Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.

Pygmalion

Title says it all, from here

...
But Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.
...

Turns out we were all wrong after all, he wasn't a Christian, and we're just playing along with the mainstream media's liberal bias (thank god for independent, unbiased Fox for correcting us).

magicbastarder

a woman at the newspaper rack said to me the other day 'but he's a *christian*; it doesn't make *sense*'.

MagicMarker

ballsymchugh

well, given the 'love thy neighbour' commandment, then no true Christian would murder anyone.
same goes for islam though, you'll hear plenty of voices saying that it's a religion of peace when condemning acts done in it's name.

philologos

From Brevik's manifesto:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform.”

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

From Brevik's manifesto:

Sounds like he's describing 99.9% of christians to me.

philologos

I wouldn't say 99%, particularly of those I have met. However, it seems like a rash media jump to conclusion when they presumed that he was a "fundamentalist Christian" on the basis of having "Christian" on his facebook page. From the contents of what I've looked at in the manifesto it seems like Brevik is nothing more than culturally a Christian. He does use Scripture in portions to attempt to justify what he did, but he doesn't claim have a personal relationship with Christ and ultimately God which is pretty much what Christianity is about.

markfla

funny how demands evidence that he is a christian :rolleyes:

smokingman

O'Reily is just trying to deflect from his admiration for the yanky tea paty I'm guessing.

gargleblaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


:pac: I just noticed it's already been updated with this specific case as an example.

philologos

gargleblaster wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

There are some cases where it may be valid though. If I claimed to be an atheist despite the fact that I very clearly believe in God, you would claim that I wasn't an atheist I would hope?

gargleblaster

philologos wrote: »

There are some cases where it may be valid though. If I claimed to be an atheist despite the fact that I very clearly believe in God, you would claim that I wasn't an atheist I would hope?

Not the same thing. In that case I wouldn't be attempting to modify what an atheist is, in order to exclude you from the group.

Now if you said that you were an atheist and you have no problem with other people indoctrinating their children into their religion, I could use this tactic to say that no true atheist would be all right with that practice. That's a much better example, IMO.

Dades

MagicMarker wrote: »

Brevik's manifesto wrote:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform.”

Sounds like he's describing 99.9% of christians to me.

Exactly. If he's not a Christian - most every catholic in Ireland is not a Christian either.

Is it worse that he didn't say Jesus made him do it - but that he based his actions on the Christian moral platform? Maybe he didn't sweep the Old Testament under the carpet like most do and got a few tips from God there.

philologos

gargleblaster wrote: »

Not the same thing. You're attempting to modify what an atheist is there, you're redefining it altogether.

Now if you said that you're an atheist but you have no problem with other people indoctrinating their children into their woohoo nonsense, I could use this tactic to say that no true atheist would be all right with that practice. That's a much better example, IMO.

It could be argued that Brevik is attempting to redefine what it means to be a Christian in his manifesto. This is as valid as your objection to my saying that I am an atheist despite my profound belief in God.

How one can draw Christian fundamentalist from this is surprising:

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence
over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always
continue to be that way.
Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious
man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a
monocultural Christian Europe.

The previous quote I gave in full:

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative
Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians
and religious Christians?
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious
Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social,
identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

One could pore through it for hours if not for the redefinition of Christianity that Brevik presents, but for the methodical political analysis through the prism of his worldview.

Standman

I wonder would he be as quick to say that no true Muslim would do such vile things.

TwoShedsJackson

Standman wrote: »

I wonder would he be as quick to say that no true Muslim would do such vile things.

dead one will be in to do that soon enough.

Zombrex

Well technically no true Christian would commit mass murder, but I've never met a true Christian (sorry guys over in those forums, you don't pass the test), so it becomes some what of an irrelevant comment. I very much doubt there is such thing as a true Christian.

