Michael Horton does an excellent job of stripping down the rampant media certainty that the Oslo killer, Anders Behring Breivik, is a "rightwing Christian fundamentalist." As an example:
In an on-line manifesto, Breivik makes it clear that he is not a “fundamentalist Christian.” He prefaces one comment with, “If there is a God…” and says that science should always trump religion. So in terms of religious convictions, he sounds more like Richard Dawkins than Jerry Falwell. Yet, unlike Dawkins, Breivik pines for the “good ‘ol days” of Christendom, especially the crusades. “Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe…”Good stuff from the mouth of the killer. You ought to read it to be informed.
6 comments:
I wonder how he can call himself a "first and foremost man of logic", and then use that logic to justify slaughter. What "logical" reason did he give himself for justifying his actions? To me, this screams lunacy, to claim logic as your guide, and then proceed to enact a completely illogical act.
Too bad most of the people won't see Michael Horton's article, or Breivik's manifesto, only what the media portrays about Breivik. The people at large don't like "rightwing fundamentalists" because the media highlights the wackos that do something in Christ's name, but if anyone really looks at what is said and done, would know that it isn't spawned from being a fundamentalist, but a self diluted liar."If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." 1 John 1:7
Now, David, if he claims to be a Christian (like his Facebook says) and he is concerned about good (like he claimed), then is it right to question his salvation or his intelligence just because he slaughtered 76 people?
Whatever happened to "question everything"? Your generation questioned "The Man", now no one is willing to question anything.
This so called, "Christian" you speak of is merely a fraud who's lost his faith. By the way, I went all out in my latest blog entry and I have a project plan to release on Thursday.
If you look all over the news and read the articles, the media (CNN and ABC at least) has portrayed the guy as a fundamentalist right wing Christian (which would be odd in Norway) but the reality is he was definitely a secularist, most likely agnostic.
Exhibit A
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/who-added-christian-and-conservative-to-norway-shooters-facebook-page-yesterday.html
Exhibit B
Here are some quotes from his biography/manifesto:
"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment."
"Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state for example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well."
"If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out... If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past. I am pursuing religion for this very reason and everyone else should as well, providing it will give you a mental boost."
"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."
He went to great lengths to separate himself from Christians. In this quote, he gives a simplistic definition of a Christian (a person who has a relationship with Jesus), he continues by saying, "I'm not that." Then he redefines Christianity and says, "Under this new, definition I just created that nobody would recognize, This makes us Christian". The second definition is not the same as the first. A person can't equivocate the two definitions, especially when he himself is making a distinction.
The man says secularism in his influence, and that he's not religious. He says religion is a crutch, and doesn't know if there is a God but that he will pray...just in case. That's agnostic, not Christian, but whatever he was, the guy was a nut.
Whatever he is, it is definitely not Christian.
Post a Comment