So how do conservative Christians feel about that Norway killer

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s not clear to me that he isn’t a Christian. It’s clear that he isn’t an evangelical Christian or an orthodox Catholic. He seems to line up best with the kind of vague cultural Catholicism that an 18th-century moderate philosophe might advocate, or a German Catholic of the sort that formed the early core of Nazism.

Certainly the American media misinterpreted his early claims to be a “conservative Christian” to interpret him as some sort of fundamentalist in the sense intelligible to Americans.

Edwin

Well, supposedly Stalin had been an altar boy, so I guess you could say Stalin was a Christian.

And Hitler supposedly had been baptized Catholic, so I guess you could say Hitler was a Christian.

At what point can you say that some Christian has gone so far off the reservation, that he’s really not Christian any more?

 

[Contarini]

Well, supposedly Stalin had been an altar boy, so I guess you could say Stalin was a Christian.

And Hitler supposedly had been baptized Catholic, so I guess you could say Hitler was a Christian.

At what point can you say that some Christian has gone so far off the reservation, that he’s really not Christian any more?

At the point at which he says so (when speaking sincerely, at least). Stalin clearly didn’t think he was a Christian. Hitler is more complicated, and closer to Breivik. Certainly some of the Nazis were Christians. The question with regard to Hitler would be whether he genuinely regarded himself as a Christian, or whether he just claimed a Christian mantle at times for PR reasons. I’ve heard both things claimed about him, and I’m not an expert on the subject (the sixteenth century is depressing enough). On the whole I am more inclined to believe that Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, but perhaps he did in the same cultural sense that Breivik does.

What’s clear is that neither Breivik nor Hitler is/was an orthodox Christian. But I would define the word “Christian” very broadly, because otherwise you wind up with no good way to describe folks who are clearly shaped by the Christian tradition and still identify with it but do not conform to Christian orthodoxy. Furthermore (more seriously, because this is an ethical/spiritual concern) we let ourselves off the hook in an irresponsible way when we say that certain people aren’t Christians just because they are nasty.

Whether we call Hitler a Christian or not, Christianity historically certainly bears some responsibility (by no means full responsibility) for his peculiar kind of nastiness.

And I’d say the same of Breivik.

Edwin

 

[Monte_RCMS]

At the point at which he says so (when speaking sincerely, at least). Stalin clearly didn’t think he was a Christian. Hitler is more complicated, and closer to Breivik. Certainly some of the Nazis were Christians. The question with regard to Hitler would be whether he genuinely regarded himself as a Christian, or whether he just claimed a Christian mantle at times for PR reasons. I’ve heard both things claimed about him, and I’m not an expert on the subject (the sixteenth century is depressing enough). On the whole I am more inclined to believe that Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, but perhaps he did in the same cultural sense that Breivik does.

What’s clear is that neither Breivik nor Hitler is/was an orthodox Christian. But I would define the word “Christian” very broadly, because otherwise you wind up with no good way to describe folks who are clearly shaped by the Christian tradition and still identify with it but do not conform to Christian orthodoxy. Furthermore (more seriously, because this is an ethical/spiritual concern) we let ourselves off the hook in an irresponsible way when we say that certain people aren’t Christians just because they are nasty.
**
Whether we call Hitler a Christian or not, Christianity historically certainly bears some responsibility (by no means full responsibility) for his peculiar kind of nastiness.
**
And I’d say the same of Breivik.

Edwin

Are you serious?

So Christianity is responsible for sin? And for evil?

Are you serious?

And equating extreme evil with “nastiness”?

My MIL is “nasty” but she could not be equated with Hitler or Breivik … [well, maybe in her case, just a little bit.]

But, seriously, I can’t believe you have said that!

And you’re a “senior poster” here!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

At the point at which he says so (when speaking sincerely, at least). Stalin clearly didn’t think he was a Christian. Hitler is more complicated, and closer to Breivik. Certainly some of the Nazis were Christians. The question with regard to Hitler would be whether he genuinely regarded himself as a Christian, or whether he just claimed a Christian mantle at times for PR reasons. I’ve heard both things claimed about him, and I’m not an expert on the subject (the sixteenth century is depressing enough). On the whole I am more inclined to believe that Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, but perhaps he did in the same cultural sense that Breivik does.

What’s clear is that neither Breivik nor Hitler is/was an orthodox Christian. But I would define the word “Christian” very broadly, because otherwise you wind up with no good way to describe folks who are clearly shaped by the Christian tradition and still identify with it but do not conform to Christian orthodoxy. Furthermore (more seriously, because this is an ethical/spiritual concern) we let ourselves off the hook in an irresponsible way when we say that certain people aren’t Christians just because they are nasty.