AhSureTisGrand

If there was ever a true Christian he died on a cross two thousand years ago

irishh_bob

been a while since ive watched bill ( im a christian but hate the idea of my taxes going towards healthcare for poor people ) o reilly

Bandana boy

I guess true Christians would not molest little Children either

MagicMarker

Bandana boy wrote: »

I guess true Christians would not molest little Children either

Or cover it up...... oh wait

Turtwig

Anyone else notice a NewJersey IP deleted that B.O'Reily bit in the 'No True Scotsman' article on wikipedia? I wonder if that was the actual 'Billy'? Either way you'll be happy to know that your editorial team has reinstated it.:D

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

Well technically no true Christian would commit mass murder

Depends, if God told them it was ok (in a dream or something) they would... if they are a true Christian that is.

Sam Vimes

philologos wrote: »

I wouldn't say 99%, particularly of those I have met. However, it seems like a rash media jump to conclusion when they presumed that he was a "fundamentalist Christian" on the basis of having "Christian" on his facebook page. From the contents of what I've looked at in the manifesto it seems like Brevik is nothing more than culturally a Christian. He does use Scripture in portions to attempt to justify what he did, but he doesn't claim have a personal relationship with Christ and ultimately God which is pretty much what Christianity is about.

Right so I expect that you will cease making claims about how many christians there are in the world (e.g. the spread of christianity in Africa which you have mentioned many times) in trying to counter the argument that christianity is declining since I think it's safe to assume that you have not established whether all of these people claim to have a personal relationship with Christ and that is apparently the de facto standard for determining if someone is a christian or not. It would of course be very disingenuous to use the standard of "claims to be a christian" when trying to bulk up the numbers to counter one argument but to shift this to "claims to have a personal relationship with Christ" when someone who claims to be a christian does something bad.

If I were you I'd stick with the first definition tbh. As people have pointed out, if you go with the second you'll probably be outnumbered by the scientologists

Monty Burnz

markfla wrote: »

funny how demands evidence that he is a christian :rolleyes:

Compare and contrast with the 'secret Muslim Obama' claims.

Sam Vimes

philologos wrote: »

It could be argued that Brevik is attempting to redefine what it means to be a Christian in his manifesto.

Since there are 33,000 different denominations of christianity it could also be argued that there is no one standard of "what it means to be a christian".

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Depends, if God told them it was ok (in a dream or something) they would... if they are a true Christian that is.

Well God doesn't exist

By true Christian I mean someone who actually follows the instructions of Jesus, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.

I've never met a Christian who does this. I've met who claim they try to, but then in practice they fall far short. This is some what understandable, Jesus' advice was for people who were soon going to be called to heaven, not advice for 2,000 years.

franklyshocked

Professional Troll Bill O'Reilly.

Tide comes in, Tide goes out, never an excommunication..

Sarky

Wicknight wrote: »

Well God doesn't exist

By true Christian I mean someone who actually follows the instructions of Jesus, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.

I've never met a Christian who does this. I've met who claim they try to, but then in practice they fall far short. This is some what understandable, Jesus' advice was for people who were soon going to be called to heaven, not advice for 2,000 years.

It's probably because turning the other cheek gives your enemies a second chance. "True" Christians wouldn't really have a very long lifespan.

Alopex

There is no indication Breivik was a fundamentalist christian, and that was claimed by the media. He's Christian in the same way 85% of Irish are Catholic.

However I would say the same about Bin Laden, I believe his attacks were motivated for political reasons, not religious. Just like Breivik.

robindch

Alopex wrote: »

There is no indication Breivik was a fundamentalist christian

He may or may not have been.

What is not in doubt is that he used christianity, and the perfection it claims for itself and the false divisions that it, and other religions, create to legitimize his obscenity in his own diseased mind.

Mance Rayder

Thou Shalt not kill. As moses claimed.

Jesus never said anything about christians. For the record he never mentioned gay people, or abortion. Don't let people fool you. Those who claim to be "followers of Christ" while spouting injust crap are simply deluded or lying.

I believe in God through Christ. If you want to laugh and snigger and call me a christian you can but I don't really care either way. For me, my spiritual and moral beliefs have nothing to do with church's, religions and priests etc. They have to do with my life, and my experiences.

