OK - if Anders Breivik WAS NOT a "Real Christian," then what was he?

[Taverner]

Poll question: OK - if Anders Breivik WAS NOT a "Real Christian," then what was he?

[Taverner]

1. And keep in mind, if the answer is 'fake Christian' you have do define it then...

[Kalidurga]

2. I don't want to give away my vote

But he was of the same ideology as the lizard brains.

[rfranklin]

3. He followed Republican Jeezus....hallelujah!

Pass the ammunition, Lord!

[hlthe2b]

4. a "self-identified" Christian, of course...

I can call myself Martian, but that doesn't make it so. I do have the right to do so. Others have the right to argue whether I meet the criteria of one who comes from Mars.

It really isn't that complicated. His only real alliance is with those who HATE.

[trotsky]

5. What makes you a Martian is being from Mars.

What makes you a Christian is self-identifying as one.

[rrneck]

6. Well said. nt

[hlthe2b]

9. No.. that makes you a "self-identified Christian"

There is a difference--that is if you aren't out to ridicule and denigrate those who actually follow the tenets of Jesus, as appears to be the intent of many posting here. I am an agnostic, but I try very hard to be both fair and accurate in my discussion of those who are religious or spiritual. I certainly have no problems with those who, like Jesus himself, promote social equity, kindness towards others-- very politically liberal stances.

If he had self-identified as an "atheist," I would likewise argue strenuously against those who would try to paint all atheists in his vein. Very very unfair, intolerant and very telling of a personal agenda to do this.

[trotsky]

13. Can you read minds?

If not, then we must let Christians self-identify. Their book is so hopelessly confusing and self-contradictory that one can justify any behavior or action. Mass genocide? God did it already. Multiple times.

But you see, I'm not trying to "paint all (Christians) in the same vein." There are decent ones, and there are nasty ones. What's more telling, I think, is those who dismiss the idea of the shooter being Christian because he did a bad thing. Implying that ONLY non-Christians can do bad things. That's intolerant.

[hlthe2b]

15. I identify him as a self-identified Christian which respectfully

acknowledges that he and his actions are dramatically atypical to Christians and the tenets of Christianity. It is you who wants to disparage all Christians by suggesting otherwise Such intolerance ultimately leads to the bigotry that fuels the likes of Pam Geller and others as they lump all Muslims together with those very sick terrorists extremists. In very sick individuals, such intolerance can lead to the kind of hate demonstrated by this horrible man in Norway.

I defend your beliefs or lack there of. As an agnostic, I try to give equal respect to atheists, skeptics and spiritual believers alike. That you lump someone like this whose actions are the very antithesis of Christianity with Christians is the very hallmark of intolerance and disdain. I am saddened that a minority of those who profess to be liberal/progressives here continue to do so. Is it impossible to disagree with the beliefs of others without so denigrating them and misrepresenting what they are all about? Does it make you feel superior?

[trotsky]

19. I do not appreciate your unfounded accusations.

I see you did not address my points but instead chose to attack and pretend you're on the high road. That is your choice, but I will no longer participate.

[hlthe2b]

20. I understand..

I would have a hard time justifying such blatant intolerance as you suggest you feel towards Christians as well. I hope perhaps you will think on it. Liberal/Progressives are better than that--no matter their personal spirtual beliefs or lack there of.

[trotsky]

21. I feel no need to justify that which I am not guilty of.

Your harsh, negative personal attacks are not appreciated. But they are understood since you cannot, evidently, address my points.

[hlthe2b]

22. I won't engage...

in discussions that show such disdain and intolerance for others whose personal beliefs happen to differ from my own. Apparently some of us don't agree with freedom of religion, (which I agree should likewise include freedom from religious beliefs in a separation of church and state principle). I criticize your intolerance in your comments, not you personally.

[trotsky]

23. These are interesting new definitions for common words.

I did not know that acknowledging a person can be a Christian and yet still do something bad was showing "disdain" and "intolerance." And a new charge - that somehow I don't believe in the freedom of religion? Fascinating. No clue where tha came from, but you're on a roll trying to drag me into the mud, so why not?

So does this mean that no Christians lie or cheat either? Do they temporarily become non-Christians when they do such things, and then revert back some time later? I am truly trying to understand your ceaseless attacks against me simply because I see intolerance and bigotry in the suggestion that ONLY non-Christians can be guilty of heinous crimes. Such behavior reminds me of my racist uncle who, whenever he heard of a shooting or theft, assumed the perpetrator was a minority.

[hlthe2b]

25. Is in intolerance and disdain when you claim such evil

to be consistent with a brand of religion or spiritual belief/philosophy knowing full well, those acts are not consistent with the beliefs and teachings of that religion or philosophy. No better than Pam Geller claiming all Muslims are terrorists.

All humans commit sins if that is what you wish to term it. No one claims they do not. However, to suggest that they lie, cheat, steal or kill BECAUSE they belong to a religion or adhere to a stated philosophy is the attempt to paint all adherents of that religion or practice with a very foul label. It is THAT which shows the intolerance and bigotry to which I object.

