|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 25 2011 07:49 BasedSwag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 07:45 ThePhan2m wrote:I want to share some thoughts a friend of mine shared in his blog about Anders Behring Breivik being a fundamental Christian. Especially to the Americans, where the media seem to misunderstand this. + Show Spoiler +Anders Behring Breivik - Fundamentalist Christian?
In the wake of the bomb in Oslo, and following massacre at the Labour Party youth camp at Utøya, I've noticed a very peculiar thing about the coverage of the event in American media. Many of them seem to be perpetuating the idea that the terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik is a fundamentalist Christian.
While I suspect that this misinformation is being perpetuated on purpose by a small group of secularist journalists who intend to exploit this tragedy to spread their agenda of hatred against Christians, I still feel obliged to make one clarification to my American friends, and help them see this through Norwegian eyes.
Breivik has authored (largely by copying and pasting) a 1500 page manifesto, where he uses some rhetoric around preserving our christian culture and heritage. European journalists, even the most left-leaning of them, understand what this means. We are immersed in the ideas that our nations are "Christian nations", because we have a state church. They understand that the Christianity he talks about is the same Christianity they practice themselves when they take their children before the priest to get sprinkled, and when the go to Church on Christmas eve to get into the proper Christmas mood. It's what Norwegians do. They don't mean anything about it, and the moment they are out of those church doors they proceed to go about their secular lives as usual. This Christianity does not spring from a sincerely held faith in Christ. It's just a wholesome tradition, that is closely tied to our national identity. And who knows, maybe there even is a God out there who will look on us favorably for jumping through these hoops, right?
This type of nationalistic Christianity lends itself perfectly to this type of abuse. Increasing numbers of Arab immigrants are spreading Islamic culture, so what is the remedy? We need to fight for our Christian cultural heritage!
And so it was that the name of Christ was dragged into this atrocity. Breivik may see himself as a Christian. It's a delusion he has in common with most of the Norwegian population. It seems he might even at occasions have prayed. Most people seem to do that whenever they're in a pinch, even if they don't really believe anyone is listening.
But I can say one thing for certain. Breivik does not have anything in common with the people who are generally labeled fundamentalist Christians. These are people who let the teachings of Christ have genuine influence in their lives. They love their enemies, bless those who persecute them, and the sword with witch they spread their message is the Word of God. And they all share my disbelief and disgust with the atrocities that have been committed.
Please feel free to spread this around as a counterweight to the false information that is being spread.
That's really dumb and hypocritical. Do you think that they consider the 9/11 bombings to not be "Islamic fundamentalists" because they weren't truly following the teachings of the Quran? It goes both ways.
He's probably like the majority of Norwegians, someone that views church as a tradition that you go to near christmas, weddings, christenings, confirmations and funerals, and not much more. I am technically a Lutherian Christian along with most of Norway, but I have no personal faith at all, I just haven't bothered to sign out of the state church.
Like we had a priest as a Prime Minister, who was the party leader of the Christian People Party, and I don't recall him ever talking about God in any way. He probably had some kind of faith since it was his job, but in general people who talk about imaginary stuff in Norway are viewed as weird (like the princess who believes she can talk to angels).
There's very little religious faith in Norwegians, other than the normal "God please let me win the lottery" or enduring a sermon on Christmas eve, just because it's tradition.
|
Does anyone know if this guy had any people following him, was part of a group or was he the lone Knight Templar.
|
On July 25 2011 08:19 Derez wrote:
Oh come on. If there's anything to learn from all this it's that any ideology can be perverted into a justification for killing innocents. Christianity, islam, liberalism, socialism, animal rights, even pacifism, you name it and people have killed for it.
Devout muslims aren't any more or any less violent then devout christians, or whatever other ideological group you want to name. They all have their demons.
The words I tried to come up with but couldn't.
