Norwegian political mass-murderer's real beliefs

wolfsbane

I asked a missionary in Norway about what 'Christian fundamentalist' means there. She reckoned just about anyone opposed to Islamic inroads.

Also, apparently everyone is officially classed as Protestant until they formally opt out. Very State-related religion.

Anders Behring Breivik is being described in the media as a 'Right-wing Christian fundamentalist'. But I prefer to get it from him, so I googled a bit and got this:
http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/07/2083manifesto.pdf

Some of the details are high-lighted in the following articles:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=325765

Not an impartial source on the media, but it does offer several of Breivik's quotes.

More quotes here:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1029957--it-is-better-to-kill-too-many-than-not-enough


*********************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

Zombrex

More quotes here:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...han-not-enough

Wow, the words bat sugar crazy spring to mind.

I think they are getting the Christian fundamentalist thing from his idea of reforming the Knights Templar and acting to "save" Christian/European culture from Muslims. He seems to think he was in a new Crusade.

philologos

I read parts of his manifesto last night. There is the use of Biblical passages to justify what he did, but the politics seems to be the basis.

homer911

philologos wrote: »

I read parts of his manifesto last night. There is the use of Biblical passages to try and justify what he did, but the politics seems to be the basis.

Corrected your post I can't imagine the Bible justifying modern day terrorism

Fanny Cradock

While the Norway massacre was a different league of wrongness, the "far right" politicisation of Christianity and Jesus is not a new thing.



http://www.ship-of-fools.com/features/2009/jesus_and_the_bnp.html

Asry

homer911 wrote: »

I can't imagine the Bible justifying modern day terrorism

Depends which parts you read, I guess. If you can apply the human-kindness parts to modern life, what about the I am Vengence parts?

But yeah he sounds really off his rocker.

PatricaMcKay

He gave his interests as including Freemasonry which explains the whole Knights Templar obessesion.

That angle is being ignored though.

PatricaMcKay

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While the Norway massacre was a different league of wrongness, the "far right" politicisation of Christianity and Jesus is not a new thing.



http://www.ship-of-fools.com/features/2009/jesus_and_the_bnp.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx5fErVb4Sw

Fanny Cradock

Asry wrote: »

Depends which parts you read, I guess. If you can apply the human-kindness parts to modern life, what about the I am Vengence parts?

But yeah he sounds really off his rocker.

It's that word "context" again. If one believes that the Bible tells a coherent meta-narrative about things like creation, sin, salvation, judgement and love then you can't say that verse x, y and z, when read in isolation, justifies the type of evil that he devoted himself to.

Unfortunately there does seem to be a growing problem throughout Europe when it comes to multiculturalism and integration, even in so called progressive countries like Sweden. It's worrying when you hear leaders like Merkel and Cameron publicly admit as much. I really do hope and pray that organisations like the EDL, BPN, National Front, Austrian Freedom Party etc. and lone (?) nuts like Breivik don't start having wider appeal.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While the Norway massacre was a different league of wrongness, the "far right" politicisation of Christianity and Jesus is not a new thing.



http://www.ship-of-fools.com/features/2009/jesus_and_the_bnp.html

Could they have misunderstood that quote from Jesus any more :eek:

Blueboyd

I can tell you what his real believes were.

It was


"should I first take the anabolic steroid shot and then after that inject the nicotine into the dum dum bullets or

should I inject the nicotine first into the dum dum bullets and then take the anabolic shot. "

That pretty much tells his believes. A narcisst & sociopath.

wonderfulname

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anders Behring Breivik is being described in the media as a 'Right-wing Christian fundamentalist'. But I prefer to get it from him, so I googled a bit and got this:
http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/07/2083manifesto.pdf

Oops, I've been boycotting that damn manifesto, too late now I guess so I had a read.