Just because people tick the "catholic" or "christian" box does not mean they can't be evil Fu***rs . Priests included.

We are all just people and some people are inherently evil, they don't have to know it themselves, they might think they are doing it in the name of religion "A" or "B" but in fact they are just evil people.

I don't know where people get off saying God cant be real because Mr X done something horrible and he's supposed to represent God.

No-one represents God except Christ. Anyone who claims to represent God is lying. Anyone who murders 10's of innocent people is evil regardless of persuasion. His actions reveal his nature.

I don't wish to debate with athiests on gods existence as it's inexplicable, I just wanted to make my point. The murderer in Oslo is evil pure and simple.

seamus

The beauty of religion is that it can never deny that someone is part of their religion because it always allows for "sin". A sinning christian is still a Christian no matter how greivous the sin.

Without the "sometimes you fall" clause, religion would inherently fail because of the impossibility of maintaining the standards required ad infinitum.

I'm sure we could find some sin - pride or gluttony or such - that Bill himself is guilty of. Is he therefore not a christian?

Mance Rayder

seamus wrote: »

The beauty of religion is that it can never deny that someone is part of their religion because it always allows for "sin". A sinning christian is still a Christian no matter how greivous the sin.

Without the "sometimes you fall" clause, religion would inherently fail because of the impossibility of maintaining the standard requirement ad infinitum.

I'm sure we could find some sin - pride or gluttony or such - that Bill himself is guilty of. Is he therefore not a christian?

Every human sins, religion and Faith are two seperate things. Religion makes no odds in a persons goodness or badness. It's real repentance and understanding of our wrong doing that can save us. most of us know in our hearts what is right and wrong, it is the seed Christ planted in our hearts. Those who don't are considered psychotic, The inability to feel empathy allows them to commit such acts of violence against innocent people.

AhSureTisGrand

A priest tried to tell me about planting Christ's seed in me once. I ran outta there like bejaysus I did

Alopex

robindch wrote: »

He may or may not have been.

. . .

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence
over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always
continue to be that way.
Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious
man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a
monocultural Christian Europe.
Quote:
A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative
Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians
and religious Christians?
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious
Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social,
identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

Think that settles it to be honest.

What is not in doubt is that he used christianity, and the perfection it claims for itself and the false divisions that it, and other religions, create to legitimize his obscenity in his own diseased mind.

Not sure what you mean here. Just looked like a crazy or idiotic or both man who wanted to attack the system. I haven't read the full manifesto, if you could flesh out that point a bit more I would be interested to hear your views

robindch

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Thou Shalt not kill. As moses claimed.

Christians have traditionally had quite a flexible interpretation of that commandment:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm

Pygmalion

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Every human sins, religion and Faith are two seperate things. Religion makes no odds in a persons goodness or badness. It's real repentance and understanding of our wrong doing that can save us. most of us know in our hearts what is right and wrong, it is the seed Christ planted in our hearts. Those who don't are considered psychotic, The inability to feel empathy allows them to commit such acts of violence against innocent people.

So before Christ no-one had any concept of right and wrong, and people are Psychotic because Christ didn't give them this seed (why would he do this?)?

Sarky

CiscoStudent wrote: »

most of us know in our hearts what is right and wrong, it is the seed Christ planted in our hearts.

So you don't think people would know the difference between right and wrong if Jesus hadn't put it there? How does that explain the millions of Hindus and Buddhists and all the religions that came along way before Christ? Were they just christians who never realised that it was all because of a man who wouldn't be born for hundreds of years after they were dead (and probably gone to Hell for not believing in someone who wouldn't exist until then, too)?

Dermo

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

If there was ever a true Christian he died on a cross two thousand years ago

If you are talking about the guy I think you are talking about, he was a jew.

edit: (to stay on topic) Can we allow personal attacks on Bill O'Reilly please? He does deserve it.