I apologize as I seem to have sparked a religious debate, but I believe this is the best ending point. If anyone wants to continue arguing with me, please bring it to PMs or start a new thread.
|
On July 25 2011 08:14 Gnax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote:
I think we can all agree that religion was not his main motivation. Hearing his views, it sounds like he is more concerned with the Muslims and Communists rather than martyring himself for God. Are you listening to yourself? I'd say 50% of his motivation was about religion and 50% political.
I would say 0% of his motivation was religious, and that it is 90% political 10% racist belief. I don't think this man is a racist, however he feels that muslims are not integrating into society, but rather blocking themselves from european society and trying to hold their own values only. This can't be true for all muslims, obviously, but this person believes that they are trying to spread their religious values to corrupt(meaning that their values are corrupt or wrong). He speaks of religion only because he needed to act like a christian to become a freemason and for other religious people to listen to him. If he had claimed to be atheist or agnostic, he would be playing to a smaller audience, which is not what he wants. That's just my opinion.
Honestly, I hope they don't let this man speak in front of the cameras and let him try to convince others that what he is saying is correct. It's best to just stop talking about him, and not let him have a stage. Let him rot in silence.
|
On July 25 2011 08:14 Gnax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote:
I think we can all agree that religion was not his main motivation. Hearing his views, it sounds like he is more concerned with the Muslims and Communists rather than martyring himself for God. Are you listening to yourself? I'd say 50% of his motivation was about religion and 50% political.
By religion, I just mean he is not motivated by God, though the Knight Templars seemed to be an inspiration The man just seems xenophobic. Geez, the guy is a fan of Geert Wilders who is agnostic. In my opinion, whether he was Christian or not affiliated with a theist religion, he probably would've went ahead with the attack.
|
On July 25 2011 08:27 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:14 Gnax wrote:On July 25 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote:
I think we can all agree that religion was not his main motivation. Hearing his views, it sounds like he is more concerned with the Muslims and Communists rather than martyring himself for God. Are you listening to yourself? I'd say 50% of his motivation was about religion and 50% political. By religion, I just mean he is not motivated by God, though the Knight Templars seemed to be an inspiration The man just seems xenophobic. Geez, the guy is a fan of Geert Wilders who is agnostic. In my opinion, whether he was Christian or not affiliated with a theist religion, he probably would've went ahead with the attack.
Isnt it more like 90% insanity and the rest pretty much dont matters... none will be attacked by this, there will be no effect on norway beside maybe some laws to prevent this from happening...
when i understood the point of norway correcly
|
On July 25 2011 08:30 Chilling5pr33 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:27 Shiragaku wrote:On July 25 2011 08:14 Gnax wrote:On July 25 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote:
I think we can all agree that religion was not his main motivation. Hearing his views, it sounds like he is more concerned with the Muslims and Communists rather than martyring himself for God. Are you listening to yourself? I'd say 50% of his motivation was about religion and 50% political. By religion, I just mean he is not motivated by God, though the Knight Templars seemed to be an inspiration The man just seems xenophobic. Geez, the guy is a fan of Geert Wilders who is agnostic. In my opinion, whether he was Christian or not affiliated with a theist religion, he probably would've went ahead with the attack. Isnt it more like 90% insanity and the rest pretty much dont matters... none will be attacked by this, there will be no effect on norway beside maybe some laws to prevent this from happening... when i understood the point of norway correcly
Haha, I actually have to agree with you. When compared Breivik to Loughner from the Tuscon Shooting, Breveik comes off as being sane and much more clear minded about why he wants to execute the attack.
|
On July 25 2011 08:05 BasedSwag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:01 ThePhan2m wrote:On July 25 2011 07:49 BasedSwag wrote:On July 25 2011 07:45 ThePhan2m wrote:I want to share some thoughts a friend of mine shared in his blog about Anders Behring Breivik being a fundamental Christian. Especially to the Americans, where the media seem to misunderstand this. + Show Spoiler +Anders Behring Breivik - Fundamentalist Christian?
In the wake of the bomb in Oslo, and following massacre at the Labour Party youth camp at Utøya, I've noticed a very peculiar thing about the coverage of the event in American media. Many of them seem to be perpetuating the idea that the terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik is a fundamentalist Christian.