[trotsky]

26. "those acts are not consistent with the beliefs and teachings of that religion or philosophy"

Well that's the rub right there, isn't it? Millions of Christians disagree on what those exact teaching are, don't they? Are you now claiming to be the sole arbiter of what Christianity truly is? Or are you simply defining it on-the-fly to mean "peaceful and liberal and all things good"? I would love it if that were the case, but the evidence of history and current events indicates otherwise.

I'm glad that you are now somewhat conceding my point, that yes indeed Christians can do bad things and still be Christians. Certainly many Christians do very good things because of their particular interpretation of the religion, and I have never said otherwise. But sometimes, they do bad things based on their particular interpretation too. Are they wrong in their interpretation? You are certainly welcome to believe that, but since the existence of thousands of Christian sects and cults would serve to prove that NO ONE has the exclusively "correct" interpretation of the religion, you are lacking any serious justification for doing so. Other than wishing and hoping that the "true" version of the religion just so happens to perfectly align with what you want it to be.

[hlthe2b]

31. The basic tenets and beliefs are not a mystery despite your

attempts to suggest so. You claim that this man's horrific acts are consistent with Christianity. You want to claim that his 1500 page manifesto is consistent with anything you know (however minimal) about the tenets of Christianity. I really really feel sorry for you if that is what you truly believe. Your seeming need to feel superior to so many people that share this earth makes you react in a way and put forth comments and judgements that I will only describe as small and shallow. I hope some day you have a chance to actually learn about other religions, other philosophies and other cultures. It will enrich your life even if it does not change your own core beliefs in any way. And hopefully, you will be able to extend some respect and understanding to those whose beliefs you do not share.

He is a self-identified Christian. His beliefs and understanding of Christianity are clearly not consistent with his actually being one. To suggest otherwise is simply a vile incrimination of countless millions of people who hold to the beliefs of a religious figure/prophet whose tenets were adopted and inspired countless of our own heroes from MLK to Gandhi and beyond.

[trotsky]

36. I am disappointed that ultimately you chose to renew your attack on me

rather than address what I said. But I suppose that really tells me all I need to know. And I learned that Gandhi was a Christian, which is fascinating. Thanks!

[hlthe2b]

38. I did not say that Gandhi was a Christian. I said he was influenced

by Jesus as he puts forth in his own writings. Please don't resort to such disingenuous argument. He in fact rejected Christianity because he saw that so many purported to be Christians but behaved quite contrary to those tenets. Here is one quote by Gandhi you might have seen: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

On this, I can say I agree though I (fortunately) have known a few of those who actually DID act like Christians and for whom I hold great respect... It is for them that I can not sit by and allow them to be equated to this self-described, yet antithetical "Christian." Likewise it is for the many observant Muslims I have known in my career and private life that I refuse to ignore the intolerance put forth by those who would lump them with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. I just won't. It is not fair. It is not accurate. It is just wrong. Damned wrong.

[trotsky]

80. ...

"I refuse to ignore the intolerance put forth by those who would lump them with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida."

Nobody did that. You are assigning me that position when I've already told you I do not hold it. I even stated that I believe there are plenty of Christians who do good things because of their religion. But you ignored that, and continued with your vicious attack. I do not appreciate it, and expected more from someone who is attempting to lecture others about tolerance.

Oh, and on edit - that isn't an actual Gandhi quote. You might want to do some research. And it's also interesting that in that misattributed quote, he's actually agreeing with ME. That sometimes, Christians CAN be bad people.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Yet you show disdain and intolerance

for the beliefs of the subject of the OP. Why is that OK? You claim that even though he has said he is a Christian that his beliefs are not, in fact, Christian when he has support for it from the bible. Apparently you don't agree with freedom of religion. I criticize your intolerance.

[hlthe2b]

32. I show disdain for the intolerance that would seek to paint all

Christians with the horrific acts and hate-filled beliefs put forth by this man. Just as I would show disdain for RW Xians who would call for the abuse or murder of gays and lesbians, using a bastardized interpretation of the bible as justification. I do so because they have manifested a total disregard for the philosophy and beliefs in which they purport to live their lives in the most hypocritical exploitation of that religion in order to hurt others. Just as I would a RW conservative who would seek to make this nation a oligarchy and to render you and I and every other American to surfdom.

As liberal progressives this intolerance towards religious adherents that I see among some here is particularly distressing to me, even while I am an acknowledged agnostic. The attempt to smear all adherents of religions with the heinous acts of one self-identified member, (that has shown in his 1500 page writings and deeds to know nothing of that particular religion) is different HOW from that of O'Reilly or Pamela Geller or others who show such hatred and bigotry towards Muslims? Please tell me... HOW it is different?

We are better than this. I know that we CAN be.

[Goblinmonger]

33. So you are admittinghat

that only good people are Christian and if you are not a good person then you are a non-Christian. THAT is offensive. The fact that you can't see that is surprising. I (and I think trotsky) are just saying that one can be a Christian and a dick. That isn't intolerant--that's reality. You can be an atheist and a dick, too.