He is a Christian fundamentalist in the literal sense of the phrase, just as he is right wing, you can't get away from it and the public generally understand what is meant by it in this sort of context, xenophobic sociopath would probably have been a better description however, that manifesto is just disturbing.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While the Norway massacre was a different league of wrongness, the "far right" politicisation of Christianity and Jesus is not a new thing.



http://www.ship-of-fools.com/features/2009/jesus_and_the_bnp.html

Indeed. As with Hitler, and many modern democratic politicians, homage is paid to a God they despise in order to gain votes. Even their use of the Nordic gods seems more about a necessary justification for their ideology. It is comforting to think there may be a 'spiritual' purpose to your sufferings for the Fatherland.

And of course historically Christianity was cynically used by the elites to gain/maintain power. The ignorant masses must be got on side.
********************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

Oops, I've been boycotting that damn manifesto, too late now I guess so I had a read.

He is a Christian fundamentalist in the literal sense of the phrase, just as he is right wing, you can't get away from it and the public generally understand what is meant by it in this sort of context, xenophobic sociopath would probably have been a better description however, that manifesto is just disturbing.

Care to define your understanding of 'Christian fundamentalist'? He does not match up to mine.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

fryup

Christian fundamentalist-ism, anti Islamic and far right politics were all a cover for a deeply distorted mind.

Listen to this (halfway down, Dr Kevin Dutton)

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx5fErVb4Sw

Thank you for that important video, Patrica! It confirms the concept of 'spiritual' in the 'far-right' programs.

Definitely worth a watch, everyone.

**********************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

Baggio1

i think nearly EVERYONE has missed one simple and very weired point about all this:

he was anti islam all the way and said he did it for Norway etc..... i know its sad that ANYONE died.... but - why didnt he kill any muslims?! they were all Norwegian nationals?

so does no one else not find that more than a little strange??? i dunno apart from him being a sicko i smell a rat about all this and dont buy the line that he worked alone at all.....

wolfsbane

Baggio1 wrote: »

i think nearly EVERYONE has missed one simple and very weired point about all this:

he was anti islam all the way and said he did it for Norway etc..... i know its sad that ANYONE died.... but - why didnt he kill any muslims?! they were all Norwegian nationals?

so does no one else not find that more than a little strange??? i dunno apart from him being a sicko i smell a rat about all this and dont buy the line that he worked alone at all.....

That would be a valid point if the victims were just a cross-section of Norwegian society: but they were specifically the up-coming Labour Party generation. The sons and daughters of the ruling party, the party he holds responsible for the Islamic influx.

He might have reckoned that a blitzkrieg on the government would be just as, or more, effective than starting a campaign of annihilation of the Muslims. There is an effectively endless stream of Muslims to replace any murdered, but not so from the Norwegian nationals.

Seems very Timothy McVeigh-like. Maybe an accomplice or two - but nothing to need a network. Intelligence, skill, the means and determination make a loner a very formidable opponent.

********************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

wonderfulname

We don't know quite why he chose the target he did but those kids were the future leaders of the centre left, the people he expected to let Islam take over the western world. Norway is very left leaning, that's why little pockets of right wing extremists are popping up.

Then there's the fact he obviously has serious mental issues and delusions, do you expect what he does to make sense??

steve9859

Blueboyd wrote: »

I can tell you what his real believes were.

It was


"should I first take the anabolic steroid shot and then after that inject the nicotine into the dum dum bullets or

should I inject the nicotine first into the dum dum bullets and then take the anabolic shot. "

That pretty much tells his believes. A narcisst & sociopath.

It is too convenient to dismiss him as an isolated sociopath. He took views that are becoming increasingly common into crazytown territory. But listening to the English Defence League spokesman on Newsnight the following evening was incredibly disturbing.

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

We don't know quite why he chose the target he did but those kids were the future leaders of the centre left, the people he expected to let Islam take over the western world. Norway is very left leaning, that's why little pockets of right wing extremists are popping up.

Then there's the fact he obviously has serious mental issues and delusions, do you expect what he does to make sense??