While I suspect that this misinformation is being perpetuated on purpose by a small group of secularist journalists who intend to exploit this tragedy to spread their agenda of hatred against Christians, I still feel obliged to make one clarification to my American friends, and help them see this through Norwegian eyes.
Breivik has authored (largely by copying and pasting) a 1500 page manifesto, where he uses some rhetoric around preserving our christian culture and heritage. European journalists, even the most left-leaning of them, understand what this means. We are immersed in the ideas that our nations are "Christian nations", because we have a state church. They understand that the Christianity he talks about is the same Christianity they practice themselves when they take their children before the priest to get sprinkled, and when the go to Church on Christmas eve to get into the proper Christmas mood. It's what Norwegians do. They don't mean anything about it, and the moment they are out of those church doors they proceed to go about their secular lives as usual. This Christianity does not spring from a sincerely held faith in Christ. It's just a wholesome tradition, that is closely tied to our national identity. And who knows, maybe there even is a God out there who will look on us favorably for jumping through these hoops, right?
This type of nationalistic Christianity lends itself perfectly to this type of abuse. Increasing numbers of Arab immigrants are spreading Islamic culture, so what is the remedy? We need to fight for our Christian cultural heritage!
And so it was that the name of Christ was dragged into this atrocity. Breivik may see himself as a Christian. It's a delusion he has in common with most of the Norwegian population. It seems he might even at occasions have prayed. Most people seem to do that whenever they're in a pinch, even if they don't really believe anyone is listening.
But I can say one thing for certain. Breivik does not have anything in common with the people who are generally labeled fundamentalist Christians. These are people who let the teachings of Christ have genuine influence in their lives. They love their enemies, bless those who persecute them, and the sword with witch they spread their message is the Word of God. And they all share my disbelief and disgust with the atrocities that have been committed.
Please feel free to spread this around as a counterweight to the false information that is being spread.
That's really dumb and hypocritical. Do you think that they consider the 9/11 bombings to not be "Islamic fundamentalists" because they weren't truly following the teachings of the Quran? It goes both ways. In my opinion, you cannot compare these two religions. Fully devout Muslims & fully devout Christians are very different. Christ does not encourage killing people at all, while the Quran does. But this is not the thread to discuss this. I simply posted that to clarify the difference of cultural aspect of Christianity, in America and in Europe. This is false, there are several passages in the Bible where Jesus himself directly sanctions killing. Here's an example: Matthew 15:4 (Jesus reaffirms Moses, who spoke for God) "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" This is not even to mention the fact that the Old Testament has many many passages which even the most extreme Christians choose to ignore because they don't fit with modern ideas of morality/ethics. Why is it that Christians are allowed to pick & choose which parts of the Bible they adhere to but it is assumed that no Muslims do?
There is no passages in the Bible where Jesus himself sanctions killing. In that verse he only quotes the law of the Jews. It's important that you do not take any passage out of it's context. It is a reason it is called Old Testament, it does not directly apply to a Christian, as it did to Jews. There is a reason Jesus was killed by Jews, he spoke of that he was the here to fulfil the law (Matt 5:17) of the Jews. Read Matthew 5, it explains a lot.
Lets take a short example of OT vs NT and then wrap the discussion up:
Matthew 5: 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too.
Answer to your question is:
The whole Bible doesn't apply to a Christian in the same way as the whole Quran applies to a Muslim.
|
On July 25 2011 08:22 Ksi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:20 TYJ.Aoy wrote:
He is a christian terrorist as much as the suicide bombers are muslim terrorists. Pretty much this. Most terrorism is probably 75% political and 25% religious when it comes down to it. Tensions due to differences in religious beliefs is a symptom of the overall cultural/political divide that leads to terrorism, not the root cause. The religious aspect though does go a long way in motivating the individual into thinking he is right and/or doing something holy and divine.