Whether we call Hitler a Christian or not, Christianity historically certainly bears some responsibility (by no means full responsibility) for his peculiar kind of nastiness.

And I’d say the same of Breivik.

Edwin

Responsibility?

Is this a joke?

 

[St_Francis]

… Furthermore (more seriously, because this is an ethical/spiritual concern) we let ourselves off the hook in an irresponsible way when we say that certain people aren’t Christians just because they are nasty.

Whether we call Hitler a Christian or not, Christianity historically certainly bears some responsibility (by no means full responsibility) for his peculiar kind of nastiness.

And I’d say the same of Breivik.

Edwin

As to the first point I quoted, defining who is and isn’t Christian is very difficult, because there are so many ways to define a Christian: anyone who has been baptized? Someone in Europe who isn’t Moslem? People who believe and live out their Faith? The word is used in So many ways that it have become equivocal.

Hitler rejected his Catholic Faith in favor of paganism; Stalin his in favor of communism.

Breivek himself said he was not a believing Christian but a cultural Christian, whatever he had in his head was not connected to God.

And as to your final slur against Christianity, people who commit violent acts against others aside from defensively are acting against the tenets of Christianity, so how you figure that Christianity bwars some responsibility for these acts is beyond me.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We have courses on angels.

Maybe we need a course on language.

And a course on word choices.

Someone else equated disagreement with “hatred” [their word].

So if someone disagreed with them, they accused the poster of “hate speech” … not making that up.

So, now an experienced poster is equating absolute evil with “nastiness”.

Like “Lucy” in the cartoon “Peanuts”.

And holding Christianity partly responsible for the activities of a psychopathic killer.

 

[Contarini]

Are you serious?

So Christianity is responsible for sin? And for evil?

Not in general, but for centuries of anti-Jewish prejudice which lent credibility to Hitler’s program, absolutely.

Are you serious?

And equating extreme evil with “nastiness”?

Probably you and I use “nasty” differently. I use it to mean “anything that rightly arouses extreme disgust.” You seem to see it as an essentially frivolous word.

And you’re a “senior poster” here!

Indeed. One of the benefits an Internet discussion forum offers us is the opportunity to encounter people who think and speak differently than we do. Apparently you have not yet gotten over the initial shock one feels at such encounters.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As to the first point I quoted, defining who is and isn’t Christian is very difficult, because there are so many ways to define a Christian: anyone who has been baptized? Someone in Europe who isn’t Moslem? People who believe and live out their Faith? The word is used in So many ways that it have become equivocal.

Indeed. Hence my dislike of attempts by my fellow-Christians to exploit this equivocation in order to define anyone for whose actions they feel abhorrence as “not really a Christian.”

Hitler rejected his Catholic Faith in favor of paganism

There does seem to be some evidence to that effect, but the evidence as I’m aware of it is conflicting and ambiguous. I repeat: of course Hitler’s beliefs were not those of orthodox Catholicism. At the same time, it seems clear that in early years and in public statements he identified himself with Christianity. He never publicly renounced his Catholic baptism, nor was he ever excommunicated. The dispute seems to be over the weight that should be ascribed to private comments he allegedly made later in life. I am quite willing to accept these comments as indicating that by the end of his life he had entirely turned against Christianity, but we should note that the evidence is somewhat tentative and inconclusive.

Stalin’s case is much more clear-cut. Perhaps the difference is largely the cultural context. Stalin would be expected to be an atheist as a member of the Russian Communist regime, while Hitler needed to maintain some public level of respect for Christianity in order not to alienate the majority of his subjects.

Breivek himself said he was not a believing Christian but a cultural Christian

Perhaps you can point me to the place where he said this. I admit that I have not slogged all the way through his manifesto, nor do I wish to (just as I have never been able to bring myself to read through Mein Kampf and rely on those brave souls who have). What I have seen is that he admits to not being very religious, which could mean anything from what you say (that he isn’t a believing Christian at all) to a typically European desire to avoid seeming “too pious.” Clearly his primary motivations were cultural rather than religious, but I have not seen anything to support saying that he was not in any sense a believing Christian.

Also, Christianity is a cultural force as well as a set of religious beliefs.

And as to your final slur against Christianity, people who commit violent acts against others aside from defensively are acting against the tenets of Christianity, so how you figure that Christianity bwars some responsibility for these acts is beyond me.