HOW is it different? Nobody here is saying that all Christians are dicks because this one Christian is a dick. TA DA!

[hlthe2b]

37. I said nothing of the kind...

Absolutely nothing of the kind. But your misrepresentation of what I have said is so grossly inappropriate that I will not engage with you further. Have a nice day and hopefully someone might enlighten you on the issues of fairness and respect. To them, I wish them great success.

[Leontius]

41. Welcome to the bizarre world of " I don't care what you say

this is what I want you to mean so I'm always right and you're always wrong." This is typical of what passes for enlightened discussion here by some, good luck getting past it, then they have more bullshit if you continue past this one.

[hlthe2b]

46. Yup...

sometimes it just isn't worth it. ;)

[Goblinmonger]

101. Get over yourself.

Why don't you tell your pal to stop telling me that I am saying all Christians are like the dick discussed in the OP.

And your buddy made it pretty clear that anyone doing something bad is not a real Christian. It's pretty clear all over this thread.

[trotsky]

81. But that's exactly what you imply.

You believe that the shooter couldn't have been a Christian, because he did a very bad thing. Meaning, true Christians don't do bad things. Or in other words, all bad things are done by NON-Christians. Very simple logic, all proceeding from your initial statement.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Of course you did.

Anyone who does something bad is not a real christian. You've made that abundantly clear.

And the fact that you constantly have said that trotsky and I are saying all Christians are like this guy seems pretty unenlightened on your part.

[provis99]

103. and if you self-identify as bald, you are bald?

:shrug:

[darkstar3]

104. Bald has a clear definition.

It has been shown time and again, especially here on this board, that "Christian" does not.

[provis99]

105. I disagree that bald is clear.

Plenty of men I've seen with a monk's ring, or hair missing on the top but not the sides, have been described as bald, both by themselves and others. while others may be completely hairless, and others may have 90% of the hair they had at age 20. At what point does one become bald, and at what point does one have hair?

The definition of atheist is very confusing. Look at how us atheists qualify our identity: agnostic atheists, strong atheists, partial atheists, etc.

Who is defined as atheist? If you don't believe in Zeus, does that make you an atheist? What if you've never heard of Yahweh? Are you a Yahweh atheist? What if you assign a percentage of 49% to the possibility that god exists, versus 51% that he doesn't? Is that enough to make you an atheist?
An atheist is someone who calls himself an atheist; there is no agreed upon definition.

[darkstar3]

107. Balding vs. bald. I am not responsible, and neither are you, for the misuse of language.

Words mean things. A bald person has no hair on the top of their head, and an atheist lacks belief in any gods. It's not that difficult to understand, unless you're interested in deliberately complicating the issue.

The problem with language is not the vocabulary, nor is it the limiting nature of assigning words to ideas. It's the users, and their determination to twist the meanings of words beyond what they will support in order to fit their rhetorical needs.

[dgibby]

11. This is the same argument used by those who

believe that Obama is a Muslim.

[hlthe2b]

12. I don't follow...

Obama has never self-identified as a Muslim and nor does he live the tenets of Islam. He does identify as a Christian and seems to adopt those important principles as set forth by Jesus in the New Testament. We can argue whether or not he does so to the degree he "ought to" (given his continuation of wars and some of his other political policies), but that too can be said for all of us in one measure or another, if we claim to be influenced by the teachings of Jesus or Gandhi or MLK or whomever). Contrast that with those who self-identify as Christians and then ignore every single aspect of Jesus' teachings, opting instead to follow a literal interpretation of the OLD Testament or to "reinterpret" the bible to suit their own objectives or bigotries. :shrug:

[dgibby]

14. Obama self-identifies as a Christian,

which is the argument those who believe he is Muslim use against him. In other words, they don't believe him when he says he's a Christian (I do believe him, btw). Your argument, if I understand you, is that just because someone self-identifies as a member of a group, doesn't mean its true. All I'm saying is it's the same argument. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. BTW, I'm not accusing you of belonging to the group of people who believe Obama's really a Muslim.

[hlthe2b]

17. My argument is that someone who self-identifies...

but whose stated beliefs, actions, and behaviors are the antithesis of that with which he self-identifies, is not what he professes. I guess the word for that is imposter. By contrast, I know of nothing that suggests Obama does not at least seek to live his life in keeping with the tenets with which he identifies. He doesn't manifest hatred towards non-believers, want to put homosexuals to death, suggest that women are less than equal, as those who profess to be Christians, but live the literal word of the OLD TESTAMENT in ignorance of the New, do. Yes, I consider fundamentalists who likewise profess to be Christians but ignore the New Testament and the tenets put forth by Jesus to likewise be imposters, even if they self-identify as Christians.


I can claim to be an Newtonian physicist, but if I deny the principles of gravity, then exactly what am I?