I couldn't agree more, religious beliefs are never the true motive behind most of the terrorist attacks out there, of course that the ones actually doing it are mostly very young people brain-washed by the heads of religiously motivated organizations that ultimately have ulterior motives, like the Church had to start the Crusades(that was at least as commercial as it was religious), i.e religion is used as a backup motivation for mostly greed-motivated doings(keyword being backup), at least that's how I see it all started even though eventually some more "purely" religious branches came out of it.
|
In the States, the vast majority actually believe a one God in the biblical context. There are silly fights over the nature of the Trinity and a few other details, but almost all believe/know that we are born with the ultimate standard of right and wrong.
Maybe in Norway, religion is just a tradition. In the States, most of us actually believe something. This man may say he's a Christian in the Norway sense. However in the States, we have enough respect to keep our faiths private, to separate secular public image from the spiritual. And never would we dream of committing evil under the name of the Holy One.
I read this man's manifest and would greatly recommend others to avoid reading it to save time. It basically is an unashamed political rant against Europe and ideological hate towards Muslims. His documentary greatly contradicts the Christian philosophy of life. Norway needs to send this man over to the States for trial and let the people in the Bible-belt deal with him for slandering their faith.
EDIT: It's obvious from the posts above that Norwegians know what their faith is about. The media should remove all mentions of faith when dealing with this tragedy. But then he wouldn't be a so-called Knights Templar, and then a lot of Americans who are appalled at what a Christian could do would also save their lives and time from befuddlement.
|
I dont think you can really defend the idea that this man was a Christian. I concede [im a christian btw] that violence has been done by Christians which they inaccurately used their own beliefs to justify. But remember: If your so religious and you were to do violence, you would require justification for it. No serious Christian would go to war unless they had settled in their mind that it was morally OK to do so, and the same obviously goes to this degree of action. Yet he didnt even mention his theoretical bullshit theology that would support the actions. Not one verse from the Bible. I mean if the man was so religious how could he do such an action without considering God? The whole notion that the bible actually inspired him to do so is blown out of the water by the same notion, two fold.
More importantly, just read a bit of his life. He states hes going to buy two whores the day before he kills about 80 people. Yet hes a fundamentalist? He also laughs at giggles about his close friends being man-whores. He also admits he prayed at one point "something I havent done for an extremely long time". The only defense you could have, for presuming he was a Christian at all [I cant consider any rational for assuming the beliefs had any underpinning in his thought process] is post modernist gibberish where you attempt to make such a term vague enough, that it becomes a useless word. Stretch the idea of what a Christian is enough, and the man fits in.
He was using Christianity as a symbol for his perverted and ridiculous view point. I've- we all have im sure- met people like this before on the internet. So obsessed with Western culture and old ideals they venerate the name and symbols behind past beliefs and actions without actually ever truly adopting them.
Havent actually read the last few pages so sorry if this seems out of the blue, but earlier in the thread some ignorant bastards were claiming this is somehow proof that religion is inherently violent and dangerous. Such a generalized and ignorant POV is probably the genesis of such thoughts that LED to this massacre.
|
On July 25 2011 08:27 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:14 Gnax wrote:On July 25 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote:
I think we can all agree that religion was not his main motivation. Hearing his views, it sounds like he is more concerned with the Muslims and Communists rather than martyring himself for God. Are you listening to yourself? I'd say 50% of his motivation was about religion and 50% political. I would say 0% of his motivation was religious, and that it is 90% political 10% racist belief. I don't think this man is a racist, however he feels that muslims are not integrating into society, but rather blocking themselves from european society and trying to hold their own values only. This can't be true for all muslims, obviously, but this person believes that they are trying to spread their religious values to corrupt(meaning that their values are corrupt or wrong). He speaks of religion only because he needed to act like a christian to become a freemason and for other religious people to listen to him. If he had claimed to be atheist or agnostic, he would be playing to a smaller audience, which is not what he wants. That's just my opinion. Honestly, I hope they don't let this man speak in front of the cameras and let him try to convince others that what he is saying is correct. It's best to just stop talking about him, and not let him have a stage. Let him rot in silence.
