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.