Mance Rayder

Sarky wrote: »

So you don't think people would know the difference between right and wrong if Jesus hadn't put it there? How does that explain the millions of Hindus and Buddhists and all the religions that came along way before Christ? Were they just christians who never realised that it was all because of a man who wouldn't be born for hundreds of years after they were dead (and probably gone to Hell for not believing in someone who wouldn't exist until then, too)?

You clearly dont understand me, read what I wrote properly before replying. There are no Christians. Just people. All sorts of people. Christ was speaking the word of god, who created all things . I don't think hinduism or buddhism or cristianity has anything to do with it. Opinions don't matter, therefore religious denomination is null and void. God is god. simple as.

Mance Rayder

robindch wrote: »

Christians have traditionally had quite a flexible interpretation of that commandment:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm

Well Christians can think what they want in my opinion. As can Moslims etc. My Opinion and faith in god is my own regardless. However, if someone claims to be "Christian" then that does not mean they cannot interpret scripture to suit there world view. That is the problem with religion. Thankfully , I am not religious.

Mance Rayder

Pygmalion wrote: »

So before Christ no-one had any concept of right and wrong, and people are Psychotic because Christ didn't give them this seed (why would he do this?)?

Actually before Christ people did know the difference. Christ was speaking Gods truth which is eternal. I don't know why he would allow evil in the world, why don't you ask him yourself.

Doctor DooM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Actually before Christ people did know the difference. Christ was speaking Gods truth which is eternal. I don't know why he would allow evil in the world, why don't you ask him yourself.

If it's eternal, why did God's message change between the new and old testament?

Mance Rayder

Doctor DooM wrote: »

If it's eternal, why did God's message change between the new and old testament?

Well I never said Gods message did not change. I meant God is eternal, sorry if I was not clear enough .Why wouldn't it change? When your a kid your parents tell you there is a Santa to make you behave, then when your older you realise that there isn't. So Maybe to guide humanity the way he wanted them to evolve. Maybe it's what they needed at the time for whatever reason. To prepare humanity, at least some of them, to be ready to receive the final prophet. Christ.

Anyway I don't have all the answers I am merely speculating. Believe what you want and if it's nothing then your welcome to it. I'm not your stereotypical Christian. I don't even know If I could be considered a Christian by institutional standards, and I don't particularly care.

Dades

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Well I never said Gods message did not change. I meant God is eternal, sorry if I was not clear enough .Why wouldn't it change? When your a kid your parents tell you there is a Santa to make you behave, then when your older you realise that there isn't.

Your parents wouldn't murder your neighbours so you could all move into their house. It's that type of OT mentality that's glossed over with the NT.

Mance Rayder

Yeah I agree much of the old testament is pretty messed up. Frankly I don't really care much about the OT its probably mostly waffle. Most of the NT is probably waffle also as far as I know. Its just a book. I don't worship a book. The Gospels mean something to me of course.

I pretty much agree with the sentiments of this song by Matt Johnson/The The.

http://homepage.mac.com/agraham999/iblog/B652642334/C1357654378/E1141690958/

Or if you can't be bothered :

"The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creed"

oldrnwisr

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Yeah I agree much of the old testament is pretty messed up. Frankly I don't really care much about the OT its probably mostly waffle. Most of the NT is probably waffle also as far as I know. Its just a book. I don't worship a book. The Gospels mean something to me of course.

What elevates the Gospels above the rest of the NT? How come they're not lumped in with the waffle?

Mance Rayder

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What elevates the Gospels above the rest of the NT? How come they're not lumped in with the waffle?

I said it's probably waffle for all I know. Not that it is waffle.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contain teachings allegedly spoken by Jesus himself. I believe this for the most part, they are probably paraphrased in places but the message is fairly consistant.
Anyway, I don't base my belief on the Bible.

oldrnwisr

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contain teachings allegedly spoken by Jesus himself.

liamw

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Anyway, I don't base my belief on the Bible.

What is the source of your belief then? It's not Yahweh. What god is it? One you just made up?