It makes sense IF your morality permits you to over-ride the democratic wishes of your country when you think they are utterly wrong, and permits the execution of civilian opponents in preference to the actual government and their officers.

I'm sure all of us here would subscribe to neither. But we must ask ourselves if society as a whole has a morality open to such ideas - not necessarily in the same cause.

*****************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

wonderfulname

wolfsbane wrote: »

It makes sense IF your morality permits you to over-ride the democratic wishes of your country when you think they are utterly wrong, and permits the execution of civilian opponents in preference to the actual government and their officers.

No it doesn't, it makes no rational sense, if you completely ignore the morality you can still see it takes a high level of delusion to come out with the claims in that manifesto. The attacks, as a military manoeuvre, which is what this guy saw them as, still make no sense, there is no rational connection between the action and the intended outcome.
I have to point out that your execution point is morally on very shaky ground, governments, when elected democratically, are no different to civilians and it is no more morally right to go about killing them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure all of us here would subscribe to neither. But we must ask ourselves if society as a whole has a morality open to such ideas - not necessarily in the same cause.

Actually, aspects of the cause, the general fear of change and hatred of the outsider, are very evident in society to varying degrees, but there is a line between being a xenophobic ass and taking the actions this man did, that line is not a moral one, it's a mental health one.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for that important video, Patrica! It confirms the concept of 'spiritual' in the 'far-right' programs.

Definitely worth a watch, everyone.

**********************************************************************
Matthew 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_occult_roots_of_Nazism.html?id=9hMP5ZMu6bIC

This book which is scholarly and not the work of some "conspiracy theorist" is also worth a read in this connection.

"New Age" ideas fed in heavily to Nazism, and neo-paganism remains a driving force behind a lot of these movements.

Fanny Cradock

I just read an excerpt from his manifesto and it is revealing. He's one sick and confused individual.

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. In the past, I remember I used to think;

“Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.”

Perhaps this is true for many cases. 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 f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die during the operation as I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission. When I initiate (providing I haven’t been apprehended before then), there is a 70% chance that I will complete the first objective, 40% for the second, 20% for the third and less than 5% chance that I will be able to complete the bonus mission. It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would….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. (p. 1344)

Asry

I do see the sense that he probably thought he was making. Objectively speaking, he proved his point and achieved his objective.

All this other stuff he's saying, though, the stuff about the Templars and the freemasons and all of that, I'm finding hard to swallow. It doesn't fit. Maybe it doesn't because he's clearly deranged. But for some strange reason, I think he's making all of that faff up.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I just read an excerpt from his manifesto and it is revealing. He's one sick and confused individual.

Am I the only one who finds the video-game style references to "bonus missions" to be extremely disturbing?

Penn

PDN wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds the video-game style references to "bonus missions" to be extremely disturbing?

Far less disturbing than:

If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.

PDN

Barrington wrote: »

Far less disturbing than:

No, I don't think it is. But of course those with an axe to grind will play on the quote you mention. They will dishonestly do so while studiously ignoring his previous statements about not being religious. So nothing new there, then.

wonderfulname

To be honest that's probably the passage that least points to quite how disturbed he is, it doesn't distinguish him from any other militant out to defeat lesser cultures, it doesn't show off his rather perplexing rational.

PDN: Would you not as a Christian find what barrington points out particularly disturbing? Surely the level at which he twists religious concepts so as to justify his actions is noteworthy?

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

PDN: Would you not as a Christian find what barrington points out particularly disturbing? Surely the level at which he twists religious concepts so as to justify his actions is noteworthy?

No, I wouldn't. He says he's not religious, but mentions he might pray at some point incase there is a god - that sounds no different from most non-believers who cover their bases by praying occasionally at times of great stress. Then he says that, if there is a god, then he thinks he'll get into heaven. That hardly suggests that religion is a motivation for his actions, or that he holds any firm religious beliefs at all. The guy, according to his own words, is an agnostic.