[Humanist_Activist]

116. What actions by the terrorist are the antithesis of Christian tenets?

[tortoise1956]

7. I voted fake christian...

Because "Psychotic Murderer" was not an option. From what I have heard, if he had been born in the mideast he would have been a prime candidate to become a senior lieutenant in a terrorist organization.

I believe that he represents the dark side of any movement - those who are looking for justification of their actions. For example, Apartheid in South Africa was based in large part on a distorted interpretation of the Bible. Murdering innocents in the name of Allah is justified by picking and choosing verses in the Qur'an. There have been some pretty evil individuals who used atheism as the reason for their misdeeds.

This doesn't mean that Atheism is evil in and of itself, any more than Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism or Buddhism for that matter. It all comes down to the individual, at least in my opinion.

[Taverner]

8. I can only think of one who killed for Atheism

That would be Enver Hoxa, and he was a Communist leader so there was the "relgion" of Communism to contend with.

As bad as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were, they did not kill for Atheism. Rather, they killed for Communism.

Enver Hoxa was a piece of work though - most of his reign was spent trying to completely eliminate religion - he had a serious chip on his shoulder.

Sure, religions were frowned upon under Communism, but so was Genetics until Trofim Lysenko died. So was Trotskyism under Stalin.

[Deep13]

18. Interesting.

Of course, as a fellow nonbeliever I would have to support his actions. Oh wait, no I wouldn't. He sounds like an asshole!

[Taverner]

28. LOL he gives all of us non-believers a bad name

And thankfully, he was a rarity


He also did a number of other batshit insane things, like having his dog (a gift from Maggie Thatcher) his own car, with his own driver. Another fun story: when they were building the new Metro, the engineers all went home and when they came back in the morning, the Metro was GONE. Not just hidden, but paved over as if it never existed. What had happened is when the engineers went home, Hoxa's men paved over it all so they could have a nice looking downtown for the COMECON Youth Festival.

[CJCRANE]

10. Christianist. nt

[Deep13]

16. He professed a belief in Jesus Christ, ergo, he was a Christian.

If he agreed with everything in the Nicene creed, then he was a pretty ordinary one too in his religious beliefs.

The 9/11 hijackers believed in the Koran as the revealed word of Allah, ergo, they were Muslims.

[Taverner]

29. Yup nt

[Leontius]

42. The question remains, did he agree?

[Deep13]

44. Well, I did not actually read his book.

I declined to read it for the same reason I declined to read Atlas Shrugged.

[Leontius]

54. Me either so both our " best guess" can only be " probably some

form of Christian teachings or parts of them were a part of his worldview" based on the little real evidence we have.

[Deep13]

98. Yeah, it's partly guesswork, or mostly guesswork if we consider how reliable media reports are. nt

[Leontius]

106. It's also a problem with the definitions of 'Christian'

it can be as narrow or as wide as the definer wants or needs it to be.

[Deep13]

114. That makes claims that so-and-so is not a real one susceptible...

...to the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. No true Scotsman wears shorts under his kilt. Bob wears shorts under his kilt, ergo, he's not a true Scotsman. Well, what's a "true Scotsman?" Is it anyone who lives in Scotland? Or is it only someone who can trace his lineage to medieval Scottish ancestors? In either case, what does it have to do with shorts or kilts? Christianity is a little different because doctrine and conduct consistent with it are part of the definition, but even still, with no real consensus on that doctrine it is hard to exclude someone who professes to be one just because of certain actions.

[laconicsax]

24. It depends...did he put sugar on his porridge?

:shrug:

[spin]

27. If he actually was a Christian he wasn't familiar with the main lessons of ...

either the old Testament or the teaching of Christ.

That is not surprising as many Christians have never studied the Bible.

Question: How could you sum up the moral message of the Old Testament in one sentence?

Hillel the Elder was a Jewish religious leader who taught around the beginning of the Current Era (d. 10-20 C.E.). He was once challenged by a man who said, "Make me a proselyte on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) while I stand one one foot."

Hillel replied, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation. Now go and learn."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bF6oaGZf_o/S9LDMRLJksI/AAAAAAAABEs/jexbTvA7Bjg/s200/Hillel+the+Elder.JPG

Question: How could you sum up the moral message of the New Testament in one sentence?

I might use the words attributed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 7:12./b]

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
(New International Version)



While I consider myself, a Christian very few Christians would consider me one. I do enjoy studying the Bible and reading books which explain the Bible and give insight. This is a recent fascination of mine and is extremely challenging. I find a lot of interesting and entertaining stories and lessons in the Bible, but I do not believe that it is the literal word of God.

[struggle4progress]

34. I think the proper technical description of him is "whackadoodle"

[Leontius]

35. Why is he not a 'real Christian' what bedrock tenets of Christianity

did he disagree with? Perhaps one more category 'not my kind of Christian' could be added.

[laconicsax]

39. It seems that some people think that pointing that out is an attack on all Christians.

...That saying that a Christian committed horrible acts somehow means that all Christians behave as such.

[Leontius]

75. Well given the infantile refrain from some that ALL Christians are

essentially the same in word and deed, I can't possibly understand how anyone could think that.

