with greater mental clarity and a stronger devotion to promote peace and justice.

:iagree::iagree:

 

Beautifully said!

[Audrey]

Well said! You either accept "self-reporting" of religious status, or you acknowledge that extremist views do not represent the true basis for any religion.

 

 

Actually, I think you can do both. I acknowledge that this man is a Christian because that is how he self-identifies (and has loads of writings that reference it). At the same time, I acknowledge that his nuttery does not represent the foundation of Christianity.

[mo2]

Me, too. I think it is because it reads like that same old chestnut that people love to toss out there. "HE WASN'T REALLY ONE OF US!!!!"

 

As if they have to disclaim him. :001_rolleyes: Yes. The guy is nuts. You have to be nuts to go on a killing spree. But he WAS a Christian because he SAID he was one and apparently believes that he is one.

 

Guess what? He probably doesn't think the vast lot of his decriers are Christians? But, guess what again? No one gets to say someone isn't Christian if they believe in Christ and believe they are a Christian. Whatever ACTS they commit doesn't lessen their affiliation.

 

How many denominations of Christianity are there? 100? 1,000? More? And they each think they are Christians. So who is ANYONE to say they are not?

 

Instead of always saying "he's not one of US, he's not one of US" like a broken record, try taking a look at WHY people get the kind of whackadoodle ideas like this guy did.

 

:hurray:

[HistoryMom]

Me, too. I think it is because it reads like that same old chestnut that people love to toss out there. "HE WASN'T REALLY ONE OF US!!!!"

 

And the flip-side of that, read as a non-Christian, is that "HE'S REALLY ONE OF YOU!" No, thanks. We don't want him either.

[silliness7]

The Bible says you will know them by their fruits. I most certainly believe you can tell when someone is NOT a Christian. Their actions will not line up with scripture. Yes, there are times when it isn't all that clear. This isn't one of them.

 

:iagree:

[Aelwydd]

And the flip-side of that, read as a non-Christian, is that "HE'S REALLY ONE OF YOU!" No, thanks. We don't want him either.

 

LOL. Touche.

[Audrey]

And the flip-side of that, read as a non-Christian, is that "HE'S REALLY ONE OF YOU!" No, thanks. We don't want him either.

 

 

Well, I will give the benefit of the doubt, especially to the OP, that THAT was not the intended subtext.

 

But, I agree... we don't want him either. Let the prison and/or asylum wardens have him.

[pqr]

In his own eyes he was/is a Christian. If he believes in Christ as our savior, if he believes that Christ is the son of God...then....

 

That he went against everything that the vast majority of Christians believe speaks well of Christianity; that he has been roundly condemned in churches across this planet speaks well of Christianity; that he is a pariah amongst Christians who know what he has done speaks well of Christianity; that an infinitesimally small percentage of Christians would support his actions speaks well of Christianity; that he is one of a tiny number (indeed I cannot think of more than a very few) lunatics who bomb in the name of Christianity, of lunatics who claim that it is acceptable to place bombs to murder the innocent and shoot the guiltless in the name of Christianity. This speaks well of Christianity.

 

There are good and bad Christians, there are Christians who adhere to the word and will of God and those who go against everything that the overwhelming majority believe the Bible tells them. Whatever he was/is (and if one argues that he is a Christian) then he certainly is one of the latter (ie horrendous Christian).

 

He is an evil, vile individual and perhaps I am straying when I state that I hope he pays for his crimes for eternity.

Edited July 26, 2011 by pqr

[Cricket]

Pacifism is the historical viewpoint for Baptists. Just like it was for the denomination I grew up. But like many American denominations, after WWII, that attitude changed. I grew up in NC (where Baptist churches make up something like 50% of all churches), and I live in TX. I know more Baptists than probably any other kind of Christian. None of them are pacifists, and most of them are pro-gun ownership, and pro-military.

 

 

 

Shall I start posting links to official conservative/evangelical sites that affirm every one of those beliefs? I'm not a liar, Kathleen, and if you want, I'd be happy to provide that information. Whatever your particular church teaches, I'm concerned with an overall trend, which encapsulates many conservatives from several denominations.

 

Pro-Isreal:

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=13143

http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=13995

http://www.forward.com/articles/140260/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/755337/posts

 

Nationalism:

http://www.civilwarbaptists.com/featured/christiannationalism/

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5282/53/

http://www.speroforum.com/wiki/default.aspx/SperoWiki/ChristianNationalism.html

How Dominionists Took Over the SBC

 

Anti-immigration, Anti-Muslim

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/christian-nativism

http://www.alternet.org/belief/148488/christian_right_insiders_reveal_racism,_virulent_anti-immigrant_attitudes_and_homophobia_in_prominent_religious_group/

 

 

If anyone thinks I'm making this stuff up, I am more than happy to encourage them to research for themselves. What Breivik believed is in line with a surprising number of conservative Christians right here in the good ol' US of A. In fact, the governor of my state, Rick Perry, self-proclaimed Christian, is getting together with a Christian group, AFA, for a prayer meeting, along with other groups. Various members of these groups have sympathized with Breivik, going so far as to state that he was right about the Muslim problem, and he was basically pushed to the brink by all the Islamification going on over there.