Yet, of course, some agnostics will dishonestly try to paint him as a 'Christian fundamentalist'.

wonderfulname

Sounds like you're the one with the agenda to be honest, nobody suggested religion was his motivation.

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sounds like you're the one with the agenda to be honest, nobody suggested religion was his motivation.

If there was no suggestion that religion was his motivation then why was the mass media so quick to label this Norwegian agnostic as a 'Christian Fundamentalist'? Were they just tossing out inaccuracies for the fun of it, with no implication attached?

wonderfulname

I was referring to this thread, although I don't understand why people are suddenly getting worked up over the medias love of pigeon-holing, how long have Muslims been getting it now? Kinda hypocritical...

Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific doctrine in reaction to modernism, it is technically correct to brand this man as a Christian Fundamentalist, even though he does not technically believe in Christ, the problem that has arisen here is that the term also refers to a form of evangelicalism, so people are getting confused and giving out.

Fanny Cradock

wonderfulname wrote: »

I was referring to this thread, although I don't understand why people are suddenly getting worked up over the medias love of pigeon-holing, how long have Muslims been getting it now? Kinda hypocritical...

And how is pointing out inaccuracies hypocritical?

wonderfulname wrote: »

Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific doctrine in reaction to modernism, it is technically correct to brand this man as a Christian Fundamentalist, even though he does not technically believe in Christ, the problem that has arisen here is that the term also refers to a form of evangelicalism, so people are getting confused and giving out.

Challenging the idea that "Christian Fundamentalist" is an appropriate descriptor is the point of the thread. Merely ripping a definition out of wikipedia and stating that you are right doesn't amount to much of a argument. If he isn't a Christian - there is no "technically" about it - then the word "Christian" should not be applied to him.

wonderfulname

Would a culturally Christian fundamentalist suit you better then? He has all the hallmarks of a religious fundamentalist, the relevant religion is Christianity, I honestly do not understand the backlash as by definition fundamentalists are at odds with the vast majority of practitioners of the religion they choose to associate themselves with. This case is actually very interesting because it is at odds with our preconceived notions of where such beliefs originate, people like to blame extreme religious indoctrination, claim that something like this cannot come out of the modern approach, yet here we have someone with overall very lax views with regards religion picking up on specific aspects of the one with which he identifies most and using them to justify his cause.

Looking at it this way we can see that the individual is to blame in instances such as this and not the religion, but of course everyone is too scared of people coming to the opposite conclusion that they simply shut out any discussion and claim he cannot be associated with Christianity because he does not fit a mould which in fact, the majority of those identified as Christian don't fit either. His manifesto is littered with Christian references, they are obviously a huge aspect of his thought process, this can't just be ignored because you don't like it.

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

Would a culturally Christian fundamentalist suit you better then? He has all the hallmarks of a religious fundamentalist, the relevant religion is Christianity, I honestly do not understand the backlash as by definition fundamentalists are at odds with the vast majority of practitioners of the religion they choose to associate themselves with. This case is actually very interesting because it is at odds with our preconceived notions of where such beliefs originate, people like to blame extreme religious indoctrination, claim that something like this cannot come out of the modern approach, yet here we have someone with overall very lax views with regards religion picking up on specific aspects of the one with which he identifies most and using them to justify his cause.

Looking at it this way we can see that the individual is to blame in instances such as this and not the religion, but of course everyone is too scared of people coming to the opposite conclusion that they simply shut out any discussion and claim he cannot be associated with Christianity because he does not fit a mould which in fact, the majority of those identified as Christian don't fit either. His manifesto is littered with Christian references, they are obviously a huge aspect of his thought process, this can't just be ignored because you don't like it.

No, it wouldn't suit because it's a mealy-mouthed & dishonest butchering of the English language.

Why not call a spade a spade. He was a right-wing, xenophobic agnostic.

wonderfulname

Actually it's not remotely a butchery of the language, it only seems it if you have a very limited view of what the words mean.

Fanny Cradock

wonderfulname wrote: »

Actually it's not remotely a butchery of the language, it only seems it if you have a very limited view of what the words mean.