[darkstar3]

79. Link?

[rug]

40. I doubt he believes in any kind of god other than white superiority.

[laconicsax]

43. Why is that?

Is it impossible for white supremacists to believe in the Christian god?

[rug]

45. Pretty much.

[Humanist_Activist]

47. So most Europeans of the past 250 or more years were a type of atheist?

The Church of Jesus Christ Christian is an atheist church? The KKK an atheist organization?

Do you want to make any other unfounded claims?

[rug]

51. Closer to that than Christianity.

Particularly since their ideologies and actions are more easily explainable by political reasons than supernatural reasons.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. You are making a distinction where none exists, all religion is political...

either when used by the powerful as a tool or used by radicals as a hammer, the beliefs of Christianity have been used to forward political agendas for going on 2000 years. Even you use it in this manner, even if you aren't consciously aware of it.

This isn't a misuse of any of these beliefs simply because the Bible is such a muddled mess of moral ambiguity you can use it to support and oppose nearly anything you wish.

[rug]

60. You are making an assertion broader than the evidence.

[cleanhippie]

62. Doesn't that statement pretty much sum up all religion?

Pretty spot on, in fact.

[rug]

63. No. Feel free to pm her about your shared belief.

[cleanhippie]

64. Sure it does. Thats why one needs faith - there is no supporting evidence.

I know it, you know it, we all know it. No need to beat around the bush about it it.


and what belief is it that I share?

[rug]

66. "all religion is political".

I'm sure you'll have aa affirming conversation.

[cleanhippie]

67. Maybe I missed where I made that claim. Can you point it out?

:shrug:

[rug]

69. "Doesn't that statement pretty much sum up all religion?"

#69.

[cleanhippie]

78. Ahhh, sorry. I was referring to YOUR statement.

I felt that it is a good summary of just about all religions.

[Humanist_Activist]

70. I did, but then again, I treat religion no differently than any other social system of humanity...

all of them are political, put more than one person in a group, and that group becomes political within the context it works in. Office politics, church politics, local, state, national politics, all have one thing in common, groups of people working and opposing each other in various different ways, but looking at it from the outside, the core of them all is the same, politics.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. Really? All human social constructs are political in various different ways...

churches have their own politics, and interact with the wider social politics in different ways, same for family units, etc. Why treat religion differently than all the rest of our socio-political constructs?

[rug]

71. you define religion as a human social contruct. Religion does not.

And its histories are replete with non political activities.

[darkstar3]

72. ...taking place at the same time as, and often in support of, political ones.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. Really? Name one. n/t

[rug]

84. I'll name fourteen.

•To feed the hungry;
•To give drink to the thirsty;
•To clothe the naked;
•To harbour the harbourless;
•To visit the sick;
•To ransom the captive;
•To bury the dead;
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Except for the last one, none of those are religious in nature...

but rather are about either charity and public good or are bad advice, yet all were and have been politicized in the past, whether by state, church, political party, whatever. Its one of the most common and oldest political tactics around, want to drum up support for your party/cause/religion/state? Give out charity in its name.

Let me get into the bad advice, which is a side discussion. First off, ask law enforcement, ransoming the captive won't lead to a good result, extortion for more ransom, or the captive being killed, is much more likely.

To admonish sinners, really? And who is a sinner in your eyes, and what about in the eyes of someone else? This just seems to be an excuse to harass others.

To counsel the doubtful. Just another excuse to evangelize, i.e. harass those with differing beliefs.

To bear wrongs patiently. Ok, that's just stupid, where would the Civil Right's Movement be today if people like Rosa Parks followed this advice? We don't magically progress through just the passage of time, people have to push for things like equal rights, and you know what, I'm glad they disobey this little piece of advice.

To forgive offenses willingly. Well, this is a nonsensical statement, how do you forgive offenses unwillingly? But that's not the point, it would depend on the offense, obviously.

Of course, as I said in my subject line, except for the one explicitly about prayer, none of these are strictly religions, the ones I call harassment can easily apply to the state, any number of philosophies and political parties.

[rug]

108. Given the seven corporal and spiritual acts of mercy have been examined for centuries, I think

I'll just overlook your puzzlement.

[Humanist_Activist]

112. What puzzlement? n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

113. They must not have been examined very deeply, while some of them are good(and obvious)...

some of them are just bad advice for anyone, in any time period, to follow.

[cleanhippie]

89. Those are all religious constructs?

Really?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

95. Well, I hope that rug would have the integrity to answer that.

If he has any integrity at all he will.

[rug]

110. Nice, you're calling me a bigot. That didn't take long.

You should read the rules.

[rug]

109. The last seven are,

[darkstar3]

119. No they are not. They are found in ideologies, both religious and non, worldwide.

And you wonder why people outside of the faith feel that believers suffer from a superiority complex...