 

That's why I think it's a complete cop out for us Christians to pretend that our religion had nothing to do with Breivik's actions. Citing Bible verses isn't enough; much of Christianity is based upon tradition and extra-biblical teachings, and that goes for Protestants as well as Catholics, much as they like to pretend they're completely sola Scriptura.

 

This man, Breivik? Before last week, he could have visited the Baptist church my mom attended around the corner, and would have found many sympathetic ears. He could have attended the Assemblies of God church my sister goes to, and voiced his anti-Islamic views and professed nationalistic fervor, and would have gotten an "Amen." He could have gone to the Presbyterian church I attended in Dallas years ago, and would have found several others who shared the above views. He could have hung with my very conservative Catholic friend and shared his views, and she'd have probably liked him.

 

That's why so many Christians would like to simply disown him and pretend he had nothing in common. Because when we sit down and compare what he believed, to what many of us hold to be emphatic truths, then the only thing that separates him from us is a couple of guns and the willingness to use them.

 

Jesus said that it's not what goes into a person that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him. In the heart of many conservatives lives the same beliefs as what motivated Breivik.

 

If what Breivik did makes him unChristian, then I believe it means the same for those who share his beliefs. Either that, or they are hypocrites.

 

I'd say the willingness to use a couple of guns on innocent people is a HUGE difference between "us" and him. So what if some of the beliefs are the same? It wasn't those beliefs that caused his violence. Those beliefs were simply the justification he used for his already violent nature. What you said Jesus said proves your point..."what comes out of him." For the vast majority of Christians, what comes out of them isn't shooting 80 people. If the fault lies with the beliefs, then everyone who held those beliefs would be doing the same thing, no? Would you say the same if he was a homeschooler and shot up a public school? All homeschoolers who believe our methods are superior to public school should suddenly be introspective to make sure we don't suddenly go off the deep end and start shooting people? Good grief. Yes, I'd say shooting innocent people and children does make a person unChristian. Whether or not other Christians hold similar political beliefs means nothing.

 

Here is another interesting blog article:

Enlightenment Fundamentalist Slays 80 at Norwegian Summer Camp

[silliness7]

No one gets to say someone isn't Christian if they believe in Christ and believe they are a Christian. Whatever ACTS they commit doesn't lessen their affiliation.

 

.

 

That is simply not true.

:confused::confused:

[Audrey]

That is simply not true.

:confused::confused:

 

 

All are sinners. Yes? One can still commit heinous horrible sins and still in his/her heart believe that Christ is his/her Saviour. He/She may be the worst of the worst sinners, but if they believe... they believe.

 

I can't believe I'm going to say this ... but pqr stated it very, very well up thread.

 

The man is a Christian because he believes. He is a horrible, horrible one. That is not at all in question.

[redsquirrel]

Just because the Bible is a "big book" doesn't mean it cannot be clearly understood. Those who use it to further their own personal or political agenda (now and throughout history - and there have been quite a number of them) are just hiding behind the cloak of something they perceive as respectable and thereby hope to garner support. It's not terribly difficult to learn from the Bible that true Christ followers are peacemakers not murderers.

 

Clearly there are difficulties in coming to an understanding. My friends are Quakers. They sure spend a lot of time studying the Bible and are devout Christians. They do not enlist in the military for religious reasons. The view any kind of violence to be an act against God. How does that co-exist with Christians in the military? Are you going to deem one side not Christian?

 

One can find justification and support for what one wants to find in the Bible. I see Christians working against the death penalty because that is what their faith calls them to do and Christians who are very comfortable with it's existence. Christians have killed and are killing each other for just such conflicts of understanding. I see you judge each other and find each other wanting every day, based on your different readings of the Bible.

[Laurie4b]

I think it is just as appropriate for people who self-identify as Christians to say, "This was not behavior in keeping with our faith" as it was for Muslims to say the same thing after 9/11.

 

I think making a big issue out of his professed religion, however, given what we currently know, is much ado about nothing. He appears to be primarily a political, not a religious, creature. More may come out to the contrary, but politicians of all sorts have always used appeal to religion to justify their own ends. It's nothing new. There are times when there is more of a blend between religious beliefs and politics, but so far, we have no info to justify that conclusion.

 

What I found when I worked with mentally ill people was the content of their ramblings was drawn from their cultural context. There would be common structure, for instance, in their paranoia (whether the government, Satan, or aliens were after them), but you could see the mental illness sucking the content from the culture, not the culture driving the mental illness, if that makes sense.