I would have thought that was the point of words. That they convey a specific meaning. Purple monkey dishwasher.

The point we are making is that this guy *by his own definition* is not a Christian. And if words have any meaning then this should be pointed out, just like anyone suggesting that he is a black Jewish Muslim woman from the North Pole should also be corrected.

I'll happily do the same whenever I hear Anthony Flew described as a Christian. He wasn't despite some excited reports in the Christian press/ blogosphere.

Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Why do you think it is hypocritical to point out inaccuracies?

wonderfulname

He's described as a Christian fundamentalist, in this case the word Christian is an adjective, not a noun, if we are to say that our society is a Catholic society, we do not mean that everyone in our society is an active Catholic, we mean that our society is heavily influenced by Catholic culture and norms.

wonderfulname

Oh, sorry, the hypocrisy statement, you're not pointing out inaccuracies, you're effectively saying it's not fair for your religion to be associated with this man, if we look across the pond some people are going crazy because they see the description of his beliefs as "right-wing" to be an insult, because of course the only definition of right-wing is that pertaining to american politics...

It's hypocritical because nobody ever questions the relevance of "Muslim suicide bombers" in what is effectively a political context, double standards no?

Fanny Cradock

wonderfulname wrote: »

He's described as a Christian fundamentalist, in this case the word Christian is an adjective, not a noun, if we are to say that our society is a Catholic society, we do not mean that everyone in our society is an active Catholic, we mean that our society is heavily influenced by Catholic culture and norms.

But we aren't talking about a society. We are talking about one individual. It should not be difficult to accurately describe him without the use of inaccuracies. By his own words he isn't a Christian so he can't be a Christian fundamentalist.[/QUOTE]

wonderfulname wrote: »

Oh, sorry, the hypocrisy statement, you're not pointing out inaccuracies, you're effectively saying it's not fair for your religion to be associated with this man...

But you have never explained in what respect he is a Christian.

From the excerpts I've read, he is clearly an agnostic and he states that he has been influenced heavily by his secular surroundings. That is not the same as being a Christian because the word Christian - if it is to retain any meaning at all - entails certain beliefs and practices.

It's hypocritical because nobody ever questions the relevance of "Muslim suicide bombers" in what is effectively a political context, double standards no?

"Effectively a political context"! I'm not sure what that means. Certainly radical Islam has a political component. But if you think the religious element is merely window dressing to the politics then you are mistaken. Also, it should be said that you addressed a bunch of strangers on the internet and presumed to know what we think. How about next time instead of being so quick accuse us of hypocrisy, perhaps you should actually listen before lambasting.

PDN

If the 9/11 bombers had said they weren't Muslims and didn't know whether Allah existed or not then I certainly would object to calling them Islamic fundamentalists. :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Must say, quite a few folk licking their lips about this whole 'Christian' title. i go back to what I've said in the past about a lot of non believers. They can be quick to tell you that 'you're not being very Christian', but as soon as something like this happens, they have a severe memory malfunction and forget what it is to be Christian again. Funny that.

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

If the 9/11 bombers had said they weren't Muslims and didn't know whether Allah existed or not then I certainly would object to calling them Islamic fundamentalists. :rolleyes:

"I consider myself to be 100% Christian." Anders Breivik http://hereiblog.com/was-anders-breivik-christian/ (about 3/4 of the way down the page).

So he isn't sure there is a god, so what ? The majority of Ireland's 'Christian' population probably doesn't either.

Are you always sure there is a god PDN ? No 'real' Christians are ever unsure about god's existence ?

How much of that often quoted 2.2 billion figure of Christians in the world are 'really' Christian then ? Half ? A quarter ?

Breivik was much more concerned with politics and history than religion ? fantastic. So was Bin Laden and company.

He said he was a Christian, he said he prayed (even though he was unsure if there was a god or not) and he was a member of a church. He was a Christian.