[darkstar3]

48. That'll be news to the KKK, which considers itself a Christian organization.

In fact, if you were to take a tour of the SPLC website and then research the various white-pride-style hate groups that appear there, you'll find that many of them incorporate the Christian God into their "reasoning" behind their belief in the superiority of the white race.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

49. The OT is pretty much littered with race or ethnic-based genocide.

Wasn't "Christendom" basically defined as white Europe and its colonies. Yeah, there were exceptions like the Egyptian Coptics (non-Nicean, though, so maybe not an exception). But it is basically Europe. And their interventions in the so-called holy land were primarily against non-European Muslims. For hundreds and hundreds of years, white, European civilization and Christianity were synonymous. So it is not hard to see how a white supremacist would latch onto that.

[rug]

53. And this guy seems enamored with Norse mythology. I wouldn't call him a pagan.

[Deep13]

56. If he's so enamoured, maybe he is a pagan.

But he represents himself as Christian and my recollection of the NT, Acts for instance (maybe you remember it better than I do) is that doing so is the definition of being a Christian. One has to confess it with his tongue and so forth.

[rug]

57. I think a pagan would disagree with you.

Just because a man walks around with his hand in his shirt and says he's Napoleon, it doesn't mean I have to believe him. Others, of course, are free to.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Actually most wouldn't, Asatru(Norse God believers) openly acknowledge...

that far too many of their brethren are White or Aryan supremacists, what they don't do is claim these people aren't Asatru, instead they say that not all of them are racist assholes, just some of them are, and their religion doesn't require you to be a racist asshole.

[rug]

61. And they would be correct, notwithstanding the clumsy invocation of NTS.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. But that's the point, they wouldn't be using the fallacy in the first place...

they wouldn't take it to the next step and say that Asatru forbids racists in their ranks, rather that it can go either way. Then again, most pagans I know don't claim automatic moral superiority due solely to their religion like most Christians do.

[rug]

73. Much as I hate to leave this, I'm off to see Cowboys and Aliens with my kids.

TTFN.

[cleanhippie]

90. Will you post a review? I want to see that.

[rug]

111. A great cowboy movie, not so great aliens movie.

Did you see Super 8 this year? The aliens are very similar, subterrannean, but scouts for an invading species, unlike the poor guy in Super 8.

I won't go into the plot but it's sort of like the Magnificent Seven versus the Martians.

Overall, it was a good fun. I think I'll see it again when my sons come back from camping. They were looking forward to it.

[cleanhippie]

117. I guess I will see it.

I did see Super 8, great movie, not what I was expecting.

I typically don't go to the theater unless its something I want to see on the BIG screen, this one sounds like it may fit the bill.

Thanks for the review.

[trotsky]

82. "automatic moral superiority due solely to their religion like most Christians do"

That is PRECISELY what's happening when liberal Christians join the chorus with the likes of Bill O'Reilly to declare that Breivik was absolutely not a Christian. They are saying that being a Christian makes one morally superior. Thanks for nailing that one.

[Deep13]

97. LOL, well yeah.

But if the definition (or at least one definition) of being a Christian is saying he is one, then that is different from claiming to be the grave-digger of Europe.

[_ed_]

120. No True Scotsman logical fallacy nt

[darkstar3]

50. Your poll accepts the premise. I don't.

Breivik was a Christian, by his own repeated admission.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

76. Any christian can be hateful or kind.

Jesus was all about kicking ass and vengeance, and mass murder.

He accepted and approved all the mass murder and genocide in the Old Testament.

"I come not in peace but with a sword" I come to drive families apart, etc.

He cusses out a fig tree for not producing fruit in December? He thinks it's great to murder innocents by the thousands. Look it up, it's there in the New Testament.


The label Christian is meaningless because of the hateful stuff Jesus allegedly said in the NT, which is always ignored.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply--any Christian can believe anything because the Bible is a pile of contradictory stuff put together by Emperor Constantine. We don't even know if Jesus existed and none of the gospels were written until at least 50 years after Jesus' alleged death.

Christianity is a death cult stolen from older pagan cults like Mithra and osiris and Apollo.

So yeah, Breivik is a Christian.

[Leontius]

77. Can you tell where you bought that comic book

I can't seem to find it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

85. Isn't this in your bible?

MATTHEW

While insulting the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist calls an entire generation a "generation of vipers." 3:7

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Don't defend yourself in court. 5:40

"If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Fair is fair! 6:15

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"My servant lieth at home sick."
Here was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to condemn slavery. All he'd have to do is say, "OK, I'll heal him. But then you must set your slave free, because slavery is an abomination to God." 8:5-9

"The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Jesus heals a paralytic man by forgiving his sins. (Paralysis is caused by sinful behavior.) 9:2-6

Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." 10:33

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

"Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." 12:36

When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus rudely asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. 12:47-49

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest ... they ... should understand ... and should be converted, and I should heal them." 13:10-15

"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Isn't this from the Republican Party platform? 13:12

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." 15:22-26

"Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."
If you want to stay alive, you must lose your life (kill yourself?) for Jesus' sake. 16:25

Jesus condemns the whole world, saying "Woe unto the world because of offenses." 18:7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. 18:25

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

Rich people don't go to heaven. For as Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 19:23