 

Don't know the extent to which mental illness figures in this yet. Depends on the logic or lack thereof of his manifesto whether this was primarily political , mental illness, or a mix.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

What I found when I worked with mentally ill people was the content of their ramblings was drawn from their cultural context. There would be common structure, for instance, in their paranoia (whether the government, Satan, or aliens were after them), but you could see the mental illness sucking the content from the culture, not the culture driving the mental illness, if that makes sense.

 

Don't know the extent to which mental illness figures in this yet. Depends on the logic or lack thereof of his manifesto whether this was primarily political , mental illness, or a mix.

 

Yes. I think that MOST people, in the US and outside the US know that there is a distinct difference between religious people who say, "I pray about who I vote for/I live out my convictions with my money"(supporting businesses who align with their beliefs) VS. "I kill people who have differing theology/in the name of a deity". The article that OP linked does not come down on a definite "he was not Christian" stance. I don't believe that he killed BECAUSE he is Christian. I think that he self-identifies with that religion and also killed people. Not because of.

[Kathleen in VA]

I'd say the willingness to use a couple of guns on innocent people is a HUGE difference between "us" and him. So what if some of the beliefs are the same? It wasn't those beliefs that caused his violence. Those beliefs were simply the justification he used for his already violent nature. What you said Jesus said proves your point..."what comes out of him." For the vast majority of Christians, what comes out of them isn't shooting 80 people. If the fault lies with the beliefs, then everyone who held those beliefs would be doing the same thing, no? Would you say the same if he was a homeschooler and shot up a public school? All homeschoolers who believe our methods are superior to public school should suddenly be introspective to make sure we don't suddenly go off the deep end and start shooting people? Good grief. Yes, I'd say shooting innocent people and children does make a person unChristian. Whether or not other Christians hold similar political beliefs means nothing.

 

Here is another interesting blog article:

Enlightenment Fundamentalist Slays 80 at Norwegian Summer Camp

 

:iagree:And your blog article states it much better than the one I posted.

 

Quote from the manifesto:

 

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want) (emphasis added).

 

Quote from the blog article in which the manifesto is quoted:

 

One thing Breivik clearly is not: a Protestant. In fact, he hopes that all Protestants will return to Rome under a unified papal system that (he hopes) will recover its old crusader nerve. “I usually refer to Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity. As long as you ask forgiveness before you die you can literally live a life as the most despicable character imaginable.â€

 

 

He clearly has no idea what Christianity truly is.

[redsquirrel]

Yes. I think that MOST people, in the US and outside the US know that there is a distinct difference between religious people who say, "I pray about who I vote for/I live out my convictions with my money"(supporting businesses who align with their beliefs) VS. "I kill people who have differing theology/in the name of a deity". The article that OP linked does not come down on a definite "he was not Christian" stance. I don't believe that he killed BECAUSE he is Christian. I think that he self-identifies with that religion and also killed people. Not because of.

 

I don't think this person committed these horrible acts because of his Christianity. Never, ever, ever would I think that. I am guessing he is mentally ill. I also think he found justification for his acts in a particular brand of Christianity and political discussion that celebrates violent and extreme rhetoric. Again, it seems that people can find justification for almost anything in the Bible if they look hard enough and talk to the right people. And in this day and age, one doesn't have to look very long to find those kind of people.

[Stacia]

Did you read the website I linked?

 

Anyway, the reason I posted this is because on another thread about this same person it was stated that he was a Christian. The fact is, he himself does not claim to be religious - he is speaking of a cultural type of Christianity - not a personal relationship with Christ. It's in the article I linked. I was just trying to set the record straight concerning the previous thread.

 

I read the link you gave. First, just because an article is published does or does not mean something is true or false. Info/opinions/etc... will continue to emerge over many days, months, and years. I have to politely disagree w/ you because I think the article does indeed say that the guy identifies himself as religious/Christian....:

 

 

"At the same time, Breivik told investigators during interviews that

he belongs to an international order, The Knights Templar

, according to Norwegian newspaper VG, which cited unnamed sources.

 

He described the organization as

an armed Christian order

, fighting to rid the West of Islamic suppression, the newspaper said. He also told investigators he had been in contact with like-minded individuals and said

he counts himself as a representative of this order

, it said."

and

 

 

"Norwegian, Nordic and European society," he said, "were

totally unprepared for a violent attack from someone who calls himself Christian

."

(All bolding is mine.)

 

Just because his version of being religious/Christian is different from most, *he* apparently still believes he is Christian/religious/following a religious mandate.... (Yes, most people will agree that he is not living up to Christian ideals w/ his actions, yet he is choosing to align himself using rhetoric claiming religious/Christian motivations, among others....)

[Guest]

All are sinners. Yes? One can still commit heinous horrible sins and still in his/her heart believe that Christ is his/her Saviour. He/She may be the worst of the worst sinners, but if they believe... they believe.

 

I can't believe I'm going to say this ... but pqr stated it very, very well up thread.

 

The man is a Christian because he believes. He is a horrible, horrible one. That is not at all in question.

