Huffington Post:
Bill O’Reilly sternly criticized the media for describing Anders Behring-Breivik, the man who has admitted to committing the mass killings in Norway, as a Christian, saying that such a thing was “impossible.”
O’Reilly singled out the New York Times, which called Breivik a “Christian extremist” in an article. Breivik also referred to himself as a Christian, as did the Norwegian police, and his 1,500 page manifesto has been described as coming from a Christian perspective. In the manifesto, he writes that he does not have a “personal,” religious relationship with Christ, believes in Christianity “as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform,” which he says “makes [me] Christian.”
To O’Reilly, though, it was “impossible” that Breivik is a Christian.
“No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,” he said. “The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith…we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.”
I sure don’t recall O’Reilly howling over a man named Scott Roeder entering the church of Dr. George Tiller and gunning him down execution style. Dr. Tiller was an abortion provider.
Is it because O’Reilly had gone around for years before calling Dr. Tiller, “Tiller the Killer?” Was Scott Roeder a Christian? Is he not howling because Dr. Tiller is only one person?
Don’t people get to determine if they are Christian or not? Isn’t it up to that person and his or her God to determine that? I think we, as human beings, can certainly address ‘Christian behavior.” We all have a pretty good idea what constitutes good Christian behavior and I think we are entitled to give our opinion on such behaviors. However, I don’t think O’Reilly or any other human being gets to stand in judgement of whether someone else is a Christian or not. That is a self-identifying task that no one else can do for you.
Did Billo say anything about his old buddy Glenn Beck comparing the kids killed at the camp in Norway to the Hitler Youth in WWII? When people started calling Beck out on his crude analogy to the Hitler Youth he retaliated by saying the criticism of his remarks showed the Nazification of America. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/07/26/2011-07-26_conservative_pundit_glenn_beck_defends_his_right_to_use_nazis_hitler_for_compari.html?r=news
Glenn Beck is one sick puppy, comparing child murder victims to Nazi youth. Good for Fox in firing him.
I don’t know what O’Reilly is mad about since Breivik refers to himself as a Christian. I don’t see O’Reilly being upset that the media called bin laden a Muslim.
I’m with Bill on this one. Breivik’s actions are antithetical to everything Christ taught and that Christianity stands for. He calls himself a Christian but his self-appellation does not make him one. I can call myself a vegetarian, Socialist Martian but that doesn’t make it so.
Moreover, the “mainstream” media goes apoplectic when anyone refers to a “Muslim” terrorist, or a “Muslim” extremist. Why the willingness to label evil behavior “Christian?”
NTK,
I couldn’t agree more. If I claimed to be a Vegan, and you believe that veganism is the “natural condidtion” man was meant to live in, you’d be well within your rights to rebuke me if you saw me wolfing down a T-bone streak. Even more so if I had actually killed the cow, butchered the cow, then cooked and ate the steak.
No one is labeling the behavior “Christian.”
However, people decide their own state of being. I agree that the behavior isn’t what we describe as ‘good Christian behavior.’
I just don’t think we get to decide who is or who is not a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddist. We get to hang our own labels.
@Steve and NTK, we aren’t talking about a label that is based soley on behavior. One’s religion is generally based on one’s belief system, rather than outwardly shown behavior.
The crux is this. Calling yourself “Christian” is a meaningless self-identification, and whether others call this guy “Christian” is meaningless. The term implies nothing in particular, and it means wildly different things to different people. It’s analogous to whether someone would consider themselves “cool”, “sexy”, or any other adjective that is not objective in nature.
I challenge anyone here to give me a definition of what “Christian” means, that would be acceptable to the majority of self-identified Christians.
Some would say it means you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Others would say it just means you think he was good and want to follow him. Others think you need to be baptized and/or “born again”. Some think it implies you believe the Bible to be literally true, while others say well it can’t be literally btrue as it contains contradictions and was clearly man-made. Can you believe there are no “four corners of the earth” and still be Christian?
Do you have to believe that the four versions of the “gospel” are all lterally true simultaneously, even where they differ, to be a Christian?
Is it enough to want to follow Christ and do his work? If so, Breivik probably qualifies.
Many people have a loose definition that if you kind of believe in God and occasionally in your life go to church, you’re Christian. Which is as valid as any other definition.
Another possible definition would be that you are Christian if and only if by benefit of accepting him into your heart, you have a legitimate and special connection to a divine power that you would not otherwise posess. Which is crazy as f***. Anyone that really believes that is self-deluded (though hopefully not enough toi plant car bombs or shoot kids).
@Need to Know
If you really want the truth it’s this… The left, and MSM, have no problem with describing this guy as a “Christian” because to the left “Christian” is often associated with “Republican” or “right wing”. They practically cream their pants when a “Christian” does something like this and they freely describe him as such as often as they possibly can.
It’s a nice technique they use quite often to associate this guy, and anyone who does similar disgusting acts, with Republican’s or the “right wing” or anyone who opposes thier views. They do it every time there is some nut out there killing people. Look at the AZ shooting.