You're saying 10% of it is racist belief based on what? I couldn't find anything at all in his manifesto that had anything to do with racism. Hate on Islam is not racism. Islam is not a race, it's a religion. Like 1/3 of his manifesto is about religion, 1/3 about politics and the rest about planning terrorism.
|
Oh come on. If there's anything to learn from all this it's that any ideology can be perverted into a justification for killing innocents. Christianity, islam, liberalism, socialism, animal rights, even pacifism, you name it and people have killed for it.
Devout muslims aren't any more or any less violent then devout christians, or whatever other ideological group you want to name. They all have their demons.
Yea actually you can because there is no way in hell you can't say that there are just as many violent muslims in this world then there is violent christians.
A huge portion of Muslims use violence and terror as a normal practice in there culture esp. against western civilized areas. You almost hardly ever hear about A Christian with bombs strapped to his chest killing people like you hear almost daily in the middle-east and muslims trying to prove a point,
You never see pictures or videos of hundreds of christians revolting holding up signs saying "Christians will dominate this world" Like you do Muslims. (Not saying it doesn't happen but the percentage of violence in the muslim culture out weighs the violent attacks christians make.
Lets face it the Quran promotes a shit ton of violence while the bible just promotes some.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_tznAmKo1y8k/SJBuFnc87YI/AAAAAAAACrk/_qvZLrdN1fQ/s1600-h/Islam dominate.JPG
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 25 2011 08:42 lizzard_warish wrote:
I dont think you can really defend the idea that this man was a Christian. I concede [im a christian btw] that violence has been done by Christians which they inaccurately used their own beliefs to justify. But remember: If your so religious and you were to do violence, you would require justification for it. No serious Christian would go to war unless they had settled in their mind that it was morally OK to do so, and the same obviously goes to this degree of action. Yet he didnt even mention his theoretical bullshit theology that would support the actions. Not one verse from the Bible. I mean if the man was so religious how could he do such an action without considering God? The whole notion that the bible actually inspired him to do so is blown out of the water by the same notion, two fold.
More importantly, just read a bit of his life. He states hes going to buy two whores the day before he kills about 80 people. Yet hes a fundamentalist? He even admits he prayed at one point "something I havent done for an extremely long time". The only defense you could have, for presuming he was a Christian at all [I cant consider any rational for assuming the beliefs had any underpinning in his thought process] is post modernist gibberish where you attempt to make such a term vague enough, that it becomes a useless word. Stretch the idea of what a Christian is enough, and the man fits in.
He was using Christianity as a symbol for his perverted and ridiculous view point. I've- we all have im sure- met people like this before on the internet. So obsessed with Western culture and old ideals they venerate the name and symbols behind past beliefs and actions without actually ever truly adopting them.
Havent actually read the last few pages so sorry if this seems out of the blue, but earlier in the thread some ignorant bastards were claiming this is somehow proof that religion is inherently violent and dangerous. Such a generalized and ignorant POV is probably the genesis of such thoughts that LED to this massacre.
I don't personally believe that he is a fundamentalist Christian, I only think what is being said in regards to it is hypocritical considering how people act when a terrorist is of a different religion, ie Islamic.
|
On July 25 2011 08:44 Gnax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:27 MethodSC wrote:On July 25 2011 08:14 Gnax wrote:On July 25 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote:
I think we can all agree that religion was not his main motivation. Hearing his views, it sounds like he is more concerned with the Muslims and Communists rather than martyring himself for God. Are you listening to yourself? I'd say 50% of his motivation was about religion and 50% political. I would say 0% of his motivation was religious, and that it is 90% political 10% racist belief. I don't think this man is a racist, however he feels that muslims are not integrating into society, but rather blocking themselves from european society and trying to hold their own values only. This can't be true for all muslims, obviously, but this person believes that they are trying to spread their religious values to corrupt(meaning that their values are corrupt or wrong). He speaks of religion only because he needed to act like a christian to become a freemason and for other religious people to listen to him. If he had claimed to be atheist or agnostic, he would be playing to a smaller audience, which is not what he wants. That's just my opinion. Honestly, I hope they don't let this man speak in front of the cameras and let him try to convince others that what he is saying is correct. It's best to just stop talking about him, and not let him have a stage. Let him rot in silence. You're saying 10% of it is racist belief based on what? I couldn't find anything at all in his manifesto that had anything to do with racism. Hate on Islam is not racism. Islam is not a race, it's a religion. Like 1/3 of his manifesto is about religion, 1/3 about politics and the rest about planning terrorism.