 

 

I feel the need to repost these verses:

 

I hope this will help:

 

Matthew 7:21

King James Version (KJV)

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

 

Matthew 15

 

Defilement Comes from Within

1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.â€

3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to Godâ€â€” 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’[c] Thus you have made the commandment[d] of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,

And[e]honor Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from Me.

9 And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’â€

[Audrey]

Nope. Doesn't change the fact that he still SAYS he is a Christian and identifies as one. THere are probably millions of people not following those scriptures to the letter and they are still Christians, too.

[Ester Maria]

I only skimmed the replies, but it seems to me that the *point* is somehow being missed here in the discussion whether he was a "true Christian" or a "cultural Christian" or merely self-identified with the label for whatever reasons but without any sort of attachment to it, cultural or religious...

 

The real issue, in my view, is that there are people who happen to be Christian / Muslim / blonde / whatever, on some level (here we usually speak about a sort of cultural attachment rather than deep personal fatih) but do hideous crimes for whatever other reasons... and then there are people who not happen to be Christian / Muslim / blonde / whatever, but to hideous crimes *because* they are Christian / Muslim / blonde / whatever, because they are convinced that that is their religious duty, calling, or work for "higher good" to kill infidels, non-blonde people, people of opposite political ideologies, and so forth. There is a HUGE difference between these two.

 

Baruch Goldstein was not a crackpot who happened to be Jewish or right wing on some level and then carried out a massacre not very much related to his being Jewish in the first place - he was somebody who carried out that massacre FOR worldview reasons in the first place, not IN SPITE of the worldview he was somehow culturally associated with or even "professed" for social reasons.

 

Likewise, there WERE people out there doing or threatening to do horrors because they were Muslim, not because they happened to be Muslim culturally or whanot and then held transparents with "Massacre to those who insult Islam" in major European cities... that is behavior not only loosely linked to Islam, but behavior of people who actively use - or abuse - that Islam for their other purposes, behavior that is stated to stem from it, in a causation sort of way, rather than merely a correlation.

 

The reason why a lot of people jumped to an assumption that these attacks were done by a Muslim is unfortunately - experience and media experience, because when one is constantly bombed with images like this, which I did not have to specifically search for as it is on the first page of results for "Muslim protest" in Google Images, or things like this, and one realizes that this protest is over a darned cartoon, in a country where everything and everybody is out for criticism and mockery (the consequence of the freedom of free speech), by people who opted to live there (since it is often tied to immigrant issues too), it does get a bit old because we are not talking about ONE single incident, a FEW fanatics, but something which comes to be perceived as the Muslim extremism by large in the society, furthered and fueled by the media of course. I do not recall when was the last time when a Jewish group in Europe did something like that - Jews usually privately sue somebody they have an issue with if they believe they crossed the line of reasonable freedom and take it to a court, or take their money from supporting whomever they perceive as an antisemite in disguise. Jewish "extremists" in Europe want to be as left alone as possible, rather than actively engaged in what is going on. Christian protests in Europe never involved, to my knowledge, threats to kill, they worst they do is "God hates you abortionists" kind of thing - and Christian "extremists" are mostly in America anyway, as in Europe Christianity is largely "culture" rather than "fully-fledged lifestyle" (a thing which for at least some of you seems to be hard to grasp, it would take a whole other thread to discuss that issue). However, there is quite some experience with what gets perceived as Muslim extremism and threats of violence not only by people who happen to be associated with Islam, but who threat to do it *in the name of* Islam (the difference I spoke about previously), so unfortunately, the first conclusion a person may jump to is that this is done by a Muslim, due to experience and media alone.

 

However, it is not.

But it is also a whole other thing - it does not seemed to be violence committed *in the name of* Christian God and Bible, but by somebody who happens to be somehow associated with it, but those associations may be very loose and "cultural" rather than "religious" in the first place, as it is usually the case in Europe. If this is so, this is NOT an instance of Christian terrorism, because it is not *in the name of* Christ or using Christianity as an agenda, but by somebody who was probably baptized as a kid, likes a bit of church architecture and the atmosphere of church bells and maybe does a family Christmas and Easter, but that is pretty much the extent of their religious "committment" - a purely cultural matter.

[Kathleen in VA]

Thank you, Ester Maria. You articulated very well what I was finding hard to say. You have a much better understanding of the cultural Christianity in Europe - something with which I cannot relate.