Because your interpretation (which is also mine) is hardly the only one held by Christians historically, or even the view held by a clear majority.

Of course, perhaps the kicker is in the word “defensively,” which can mean a lot of things. But then, Breivik could probably claim that he was acting to “defend” Western civilization.

If the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099 was “defensive,” then so is Breivik’s massacre.

Your “Christianity” isn’t a historical reality but your own construction.

Christianity is a historical religion. That means that we must be honest about our highly mixed historical record.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We have courses on angels.

Maybe we need a course on language.

And a course on word choices

Indeed. But clearly you and I have different opinions on who needs the course most.

I think that someone who assumes that his own language usage is the only possible one is in desperate need of a course on language.

Edwin

 

[St_Francis]

Indeed. Hence my dislike of attempts by my fellow-Christians to exploit this equivocation in order to define anyone for whose actions they feel abhorrence as “not really a Christian.”

It’s a careless but generally acknowledged way of saying that the person’s actions are against the teachings, like CINO, cafeteria Catholic.

However, it seems that Breivik considered himself a cultural Christian rather than a religious Christian, altho he seems to have considered the religious aspects and not taken them up. In his teens, he had become involved with the Norwegian church and been baptized and confirmed, but does not seem to have been practicing any sort of Christianity nor acting in the name of or under the auspices of Christianity, despite having quoted OT passages justifying his taking up of arms.

Here is one quote I found (i know some who read a lot of the manifesto but can’t find it online): 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 Christians.

Perhaps you can point me to the place where he said this. I admit that I have not slogged all the way through his manifesto, nor do I wish to (just as I have never been able to bring myself to read through Mein Kampf and rely on those brave souls who have). What I have seen is that he admits to not being very religious, which could mean anything from what you say (that he isn’t a believing Christian at all) to a typically European desire to avoid seeming “too pious.” Clearly his primary motivations were cultural rather than religious, but I have not seen anything to support saying that he was not in any sense a believing Christian.

As per the quote above, he seems to have considered himself more of a cultural Christian than a religious one. (I can give you a link if you want, but it’s to an article and I have trouble with links)

Also, Christianity is a cultural force as well as a set of religious beliefs.

Well, I don’t really know what you mean by that…

Because your interpretation (which is also mine) is hardly the only one held by Christians historically, or even the view held by a clear majority.

Of course, perhaps the kicker is in the word “defensively,” which can mean a lot of things. But then, Breivik could probably claim that he was acting to “defend” Western civilization.

If the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099 was “defensive,” then so is Breivik’s massacre.

Your “Christianity” isn’t a historical reality but your own construction.

Christianity is a historical religion. That means that we must be honest about our highly mixed historical record.

Edwin

The events in Jerusalem 1099 were a part of a war. There is no way to characterize what Breivik did as a war or in any way comparable to the Crusades.

And it is because of Christianity that we have the level of civilized thinking we do now about war and violent actions, and even toleration for those who are different from us.

Breivik was angry and just used all these things to justify his actions. I can understand his concerns–but they in no way justified his actions.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and several other groups had a “problem” with the Jews, but you can’t pin that on the Christians. Because their “problems” with the Jews occurred LONG before the Christians arrived on the scene.

Sorry … Hitler and Stalin were just plain evil.

Can’t blame what they did on Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora

After the year 630 AD, the Muslims also had a problem with the Jews … but they also had a problem with Christians … can’t blame that on Christianity.

The Mongols also had a little problem, but they were equal opportunity killers. Can’t blame that on Christianity.

 

[St_Francis]

…

Are you in Europe or the UK? I just remembered they use the word Christian differently over there.

 

[Rock_Happy]

…who was a self proclaimed Christian anti-Islamic far right nationalist? Is he dismissed as a phony as no real Christian would kill another person? Or can it just be said that he needed a lot of help? Would it be absurd, while admitting fully that he did wrong, for somebody to sympathize with his frustration with society?

What about people like Hitler for that matter who are often thought of as being far-right (though I don’t understand how slightly right = small government, more right = even smaller government, far right = huge government) and supposedly Christian?

How do people respond to this?

The Church has a long and distinguished legacy of antisemitism, including putting Jews in ghettos, denying them work, requiring them to wear badges… and then there were the Crusades, burning heretics, etc…

So if this was murder based on religious bigotry, it seems extreme today because it is displaced in time by some centuries, and not appropriate today. The Church changes its moral teachings over time, or this guy’s actions might be entirely acceptable today as it might have been some while back.