But your 100% correct, on the other hand they pretty much never say “Muslim terrorist”, “illegal alien”, “illegal immigrant”. Why, well it just doesn’t fit their agenda.
@Dan
1. Please don’t be vulgar.
2. Breivik describes himself as Christian.
3. How on earth can anyone turn something this dreadful into a political issue.
4. You make Christians sound paranoid.
5. Sometimes people who are Christians do bad things. If they are doing whatever in the name of God, or they perceive they do, more accurately, should that never come up?
Scott Roeder was a Christian who had some connection to a Messianic Jewish community. Now who gets to own that loser? Do we say he was a Christian or a Jew?
6. I don’t recall anyone saying that AZ nut job was any religion at all.
http://www.tobytoons.com/td/files/toons/2011/20110724_norway.jpg
Moon,
I could agree with the logic in the original post, that it’s not up to man to decide who is a “Christian” or not, but it is not an illogical leap to expect someone who professes to be a “Christian” to live their lives according to Christ’s teachings.
While “behavior” is an outward expression of one’s internal beliefs, a reflection of their morals, or lack thereof, in the case of Christianity, it is the “fruit” of salvation, rather than the “root”. But, ones religious beliefs are not some little hermetically sealed, sacrosanct section of their personality. To profess to believe one thing, yet engage in contrarian behavior, is…oh what is that word so oft used by so many on this blog?…..(does best Antonio Banderas impression)…ah yes….Hypocrisy!
So, the next time a professed conservative, fiscal or social, “family values” type receives top-line billing in a post, the same argument you have used in the quoted comment can be used to completely refute the assertion in the post, and the barrage of comments in support thereof as well.
Lastly, there is nothing wrong with one Christian believer rebuking another, when the subject of the rebuke is committing a sin, if the purpose of the rebuke is to “build the believer up, and not tear them down”. As a matter of fact, believers are called to do this, to come alongside of the fellow member of “the body”, and get them pointed back to the Word. If you think I am incorrect here, or off base, I would be happy to point out the multitude of scriptural verses that clearly state this. Paul was very clear on this subject to the various churches and individuals to which he wrote his letters.
The problem is, many have read (or heard) the piece of the Sermon on the Mount, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” and quit reading (or listening) after that. What Jesus was saying is “examine your own heart first”. If I was cheating on my spouse, my pastor, my family, my friends would be on some very firm scriptual ground to do so. Just because we all sin in some way, it is not “hypocritical” for one believer (or even a non-believer, as the Lord wastes nothing) to point out the sin of adultery to me. What Christ was saying is, if you are committing adultery, don’t judge someone elses adultery. What I find odd, it that many of those I have encountered who throw this “judge not” verse around, also subscribe to “moral relatvism”. Now I study scripture almost daily. Regarding behavior, it’s pretty darn clear, and in almost all cases, morally absolute. And it should be. Afterall, the great “I AM” created the Word. He will be doing the ultimate judging.
I think O’Reily was reacting to the fact that the Press is subtley attacking Christians, by describing the confessed murderer as a “Christian Extremist”. Considering that the killer, by his own admission says that he doesn’t have a personal relationship with Christ, but “believes in Christianity”, I have to wonder from where he was getting his guidance to murder people. As far as the murderer of Tiller goes, he will be judged as he has judged. He committed a murder, because he judged another to be a murderer. That is between him and God.
I agree with Steve too. As much as I agree that because someone says they are muslim and committs a terrorist does not represent Islam. Just like the man who killed Dr.Tiller does not represent all anti abortion people who are also Christian.
Moe made an very valid point. I was horrified by the comparison by Beck to the youth camp being akin to Nazi’s, almost as if to suggest those kids deserved this horrific act? Why is he still on any airwave?
“As the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth,” he said. “Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.”
This should be an abolute non-story. And I would find it disturbing if left-wingers or right-wingers opened up day camps in America. And Hitler Youth is a valid comparison point.
(Beck might be just the guy to ppen a string of such day camps, though).
I thought what Rick thought when I first heard Beck. Then I thought maybe it was just me.
I haven’t seen the press attacking Christians over the Norwegian murderer. The fact that he was described, briefly, as a ‘Christian extremist’ isn’t earthshattering. Actually, I think perhaps it is important to the story because when the story of the bombing and shooting first broke, the news did mention ‘muslim extremists’ perhaps being behind it all. I recall the same thing happening right after the Oklahoma City bombing. I don’t recall if McVey had strong ties to the Christian community but I would probably describe him at least as culturally Christian.
I actually don’t disagree with anyone. There are many styles and varieties of Christianity. I am of the mindset that people can certainly believe that Christ is the son of God and still do some pretty awful things. Of course it isn’t what they are supposed to do.
Let’s look at degrees. Christians drink, cuss, gossip, cheat on their taxes, and eat grapes in the grocery story. Hitler also professed to be a Christian although I don’t think he was a regular church attendee. Henry Viii had all sorts of people beheaded and gutted like a fish, all while being defender of the faith. I don’t think anyone would argue that he wasn’t Christian. Now they probably would say that he was a poor example of how Christians should be behaving.