 

I also think that part of my difficulty with this whole thing is that calling this guy a Christian just because he self-identifies as one slanders the name of my precious Savior. It is impossible for me to just let that go. I just don't understand the mentality of letting someone hijack a religion (any religion) in order to gain credibility and support for a political cause. I spent a couple hours last night scouring that guy's 1500+-page manifesto and there is very little in it that is not political. It is extremely political. Most of it is just copied and pasted articles of others who agree with his ideology to one extent or another (anti-Islam and anti-cultural Marxist), some of it is technical stuff about how to build a bomb, some is like a log book of how he accomplished all this, some is a diary of his regular life (one of deceit and deception where others were concerned), and some states his personal beliefs about the downfall of Western civilization. I don't know what constitutes insanity, but this guy does not seem insane to me - he is highly intelligent and calculated and imo, pure evil. He even states that he is not a particularly religious person. He lists the Bible (he uses lower case b which I find telling) in his list of books that have had a secondary influence on him. If he truly were a Christian, I'd think the Bible would at least be on the primary list. He discusses using women for his own biological needs, he uses much foul language, he even describes himself as self-centered - these are not the marks of a true Christian.

 

Being a "Doctrines of Grace" Christian (also known as Reformed - but I dislike that word because it implies much that I disagree with) I realize that I am definitely in the minority when it comes to the doctrine of salvation and regeneration. I do not believe that one can choose Christianity in the same fashion as one chooses a shampoo off the shelf at Walmart. I don't want to get into a huge calvinism/arminianism debate in this thread (Yikes!!!) - I only bring it up to explain why I, personally, cannot accept that this guy is a Christian. To be a Christian is something that God decides for you - he draws you to Himself, He sends His Holy Spirit to regenerate you, He woos you and brings you to an understanding of who He is and then you are able to turn to Him and "choose" Him. Valerie Shepard (Elisabeth Elliot's daughter) was asked if she believed in the doctrine of election (I heard her speak recently at a small gathering). She answered this way: On the outside of the door to salvation are the words "Whosoever will," and on the inside are the words, "You have not chosen me, I have chosen you." I only bring this up to clarify my statements about why I do not believe this man is a Christian. The God I worship would not choose someone and then not sanctify him and make him more like Christ. But someone could certainly take the name of Christ, quite easily, and drag it through the mud for his own personal and political gain.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

Being a "Doctrines of Grace" Christian (also known as Reformed - but I dislike that word because it implies much that I disagree with) I realize that I am definitely in the minority when it comes to the doctrine of salvation and regeneration. I do not believe that one can choose Christianity in the same fashion as one chooses a shampoo off the shelf at Walmart. I don't want to get into a huge calvinism/arminianism debate in this thread (Yikes!!!) - I only bring it up to explain why I, personally, cannot accept that this guy is a Christian. To be a Christian is something that God decides for you - he draws you to Himself, He sends His Holy Spirit to regenerate you, He woos you and brings you to an understanding of who He is and then you are able to turn to Him and "choose" Him. Valerie Shepard (Elisabeth Elliot's daughter) was asked if she believed in the doctrine of election (I heard her speak recently at a small gathering). She answered this way: On the outside of the door to salvation are the words "Whosoever will," and on the inside are the words, "You have not chosen me, I have chosen you." I only bring this up to clarify my statements about why I do not believe this man is a Christian. The God I worship would not choose someone and then not sanctify him and make him more like Christ. But someone could certainly take the name of Christ, quite easily, and drag it through the mud for his own personal and political gain.

 

 

Beautifully spoken!! I agree!! I think of the book of 1 John. He pretty clearly tells us how to recognize a true Christ-follower and someone who is false. The things I've seen show me that he has chosen to attach himself to Christianity purely for political reasons and to further his own agenda. THAT is not being a Christian, but then again, neither is this pattern I see everywhere of people just attaching the term Christian to themselves and then not allowing Christ to be Lord.

[Violet Crown]

There's an interesting article on this subject by Arne Fjeldstad, a journalist with the mainstream Norwegian media.

[Kathleen in VA]

There's an interesting article on this subject by Arne Fjeldstad, a journalist with the mainstream Norwegian media.

 

Interesting analysis. It is basically what I concluded after reading the compendium but I lack the skill to put my understanding into such articulate terms. (the conclusion being that he was motivated politically and that his version of Christianity is not of the conservative fundamental type.)

[Lady Florida.]

However, it is not.

But it is also a whole other thing - it does not seemed to be violence committed *in the name of* Christian God and Bible, but by somebody who happens to be somehow associated with it, but those associations may be very loose and "cultural" rather than "religious" in the first place, as it is usually the case in Europe. If this is so, this is NOT an instance of Christian terrorism, because it is not *in the name of* Christ or using Christianity as an agenda, but by somebody who was probably baptized as a kid, likes a bit of church architecture and the atmosphere of church bells and maybe does a family Christmas and Easter, but that is pretty much the extent of their religious "committment" - a purely cultural matter.

 

 

This is possibly true in his case; I don't know. But since you mentioned instances of murderers committing their acts because they are Jewish or Muslim, let's not forget that Christian terrorism also exists. The abortion clinic/doctor murderers commit their acts because they are Christian.

[WishboneDawn]

This is possibly true in his case; I don't know. But since you mentioned instances of murderers committing their acts because they are Jewish or Muslim, let's not forget that Christian terrorism also exists. The abortion clinic/doctor murderers commit their acts because they are Christian.