He actually writes quite extensively about the nordic genotype/aryans. I don't remember the context anymore, but it was everything from deportation to increasing fertility rates.
|
On July 25 2011 08:45 DBOWNIZZ wrote:Show nested quote +Oh come on. If there's anything to learn from all this it's that any ideology can be perverted into a justification for killing innocents. Christianity, islam, liberalism, socialism, animal rights, even pacifism, you name it and people have killed for it.
Devout muslims aren't any more or any less violent then devout christians, or whatever other ideological group you want to name. They all have their demons. Yea actually you can because there is no way in hell you can't say that there are just as many violent muslims in this world then there is violent christians. A huge portion of Muslims use violence and terror as a normal practice in there culture esp. against western civilized areas. You almost hardly ever hear about A Christian with bombs strapped to his chest killing people like you hear almost daily in the middle-east and muslims trying to prove a point, You never see pictures or videos of hundreds of christians revolting holding up signs saying "Christians will dominate this world" Like you do Muslims. (Not saying it doesn't happen but the percentage of violence in the muslim culture out weighs the violent attacks christians make. Lets face it the Quran promotes a shit ton of violence while the bible just promotes some. http://bp0.blogger.com/_tznAmKo1y8k/SJBuFnc87YI/AAAAAAAACrk/_qvZLrdN1fQ/s1600-h/Islam dominate.JPG
Your line of thinking is what is partially responsible for the attack in Norway.
|
for me it is too hard to figure out why he did this but I am sure there was selfishness and other evil things involved
my deep condolences to the people in Norway
|
On July 25 2011 08:45 DBOWNIZZ wrote:Show nested quote +Oh come on. If there's anything to learn from all this it's that any ideology can be perverted into a justification for killing innocents. Christianity, islam, liberalism, socialism, animal rights, even pacifism, you name it and people have killed for it.
Devout muslims aren't any more or any less violent then devout christians, or whatever other ideological group you want to name. They all have their demons. Yea actually you can because there is no way in hell you can't say that there are just as many violent muslims in this world then there is violent christians. A huge portion of Muslims use violence and terror as a normal practice in there culture esp. against western civilized areas. You almost hardly ever hear about A Christian with bombs strapped to his chest killing people like you hear almost daily in the middle-east and muslims trying to prove a point, You never see pictures or videos of hundreds of christians revolting holding up signs saying "Christians will dominate this world" Like you do Muslims. (Not saying it doesn't happen but the percentage of violence in the muslim culture out weighs the violent attacks christians make. Lets face it the Quran promotes a shit ton of violence while the bible just promotes some. http://bp0.blogger.com/_tznAmKo1y8k/SJBuFnc87YI/AAAAAAAACrk/_qvZLrdN1fQ/s1600-h/Islam dominate.JPG
The Koran is indeed incredibly violent but how many Muslims act the way the Korean promotes you to? Quite a few, but all of that commotion seems to occur during war or international tensions. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world and they have their share of problems like the US does but I cannot say that the country is about "GLORY TO ALLAH AND ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD AND HOLY WAR ONTO THE INFIDELS!"