No one is saying he committed these crimes because of Christianity, that's obviously false.

Stalin was an atheist and Anders Breivik was a Christian. Neither committed their crimes because of their faith or lack of but claiming they weren't what they clearly were is ridiculous.

Asry

PDN wrote: »

No, I wouldn't. He says he's not religious, but mentions he might pray at some point incase there is a god - that sounds no different from most non-believers who cover their bases by praying occasionally at times of great stress. Then he says that, if there is a god, then he thinks he'll get into heaven. That hardly suggests that religion is a motivation for his actions, or that he holds any firm religious beliefs at all. The guy, according to his own words, is an agnostic.

That's exactly like my boyfriend! I realise that I just likened him to a mass murderer, yes. But I mean to just point out that there are many, many people out there like this.

INSERTED IN THE EDIT FROM HERE ON IN:

Sorry, I kind of jumped in a bit late and in the middle of what appears to be some kind of storm brewing. I'd be more worried about how this paints video-gamers and violent games than Christians, to be honest.

The press labeling him as a Christian fundamentalist is just their need of boxes to put people in. All the other things he's said have been in the papers too, so anyone with half a brain can see that whether fundamentalist or not, he's clearly off his box.

Then and again, the word 'fundamentalist' is bandyed about a lot, usually about Muslim extremists. So perhaps this is just the media picking up on a certain narrative and continuing on with it?

Just my opinion.

PDN

Someone who doesn't know whether they believe in God or not is, by definition, an agnostic.

Asry

Yep, OK.

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

Someone who doesn't know whether they believe in God or not is, by definition, an agnostic.

I've met Priests who have stated as much. Unlike a lot of atheists I never had a bad experience with religious people when I was young, I had a fantastic religion teacher in school who was a priest and who wasn't sure if there was a god. I've met lots of religious people of many different persuasions who have stated as much. I go to University with a Muslim who says as much.

Are these people not religious because they doubt it ?

The guy identifies himself as a Christian, he prays to god even though he's not sure there is one. That's the vast majority of Christians I have ever met right there.

My mother is staunchly religious (COI) but doubts gods (as in christian gods) existence.

Do you never doubt his existence PDN ? I assume you do, if you never doubt it then I apologise for presuming so. Those times when you doubt his existence are you no longer a christian until you no longer doubt it ?

If this guy isn't Christian then the vast majority of 'Christians' are not Christian.

edit: Wait, I am not blaming Christianity for his behavior, nor am I saying he did what he did because of Christianity. Just in case that's what was coming across. I'm simply saying he was christian. He could just as easily have been Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim etc.

PatricaMcKay

virmilitaris wrote: »

I've met Priests who have stated as much. Unlike a lot of atheists I never had a bad experience with religious people when I was young, I had a fantastic religion teacher in school who was a priest and who wasn't sure if there was a god. I've met lots of religious people of many different persuasions who have stated as much. I go to University with a Muslim who says as much.

That freaks me out.

If you arent sure of something so important and you dedicate your life to it what is going on there, particularly if it means sacrificing having a family? Also if he didnt have a sense of the presence of God which would suggest spiritual ill health how could he continue on teaching religion, after all you need a strong faith to be able to communicate it to other people? Also sharing those doubts with pupils???

Slav

virmilitaris wrote: »

who was a priest and who wasn't sure if there was a god.

Fr McGuire?

philologos

virmilitaris: If one doesn't believe in God, and if one doesn't claim to have a personal relationship with Christ, or God, or indeed have much of an interest in one. That by definition isn't Christianity. Christianity is something, that means there are things which it is not.

You wouldn't agree with me claiming that I was an atheist, because I believe in God. Belief in God is incompatible with atheism. In much the same way, not believing in God, and not having a personal relationship with Christ, or indeed much of an interest in having one makes one by definition not a Christian.

If one is to claim whose version of Christianity is being used, one could ask whose version of atheism is being used to preclude me from being an atheist? After all it is said that herding atheists is like herding cats.