 

:iagree:

[annandatje]

It's a double standard. When Muslims point out that they are peace-loving and that terrorists don't speak for them many xians point out some verse about "kill all the infidels". Yet, if someone points out bible verses about violence then xians cry foul and call it "proof-texting", yet it's okay for them to do it to OTHER religions.

 

:glare:

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

 

I just hated it that my Muslim neighbors felt like they had to apologize for being Muslim after the terrorist attacks.

 

Both the Bible and the Koran are well stocked with verses that seemingly advocate violence and subjugation of women and whole other tribes of people when read literally.

 

Although I believe that some messed up people will wreak destruction regardless, in their twisted minds, their holy books support for their actions.

[Kathleen in VA]

This is possibly true in his case; I don't know. But since you mentioned instances of murderers committing their acts because they are Jewish or Muslim, let's not forget that Christian terrorism also exists. The abortion clinic/doctor murderers commit their acts because they are Christian.

 

I understand why you say this and in a way I agree with you - they claim to be acting from their religious beliefs (which they claim is Christianity) and in that sense they are religiously motivated. But theirs is a false Christianity - a false gospel. The Bible warns believers that such people will exist. I prefer to call this type of terrorism "pseudo-Christian" because it is not motivated by love for Christ, but rather love for self. In that case, I think you could safely say that what is generally referred to as Islamic terrorism could be called "pseudo-Islamic." It is religious in nature, but does not reflect the true faith in question.

[Ester Maria]

This is possibly true in his case; I don't know. But since you mentioned instances of murderers committing their acts because they are Jewish or Muslim, let's not forget that Christian terrorism also exists. The abortion clinic/doctor murderers commit their acts because they are Christian.

Of course, no group has a "monopoly" on violent acts in God's name.

[Guest]

Nope. Doesn't change the fact that he still SAYS he is a Christian and identifies as one. THere are probably millions of people not following those scriptures to the letter and they are still Christians, too.

 

According to YOU. What you are failing to understand is that there are false Christians. I do not know this guy, and will not judge him, but we are told to look at a persons actions. There is a difference in a Christian sinning, realizing they sinned, and repenting. I don't think that is what is happening here.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Jinnah

[Violet Crown]

It's a double standard. When Muslims point out that they are peace-loving and that terrorists don't speak for them many xians point out some verse about "kill all the infidels". Yet, if someone points out bible verses about violence then xians cry foul and call it "proof-texting", yet it's okay for them to do it to OTHER religions.

 

:glare:

It's only a double-standard if one is directing one's proof-texting solely to those who have been guilty of it themselves. There are many Christians on this board, I hope, who have never dreamed of committing the sort of proof-texting from the Qu'ran that you describe.

 

So why is it okay to take a verse in which Christ is telling a story about someone committing violence, post it in such a way as to imply that it was Christ himself committing it, and then when Christians object, cry "Tit for tat!"? Was there some reason to think that any, let alone all, Christians on this board had been guilty of such vicious verse-twisting with someone else's religious text?

 

And if not, perhaps all ought to reflect on the (universal) Golden Rule.

[Jennifer3141]

The same, I'm sure, could be said of most Islamic extremists who commit acts of terror: they aren't motivated by a deep or thoughtful understanding of Muslim theology and practice, but rather are attracted to Islam because they see it as an outlet for their anti-Western sentiments. They are more anti-West than pro-Islam, just like this man seems to have been more anti-Islam than pro-Christian.

 

If we're going to argue that this man wasn't really a Christian, then I think we have to say that Muslim terrorists aren't really Muslims.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Excellent post! :)

[Audrey]

According to YOU. What you are failing to understand is that there are false Christians. I do not know this guy, and will not judge him, but we are told to look at a persons actions. There is a difference in a Christian sinning, realizing they sinned, and repenting. I don't think that is what is happening here.

 

 

I fully understand that there are "false Christians." In YOUR opinion he is one.

[Mergath]

According to YOU. What you are failing to understand is that there are false Christians. I do not know this guy, and will not judge him, but we are told to look at a persons actions. There is a difference in a Christian sinning, realizing they sinned, and repenting. I don't think that is what is happening here.

 

And I'm pretty sure only your God gets to decide who's a "false" Christian and who is a "real" one. It says so right in your holy book. Or do I get to look at the actions of everyone here and sort out who is a Christian and who isn't? I mean, if it's that easy...

[SweetBean]

These are his 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. This makes us Christian...

 

I would not call him a Christian. I also agree with those who have said we will know a Christian by their fruits. Clearly this is rotten fruit.

[SweetBean]

“As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims.”

He just plain hates Muslims. Likes the idea of Christianity, at least culturally and historically, but doesn't practice it, and has grabbed onto the label. I wish he hadn't, because he is obviously ignorant of what it is to be a Christian. I see no reason why we need to call him a Christian.