If one wants to complain about how bad Muslims can get during international tensions, then you should check out Americans early in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would not be a stretch to include the recent bombing either.
|
On July 25 2011 08:46 BasedSwag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:42 lizzard_warish wrote:
I dont think you can really defend the idea that this man was a Christian. I concede [im a christian btw] that violence has been done by Christians which they inaccurately used their own beliefs to justify. But remember: If your so religious and you were to do violence, you would require justification for it. No serious Christian would go to war unless they had settled in their mind that it was morally OK to do so, and the same obviously goes to this degree of action. Yet he didnt even mention his theoretical bullshit theology that would support the actions. Not one verse from the Bible. I mean if the man was so religious how could he do such an action without considering God? The whole notion that the bible actually inspired him to do so is blown out of the water by the same notion, two fold.
More importantly, just read a bit of his life. He states hes going to buy two whores the day before he kills about 80 people. Yet hes a fundamentalist? He even admits he prayed at one point "something I havent done for an extremely long time". The only defense you could have, for presuming he was a Christian at all [I cant consider any rational for assuming the beliefs had any underpinning in his thought process] is post modernist gibberish where you attempt to make such a term vague enough, that it becomes a useless word. Stretch the idea of what a Christian is enough, and the man fits in.
He was using Christianity as a symbol for his perverted and ridiculous view point. I've- we all have im sure- met people like this before on the internet. So obsessed with Western culture and old ideals they venerate the name and symbols behind past beliefs and actions without actually ever truly adopting them.
Havent actually read the last few pages so sorry if this seems out of the blue, but earlier in the thread some ignorant bastards were claiming this is somehow proof that religion is inherently violent and dangerous. Such a generalized and ignorant POV is probably the genesis of such thoughts that LED to this massacre. I don't personally believe that he is a fundamentalist Christian, I only think what is being said in regards to it is hypocritical considering how people act when a terrorist is of a different religion, ie Islamic. Well the difference would be that most if not all Muslim terroists, we have good evidence they genuinely thought and believed they were authentic followers of the Quran and did their best to do so. If there are instances of Christian terroists who attempted to defend every action with the Bible and I had rational to think it was authentic, I wouldnt shy away from referring to what they are.
|
On July 25 2011 08:45 DBOWNIZZ wrote:Show nested quote +Oh come on. If there's anything to learn from all this it's that any ideology can be perverted into a justification for killing innocents. Christianity, islam, liberalism, socialism, animal rights, even pacifism, you name it and people have killed for it.
Devout muslims aren't any more or any less violent then devout christians, or whatever other ideological group you want to name. They all have their demons. Yea actually you can because there is no way in hell you can't say that there are just as many violent muslims in this world then there is violent christians. A huge portion of Muslims use violence and terror as a normal practice in there culture esp. against western civilized areas. You almost hardly ever hear about A Christian with bombs strapped to his chest killing people like you hear almost daily in the middle-east and muslims trying to prove a point, You never see pictures or videos of hundreds of christians revolting holding up signs saying "Christians will dominate this world" Like you do Muslims. (Not saying it doesn't happen but the percentage of violence in the muslim culture out weighs the violent attacks christians make. Lets face it the Quran promotes a shit ton of violence while the bible just promotes some. http://bp0.blogger.com/_tznAmKo1y8k/SJBuFnc87YI/AAAAAAAACrk/_qvZLrdN1fQ/s1600-h/Islam dominate.JPG
Getting into a pissing match about which holy book is more peaceful is kinda missing the forest for the trees here. The difference between the West and the Muslim world is that formerly Christian nations have secularized to a point where they don't take every passage in the Bible literally (otherwise we'd be seeing people executed for eating shellfish or working on the sabbath). The historical context of how the christian nations and muslim nations have changed (or not changed) over the years is far more important than arguing which version of Abraham's god is more of an asshole.
It'd be hard to argue that the Christian Crusaders were any less a bunch of religious fanatics than today's Muslim suicide bombers, but you could argue that we in the West have done a better job of dealing with the cognitive dissonance of having a divine holy book that is supposedly the word of an infallible deity, but realizing that some of the stuff in it probably isn't for the best in our societies. This is something the Muslim world is still dealing with, but I've had too many reasonable, secularized acquaintances of a Muslim background to just dismiss them as a lost cause because their holy book is somehow eviler than the Bible is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