I think this all boils down to what being a Christian means to different people. I don’t think I get to decide if a person is a Christian or not. However, I sure do get to decide, based on my value system, whether someone’s behavior is Christian or not.
We have all known some mean ass son of a bitch who cheated the paper boy, kicked dogs and cats, cussed at his neighbors, talked about his co-workers like they were rats, deliberately ran over a kid’s bicycle, beat his wife, ignored his needy parents, and terrorized his kids, yet sat in the front row every time the doors to his church opened up. Is this guy a Christian? Well, yes. but his behavior is certainly unChristian.
O’Reilly doesn’t get to play God and decide who gets to be Christian and who doesn’t.
According to webster’s:
Chris´tian
n. 1.
1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.
The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
That is a pretty broad definition of Christian.
I still haven’t heard snickering. Where might I look?
According to that definition, the maniac is Christian.
In the hypersensitivity some have about calling this guy “Christian” once or twice, we should all admit a certain irony in the events. When we heard about the insanity, most of us presumably assumed that Islamic terrorists were likely behind it. When it was actually someone who was motivated by hate for Islam and Muslims.
I did not question when he was represented in the press as “Christian”. I did not go on the offensive and declare he could not be a Christian. He is an extremist pure and simple. Political, muslim, christian, jewish, agnostic…extremists exist in society, they have, and they will. He is what he is…a person with grandiose dreams of saving something he strongly agrees with. He is a mentally unstable though highly intelligent individual bent on saving something he feels is important, not unlike other extremists. I really don’t think “mentally imbalanced” adheres to one religion or political party. Christians have killed for many reasons for many centuries through out history. We’re all human after all.
I have been a Christian my entire life. What baffles me is why some Christians get paranoid over religious issues. I think the only people who do get paranoid and who feel picked on are people who prefer to use the term Christian in an exclusive way. In other words, they belong to the REAL Christian Church and everyone else is a fake.
Christian Extremist
Chris´tian
n. 1.
1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.
Um…then that person would be a very peaceful person that loves people that believes that Jesus is the Son of God and the way to God is through him………
not a violent maniac that plagiarizes other terrorists
Moon,
How is that a broad definition? What would narrow it without changing it completely? It looks like it would cover every “flavor” of Christian.
@cargo, yes it was a broad definition. Is that ok? It includes many different versions of Christianity it seems. I have no problem with it.
Not all Christians are very peaceful persons that love people. Some people fall short of that mark. Way short. Pedophile priests are Christians. They have strayed…..way off the mark. Some of the televangelist fellows who had affairs, picked up hookers of both sexes etc, fell short of the mark. They were still Christians.
Then there is some nut job who goes postal and bombs and kills. He wasn’t muslim, jewish, buddist, etc. He was Christian. Those dudes who set fire to themselves during the Vietnam war were Buddist monks. They weren’t Christian, Jewish or Muslim…
Glenn Beck used stupid language. He should not have said what he did, in that way. He used “hitler youth” as short hand for political indoctrination. Because that’s what the camp was….a camp for left wing politically active teens run by the Norwegian Labor party.
They did things like practice demonstrations against Israel.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/norways-ambassador-to-israel-defends-palestinian-terror-after-oslo-massacre/
But, I reiterate, he should have chosen his words more carefully. He is his own worst enemy.
Looks to me like everyone here, including O’Reilly, is coming to the same conclusion but via marginally different roads. Anyone can call themselves a Christian; but, it seems to me that actions without repentence in violation of precepts common to all Christians, such as the Ten Commandments, can be a self-negation of that label.
In any case, I recently saw an article by someone who had actually read all of that monstrously convoluted manifesto issued by Breivik. The commentator’s conclusion was that there is really nothing in it which would conform to the common conception of a Christian and that it actually mocks that conception, using such odd terms as “Christian-atheist” as one of the few categories acceptable to Breivik for participation in a secular European state devoid of any outside cultural influences. From the excerpts I saw, I do not think there can be any doubt that Breivik is way out there in some kind of philosophical never-never land — unfortunately very tragic for others.
@Moon-howler
By definition, then, those “unpeaceful” people or criminal people, are NOT Christians.
They are just calling themselves such. A pedophile priest may be a Catholic priest, but he is NOT acting in accordance with Jesus’s teaching, and therefore, is being UNChristian.
I, myself, though Catholic, probably don’t fit that definition, since I have trouble following the precepts of Christ. I’m a little to unforgiving of my enemies.
In Billo the Comb-over’s book, what fraction of those who claim to be Christian are actually Christians?
Well. Rational1o, when you start off a post by mocking the fact that a chap may be losing his hair, it hardly seems appropriate even to address your question. I am sure the fellow would much prefer not to be losing that hair. Are we to assume then that you are the personification of flawless human beauty as depicted in work of the scuptors of ancient Greece and Rome, an Adonis sans pareil, a gift to the human eye? Maybe if you could rephrase the question?
@Wolverine
I wishn I coold tawk as good as you’n…..
That was just….effin…great!