Edited July 26, 2011 by SweetBean

[milovany]

And I'm pretty sure only your God gets to decide who's a "false" Christian and who is a "real" one. It says so right in your holy book. Or do I get to look at the actions of everyone here and sort out who is a Christian and who isn't? I mean, if it's that easy...

 

Agreeing with you, Mergath. It is not up to us to determine whether or not someone else is saved or not, that is the Lord's and his alone. From the "reformed" perspective (mentioned above, but to which I do not ascribe), how do we know that this person is not one of God's elect, and He just hasn't begun wooing him, yet? I would think it a somewhat dangerous thing to be calling someone "unelect" if in fact they are but just haven't reached the point of choosing him, yet.

 

As someone who does not believe in that approach, though, for me it's more along the lines of "May the Lord have mercy on us all." We do not know the heart of man or what will happen in the future; only the Lord does. We just keep walking, praying, trusting. God can lead others to salvation, just as He is leading us in working out our own (salvation).

Edited July 26, 2011 by milovaný

[Guest]

I fully understand that there are "false Christians." In YOUR opinion he is one.

 

That was my point. You have your opinion and I have mine. Also, you recognize that there are false Christians. Why are you so insistent that this is not one of them? Because you want Christians to look bad based on this person?

 

And I'm pretty sure only your God gets to decide who's a "false" Christian and who is a "real" one. It says so right in your holy book. Or do I get to look at the actions of everyone here and sort out who is a Christian and who isn't? I mean, if it's that easy...

 

You quoted me saying I'm not going to judge this man. So, yeah...

 

Besides that, we are supposed to look at actions to see where someone stands. That is not an invitation to judge, though. These are entirely two different things.

 

These are his own words:

 

 

I would not call him a Christian. I also agree with those who have said we will know a Christian by their fruits. Clearly this is rotten fruit.

 

So he said he does not have a relationship with Jesus. There you go, everyone. What people do not understand is that lots of people claim the Christian title. It does not mean they are.

[milovany]

Besides that, we are supposed to look at actions to see where someone stands. That is not an invitation to judge, though. These are entirely two different things.

 

 

Respectfully, I don't really think this is the way it works out. They are the same thing. Or at least one (looking at actions to see where someone stands) leads right into the other (judging them). They're pretty difficult to separate. How can one decide that the place where someone is standing is not a good one before God without then thinking, "so they must not be saved"? It's hard to do and both Christians and non-Christians know it.

[Guest]

Respectfully, I don't really think this is the way it works out. They are the same thing. Or at least one (looking at actions to see where someone stands) leads right into the other (judging them). They're pretty difficult to separate. How can one decide that the place where someone is standing is not a good one before God without then thinking, "so they must not be saved"? It's hard to do and both Christians and non-Christians know it.

 

 

Thank you for pointing out my error. I didn't mean look at their fruits to see where someone stands in that way... I should have been way more specific. I do not judge and say that person is going to hell. I have no right to do that. I am just saying that we are to be aware of false teachers. Under those circumstances, the Bible tells us how to be discerning.

 

As far as the salvation aspect... if the earlier quote is correct, this man said he does not have a relationship with Christ. That says a lot right there.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Jinnah

[Audrey]

That was my point. You have your opinion and I have mine. Also, you recognize that there are false Christians. Why are you so insistent that this is not one of them? Because you want Christians to look bad based on this person?

 

I'm not saying he is or isn't a false Christian. Mergath just pointed out the obvious. That no one can know except your god whether he is false or not.

 

You quoted me saying I'm not going to judge this man. So, yeah...

 

Besides that, we are supposed to look at actions to see where someone stands. That is not an invitation to judge, though. These are entirely two different things.

 

 

 

So he said he does not have a relationship with Jesus. There you go, everyone. What people do not understand is that lots of people claim the Christian title. It does not mean they are.

 

But that isn't for you to say. All I am saying is that he does identify as one, and AFAIC then he is one -- although, as I have said many, many times in this thread already, he is a very terrible one. In the end, neither you nor I know what he truly believes. Apparently only your god is supposed to know that. So, you have to accept a person's word as to their belief, even if their actions are contravening what you believe as a Christian. Even for all he has done, you have no idea if he is or will be 'saved' or not.

[Mom in High Heels]

The same, I'm sure, could be said of most Islamic extremists who commit acts of terror: they aren't motivated by a deep or thoughtful understanding of Muslim theology and practice, but rather are attracted to Islam because they see it as an outlet for their anti-Western sentiments. They are more anti-West than pro-Islam, just like this man seems to have been more anti-Islam than pro-Christian.

 

If we're going to argue that this man wasn't really a Christian, then I think we have to say that Muslim terrorists aren't really Muslims.

 

:iagree: She took the words right out of my mouth.

[zaichiki]

He just plain hates Muslims. Likes the idea of Christianity, at least culturally and historically, but doesn't practice it, and has grabbed onto the label. I wish he hadn't, because he is obviously ignorant of what it is to be a Christian. I see no reason why we need to call him a Christian.