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29

The parable of the unfair, lying employer
The kingdom of heaven is like a business that hires workers, paying each the same wage (one penny). Some work 12 hours for the penny; others 9, 6, or 3 hours; and others for only one hour. If one of the 12-hour workers complains about it, his boss says, "Hey, didn't you agree to work all day for a penny? What are you complaining about? From this parable, David Barton (and the Republicans) claim that Jeus was against the minimum wage.
But the employer didn't say he'd pay each of the workers a penny; he said he'd pay them "whatsoever is right" (vv.4,7). Is it right for one employee to be paid twelve times as much as another when both are doing the same type of work? 20:1-15

"Jesus ... touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight." 20:34

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41

"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." 23:31

Jesus blames his the Jews (who were then living) for "all the righteous blood" from Abel to Zecharias. 23:35

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

"Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents." 25:27

Jesus will give to those who already have and take from those who have nothing. He must've been a Republican. 25:29

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Ointment for Jesus' head is more important than helping the poor. 25:6-11

"His blood be on us, and on our children." This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25
=====================
Mark


Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had "an unclean spirit," so he announces the unforgivable sin: "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." 3:29

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

"For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." -- The US Republican Party motto 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10

Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. 7:27

If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. 8:38

Jesus gets mad at his disciples for failing to cast out a devil and says, "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? 9:19

Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

Jesus says that rich people cannot go to heaven. For "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 10:25

Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and gives the vineyard to others. 12:1-9

In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17

Ointment for Jesus' head is more important than helping the poor. 14;3-7

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
==========================

Luke


God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
Just a few verses earlier (1:17-20), Zacharias is struck dumb for doubting his wife's angel-assisted pregnancy. Why wasn't Mary punished for her disbelief? 1:34-35

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

"Be content with your wages" -- no matter how unjust they may be. 3:14

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11

Jesus cures a paralytic by forgiving his sins, thereby proving that he is God (since only God can forgive sins) and paralysis is caused by sin. 5:18-25

Jesus says that people who are rich, well-fed, happy, or respected are going to hell. 6:24-26

"That he would come and heal his servant"
Here was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to condemn slavery. All he'd have to do is say, "OK, I'll heal him. But then you must set your slave free, because slavery is an abomination to God." 7:2-10

Jesus says that he speaks in parables so "that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." 8:10

"Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have."
Jesus was the first Republican. 8:18

Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21

Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

Jesus speaks harshly to his disciples because they couldn't cure epilepsy by casting out devils. 9:41

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

"This is an evil generation."

Jesus blames all the deaths of the prophets on his generation. 11:47-50

Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

"He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." 12:9

Those who "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" will never be forgiven. 12:10

Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes" and cuts them in pieces. 12:46-47

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." 12:51

Jesus calls the people hypocrites because they cannot "discern this time." 12:56

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves. 14:26

If you want to be a disciple of Jesus, you must abandon everything, including your family. 14:33

"Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." 16:9

"If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?" 16:11

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

Jesus also believes the story about Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

The parable of the avenging, lazy, unjust judge (God). 18:1-6

Rich people cannot go to heaven. "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." 18:25

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

"Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him." These verses are used by Rethuglicans to justify protecting the rich from taxation. 19:24-26
==================

John


Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of foood and water, and then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14

As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

Jesus knew who could stomach the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (the Catholics, who are going to heaven) and who couldn't (the Protestants, who are going to hell). It's all a part of God's plan and we have nothing to do with it. 6:64-66

Jesus tells his family that he wasn't going to the feast, but later goes "in secret." 7:8-10

If you don't believe in Jesus, you will "die in your sins" (and then go to hell). 8:24

Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil. 8:44

The disciples ask Jesus about the cause of a man's blindness. Was it because he or his parents sinned? Jesus said neither had sinned. The man was born blind so that Jesus could show off his powers by curing him of his blindness. 9:1-3

Jesus says that he has come to make people blind. 9:39

"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers."
Everyone that ever lived before Jesus was a thief and a robber. 10:8

Lararus must suffer and die (or pretend to die) so that Jesus can "be glorified" by raising him from the dead. 11:4

Mary wastes expensive ointment on Jesus' feet, rather than selling the ointment and giving the money to the poor. But Jesus thinks his feet are more important, saying that poor people will always be around, but he and his precious feet won't be. (According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 300 denarii would be nearly a year's wage for a laborer.) 12:3-8

You must hate your life in order to keep it. (If you love your life, you'll go to hell after you die.) 12:25

The reason people didn't believe in Jesus was that God had "blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart." God did this so that they would not "understand with their heart, and be converted." This way God could damn more people to hell. 12:40

If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell. 12:48

Jesus is the only way to heaven. All other religions lead to hell. 14:6

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father."
If you follow Jesus' teachings, God will love you -- otherwise... well, you know. 14:21

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Now that Jesus has come, non-believers have no excuse for not believing in him. 15:22
==========================

Acts


Peter blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. 3:14-15

Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all nonchristians) must be killed. 3:23

God will torture forever those who don't know the password to heaven. 4:12

Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10

Once again, Peter accuses the Jews of murdering Jesus. 5:30

Stephen blames the Jews for persecuting the prophets and murdering Jesus. 7:51-52

Jesus blinds Saul. 9:8

The Jews are again blamed for the death of Jesus. 10:39

The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23

Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11

The author of Acts brags about God destroying "seven nations of the land of Canaan." 13:19

God chooses those who will believe , and only they will go to heaven. 13:48

If you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," then you and your whole family will be saved; otherwise, God will send you all to hell. 16:30-31

"And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads." (Have a nice day?) 18:6

-----------------------------------

[cleanhippie]

91. Very nice. Now let's see what our friend here has to say in it's defense.

If he has the guts to try, that is.

[Leontius]

93. Mt 7:6

[cleanhippie]

96. Wait, what? Did you just ignore ALL of those bible quotes and instead reply with a bible quote?

Yes. Yes you did. Holy crap. I am never short of amazed at the cognitive dissonance displayed by believers.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

99. Objection, irrelevant and immaterial.

you'll have to do better than that.

[provis99]

102. oh, game, set, and match. Take that, atheists!

[_ed_]

121. Hilarious

Someone just realized that there's a whole lot of violent shit in the New Testament.

I didn't notice it above, but Luke 19:27 has always been a personal favorite of mine:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Prince of peace?

[okasha]

83. Breivik's own answer to the question:

At the Washington Post’s On Faith blog, Mathew N. Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies at College of the Holy Cross, argues that Breivik sees himself as a “cultural” rather than “religious” Christian.

Breivik calls himself a “cultural Christian.” Religious Christians, he observes, have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which he himself does not have. For Breivik, “Christendom” is a vehicle for preserving European self-identity and is not necessarily opposed to elements of “paganism” such as Breivik’s own “Odnistic/Norse” heritage. …

The Christian history that Breivik seeks to reenact is not the passion of Jesus Christ, but the narrative of the Crusades. … Although he wishes that Benedict XVI would call Christendom to crusade, Breivik argues that the Roman Pontiff has been too accommodating to Islam and has thus betrayed the Church and Europe as a whole. The new Crusade will thus have to be initiated outside the authority of decadent institutional churches….

http://www.urbanfaith.com/2011/07/is-anders-breivik-a-christian-terrorist.html/

[trotsky]

86. And I'm positive that Mathew N. Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies

has absolutely no horse in this race.

Breivik also said that he would be praying to god during his violent spree, and that he hoped to go to heaven with the other martyrs. He was a very confused and hateful man, but one cannot rule with certainty that he was not a Christian.

[okasha]

94. Irrelevant

I'm not questioning that he was a Christian; he seems to have been the kind that's referred to as "hatched, matched and dispatched" who show up in church three times in their lives--or rather, twice during their lives and once following.

The quote is from Breivik's own writing. Feel free to disregard it if doing so comforts you.

[trotsky]

115. Relevant.

Because what I said was ALSO in his own writing. I can see you've already disregarded it since it comforts you, however.

[struggle4progress]

87. He's written 1500+ pages of dreck, explaining his anti-Islamic views, describing the paramilitary

organization he hopes to found, and laying out his plans for expelling all Muslims from Europe

His "cultural Christianity" is intermingled with nods to "Odinists" and attacks on "Marxists." It looks to me very much like a standard rightwing nationalist fantasy from a demented man who thought his atrocities would bring attention to his political views

[cleanhippie]

126. So, IOW, are you saying that he is NOT a real christian?

That seems to be the point you are trying to make, no?

[backscatter712]

118. He wasn't a True Scotsman! n/t

[sakabatou]

122. I could see the No True Scotsman a mile away

[Nihil]

123. I haven't voted ...

... as I don't have a dog in the fight about "True/False Christian" but, on
a related matter, one thing that pisses me off about that nutter is the way
that he has managed to get a lovely load of "guilt by association" dumped on
me and some of my friends via the (frequently posted) third picture in your
collection.

I can totally understand why some Christians would react in the "but he isn't
a *true* Christian" manner but, as strongly argued elsewhere, there simply
*isn't* a single consistent definition of "true Christian" to compare/contrast
with him.

Sadly, to paraphrase a comment upthread, all I as a Freemason can say about
it is not that "he isn't a *true* Freemason" (regardless of how I might feel
that way inside) but simply that "not all Freemasons are racist assholes and
there is nothing in Freemasonry that requires you to be a racist asshole".
I can find plenty of supporting evidence that many thousands of Freemasons
are individually not "racist assholes" but, as Breivik proves, there is also
evidence that at least one Freemason is a "racist asshole".

:-(

[Meshuga]

124. He wasn't a true Norwegian

Kidding aside... As far as I know he was a Christian but his extreme right wing ideology seems to be his driving force.

[struggle4progress]

125. He said he wasn't a Nazi. But he sure spent a lot of time on the Swesish Nazis' website

[cleanhippie]

127. But he DOES say he is a christian. Do you agree with him?