 

:iagree:

[zaichiki]

Even for all he has done, you have no idea if he is or will be 'saved' or not.

 

:iagree:

 

I just wish people would stop refering to him as a Christian -- as if the fact that he self-identifies as a cultural Christian had ANY impact on his choice to kill all those people.

[Violet Crown]

:iagree:

 

I just wish people would stop refering to him as a Christian -- as if the fact that he self-identifies as a cultural Christian had ANY impact on his choice to kill all those people.

And yet, it seems pretty clear that it did. I think the problem is that the "Christian" aspect of the killer's motives has been drawn out in isolation--by headlines, by internet discussion--when it seems that his motivations related to a more complex self-identity involving an imaginary pure European past, in which anti-Islam sentiment, some sort of odd nationalism, racialism, and Christian identity are all pieces of the whole. His writings make it pretty plain that Christianity is one of several "markers" for him, rather than an overarching belief system or primary identification. Nevertheless, Christianity--albeit a bizarre fantasy "Christianity" in which all the denominations reunite, don crusader garb, and drive out the infidels--is definitely part of his driving worldview.

 

The debate over whether he is a "real" Christian, though, seems misguided. First, because it seems to turn into an exercise in choosing between (a) no real Christian acts in such a way, so he isn't (which isn't helpful, because it simply negates evil committed by Christians through definition), or (b) he said he's a Christian, so he is (which isn't helpful, because it makes it logically impossible for someone to speak falsely about their religious affiliation).

 

Second, because he's just clearly crackers. If he claimed on Facebook that he was a banana muffin, I'm not going to go demand explanations from Sara Lee.

[LG Gone Wild]

And yet, it seems pretty clear that it did. I think the problem is that the "Christian" aspect of the killer's motives has been drawn out in isolation--by headlines, by internet discussion--when it seems that his motivations related to a more complex self-identity involving an imaginary pure European past, in which anti-Islam sentiment, some sort of odd nationalism, racialism, and Christian identity are all pieces of the whole. His writings make it pretty plain that Christianity is one of several "markers" for him, rather than an overarching belief system or primary identification. Nevertheless, Christianity--albeit a bizarre fantasy "Christianity" in which all the denominations reunite, don crusader garb, and drive out the infidels--is definitely part of his driving worldview.

 

The debate over whether he is a "real" Christian, though, seems misguided. First, because it seems to turn into an exercise in choosing between (a) no real Christian acts in such a way, so he isn't (which isn't helpful, because it simply negates evil committed by Christians through definition), or (b) he said he's a Christian, so he is (which isn't helpful, because it makes it logically impossible for someone to speak falsely about their religious affiliation).

 

Second, because he's just clearly crackers. If he claimed on Facebook that he was a banana muffin, I'm not going to go demand explanations from Sara Lee.

 

:iagree:

[Greta]

The debate over whether he is a "real" Christian, though, seems misguided. First, because it seems to turn into an exercise in choosing between (a) no real Christian acts in such a way, so he isn't (which isn't helpful, because it simply negates evil committed by Christians through definition), or (b) he said he's a Christian, so he is (which isn't helpful, because it makes it logically impossible for someone to speak falsely about their religious affiliation).

 

 

This is exactly why I find these sorts of conversations frustrating. As a Christian, I understand wanting to distance ourselves from people like him, and I think we are right to do so. But at the same time, we have to avoid the temptation to simply define away all the "inconvenient" Christians. On the other hand, I would hope that the non-Christians realize that it is possible for a person to be lying or wrong when they claim to be a Christian.

 

But in this particular case, the guy is just nuts and I don't feel that his actions or beliefs are any reflection on my own. I don't think non-Christians think that they are, either. I think we are all agreed that the guy is a despicable excuse for a human being and can just leave it at that.

[WishboneDawn]

nm

[Guest]

...If he claimed on Facebook that he was a banana muffin, I'm not going to go demand explanations from Sara Lee.

 

LOL! :lol:

 

I say we just leave it at that!

[ThatCyndiGirl]

It's only a double-standard if one is directing one's proof-texting solely to those who have been guilty of it themselves. There are many Christians on this board, I hope, who have never dreamed of committing the sort of proof-texting from the Qu'ran that you describe.

 

So why is it okay to take a verse in which Christ is telling a story about someone committing violence, post it in such a way as to imply that it was Christ himself committing it, and then when Christians object, cry "Tit for tat!"? Was there some reason to think that any, let alone all, Christians on this board had been guilty of such vicious verse-twisting with someone else's religious text?

 

And if not, perhaps all ought to reflect on the (universal) Golden Rule.

 

 

That line from the Koran has been quoted MANY, MANY times by people who self-identify as xian. Have ALL on this board written that? of course not. But it probably WAS "vicious verse-twisting" as you call it. There was just a much smaller group that was likely to object to it. :001_huh: