A Simple Question About That Norwegian Mass-Murderer…

Actually, in his ‘manifesto’ he says he doesn’t believe in the divinty of Christ.  He claims he’s a ‘cultural Christian’, which appears to mean he values Europe’s Christian heritage, whatever that may be.  I’m not defending him, nor Christians, but he doesn’t seem to be Christian in any recognised sense. 

At what page? I only know that he says you don’t have to be Christian to be a member of ‘his’ Knights Templar.. And that just requires being a cultural Christian..

And the diary part of the book have him praying to God not to fail or something like that, can be found cited in the media (at least here in Norway)

And he  calls for the Norwegian State Chuch to go back to basics and be more Catholic whatever he means by that. And voted for the most conservative people he could during the church vote..

Dang it I can’t copy and paste without the format messing up. I’ll have to edit my response.

Unlikely to be a living hell as Norwegian prisons are rather humane.. (But hated as he will be he’ll not have a too easy time)

21 years is the maximum sentence that can be giving for terrorism and most other offences.. 30 years for crimes against humanity (which probably will be added to the current counts of terrorism)

If he gets 21 or 30 years as a sentence doesn’t really matter that much if he gets ‘forvaring’ which means he can be kept in jail for life as long as courts keep finding that he is a danger to society and/or at high risk of him repeating his crimes.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60739170/2083-a-European-Declaration-of-Independence
3.139: ‘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’.
So, perhaps he’s not so much denying the divinity of Christ (mea culpa) but is admitting to not having a relationship with him (I know, impossible with a dead guy, anyway). On the basis of loopy Christian doctrine it is this that bars him from heaven, not his acts over the weekend.
Btw Hemant, the new site is so much slower than the old one you used.

of course actions are important to christians.  otherwise they wouldn’t care if people slept with someone of the same gender, or if people get abortions. 

That’s the problem with Christian doctrine: It makes absolutely no sense in the real world whatsoever.

That’s why it’s always good to point out that most Christians really have absolutely no idea what they “believe” in. They have no clue. They just are raised Christian and say they’re Christian and they’re offended when it’s criticized because it’s a personal identity thing to them. To them, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you believe and just the label you are. Sort of like “I’m American”, even though most people have never actually read the Constitution and understood it, and even though most people have no idea how the government operates in terms of the day to day nitty gritty.

That’s why, when you confront American “Christians” with the utter bullshit of their doctrines, they either:

1) Retreat into their “Patriotic” religious ferver, shutting off all input, as it would make them rethink their entire identity, or…

2) Start to say vague generalities such as “Yeah, I don’t really believe in all that…I’m just more spiritual” or “I just believe in Christ, but I don’t really believe in the bible” or other stupid statements like that, because that’s all they know. It’s sort of like saying “Yes, I’m American, and I’m really sorry my country does some shitty stuff sometimes, but you know…I don’t agree with all of it. I’m not sure about the specifics but I’m American and it’s my right to disagree with the government.”

That’s where they don’t get it: It may be their right to disagree with their government but, in Christianity, it is not their right to disagree with God. So, when they claim that, it’s useful to point out that this actually nullifies them as being Christian and actually makes them apostates. Of course, that might enrage them, but it’s the truth.

According to my bible teacher (when I attended a Southern Baptist school) once you’re “saved” you’re in no matter what you do afterwards. Your actions would determine the level of reward in heaven so the size of yoru mansion or the number of garages I guess. Thats how it was explained to me, makes perfect sense.

Any religious response to this relies entirely on “No True Scotsman”. It’s “Being Saved changes you. If Breivik had really been Saved, he wouldn’t have committed those murders.”

Of course, that means he can still be “Saved” in the future and will then go to Heaven as long as it’s fer real sure this time, yep.

I think we’re overlooking the role of the Holy Spirit.  The doctrine itself realizes the power of the Holy Spirit and says that a person who truly believes that Jesus is the resurrected son of God has the Holy Spirit living within them.  It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that a person’s heart can change.  So a mere outward confession of faith does not necessarily mean that he believes what he is saying.  If somebody tells you they’re a vegetarian, you’ll most likely give them the benefit of the doubt until they do something contrary to what a vegetarian does.  If you see them eating meat, then you wouldn’t consider them to be a vegetarian anymore even if that person still claims to be one.  Would Breivik go to Heaven when he dies? His outward confession of faith doesn’t answer that question.  Not even his actions answer that question.  If Breivik still has yet to actually believe what he says he does, then the answer is no.  But if, before he dies, God changes his heart, then yes he would go to heaven.  Neither the outward confession of faith nor the actions of that person in their life prior to God’s heart change affect if a person goes to Heaven or not.

Not trying to pick fights, just my own understanding of true Christian doctrine.

Hoping to have an intellectual discussion.

Ya, baptists have some very odd views on that. I especially love the “faith not works” doctrine of theirs. Even though it flies in the face of the very words of jebus…

I personally separate Christianity from christianism by asking which part of scripture is most important: John 3/16 which is exclusive or Luke 10/25 (the good samaritan) which is inclusive and is based on the great commandment.  Evangelism in my opinion does not represent the essence of Christianity but merely compensates for low self esteem.  I would assume that this is true with other religions also.

This generally falls under the debate of Faith Vs Works which is a question I have thrown at Christains many times. Educated Christians that actually read The Bible seem to be split on this. Some seem to use John 3:16 as the end all, be all argument and that faith is all you need. Others say that if you aren’t acting in accordance with Christ then you don’t really have faith anyway and maintain that simply believing is not sufficient. I can’t list Bible verses anymore, but this is something I’ve seen debated by Christians in a fairly heated manner.

To me an interesting example is someone like Mark David Chapman. This man is a murderer but since then has been a very committed Christian. I’m not sure if he is “Born again”, in the sense that he converted after his crime, but I think most Christians would agree that Chapman has been redeemed and will go to heaven, despite committing one of the most heinous of human crimes (murder).

No what I’m saying that once the Holy Spirit is living within him, then his heart and actions would be changed.  If this man has yet to believe what he says he does, then the Holy Spirit is not living within him.  In my understanding, a person who has the Holy Spirit will not commit such crimes, but then again, mere humans cannot know nor judge the heart.  If Breivik does have the Holy Spirit living within him, then he has chosen to ignore His (the Spirit’s) powers and His leading.

This isn’t really a ‘fair’ question–there’s so many qualifiers and hypotheticals buried in it that it makes answering an exercise in gymnastics.

First off, which group of Christians are you talking about?  When you talk about “what the doctrine says”, I have to giggle, because if all Christians agreed on what the doctrine says, there wouldn’t be so many sects, denominations and so forth.  Even within the same denomination, you’ll find intense debates on what should be emphasized more.

I can answer the question in relation to the Episcopal parish I grew up in, if I’d asked my priest about it:  “Yes, he ~could~ go to Heaven, if he accepts God’s word and repents his sins.”

However, there’s a LOT of unpacking that goes with that.  The biggest one is in the concept of Purgatory.  CS Lewis (I know, I know–this isn’t about his lame-ass “proof”, though, it’s about doctrine) posited in The Great Divorce that there is no functional distinction between Purgatory and Hell, save one that the soul itself makes.  Since Hell is, in essence, the absence of God, a soul unwilling to surrender the sins weighting it down, even in the presence of the divine, will remain in Hell.  One that chooses to accept the Word, even after death, will go to Heaven–and thus, the place the soul waited until doing so would be Purgatory, not Hell.

Being a Christian in life, according to this view, is primarily a way to prepare yourself for the later process of shedding your sins in Purgatory.

The Holy Spirit has the power to lead a person in a certain direction in a manner that is absolutely irresistible.  However, the Holy Spirit does not have to exercise this power at all times.  It’s not logical to say that because He did not, He can not.

Seems to me his main motivation was hatred of Islam.  Plenty of Christians have that, but it also appears a very clear distinguishing mark of the secular atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris to name but three.  Both the religious and the anti-religious should be very careful indeed

It’s actually a pretty mainstream position for European conservatives. Unlike American politicians you will rarely if ever find them talking about god or Jesus in public. Instead they base their decisions on things like tradition and culture

Crosh did say, “for the sake of argument”.  We’re trying to have an intelligent discussion.  If you don’t want to take part in it, you don’t have to.

I will concede that if the Spirit were the only thing that humans had to base their religious lives off of then you have made a great point.  However, the Holy Spirit is not the only active person that directs a Christian life (according to Christian doctrine).  In John 1 the author speaks of Jesus and his incarnation in to flesh to dwell with humans as a human.  Jesus is called the Word of God.  Hebrews 4:12 says that the word of God is living and active.  So not only is there the help of the Holy Spirit, but we can also base our judgments off of the Bible (this is all still according to the doctrine which was the original point of this post.  Debating the logic of the doctrine or whether it’s true is an entirely different issue that’s not what I’m trying to do here).  Reading through scripture it can pretty clearly be seen that a voice inside your head telling you to commit terrorism is not from God.  And the Bible tells us that God will give us discernment on these voices.  Again, I am speaking strictly about my protestant doctrine and no other kinds of Christian doctrine or any other religious doctrine.

You were the one who mentioned logic

Oh, well, if he hated Islam, then he’s in. It seem that’s about all you need today to be a True Christian™.

It’s a question that’s somewhere near the center of the Catholic/Protestant schism. Different sects have very different answers to it

But doesn’t everything about religion  (including the bible) ultimately have to go back to the Holy Spirit?  Where did the bible authors get their ideas from?  They all claim it was the Holy Spirit (unless you think there was a Monty-Python-ish  parting of the clouds with God talking).   I view the bible authors with the same skepticism as anyone else who claims to have “heard the voices”.  Therefore I don’t view the bible as an independent source of authority other than believing in the Holy Spirit. 

I do understand that Protestants believe that the bible is a separate source of evidence.  I just think they are mistaken.

Edit: My comment completely DISAGREES haha..sorry my bad.

And Hemant, I just read the post by Rachel Held Evans you cite in the Anne Frank post, along with a fair number of the comments.

There are no words.

Ultimately it goes back to God the father who is seen to have authority over both God the son and God the Spirit.  Everything ultimately can lead back to the Trinity if you want to look at it that way according to religion.  And I understand that most people who read this believe that protestants are mistaken and that is why I made it a point to say that I am not here to argue the truth or lack thereof in the protestant belief.  I am simply responding to the original question posed which was in the context of “Christian doctrine”.  So while answering the question, I was simply providing insight on what the doctrine is (in my opinion) and what application it may have to the question at hand.

Also Jeff, I would love to talk with you elsewhere or at another time about what you’ve said about Jesus and the Spirit.  I just don’t think we should load this page up with comments that don’t deal with the original question posed.

I guess that’s right.  I didn’t differentiate between possible and probable.  Probable? No.  Possible? Yes, I was mistaken for saying no.   What I meant to say with what I said was that to my understanding, that’s not typically something that will happen.  But like I said before, if the person denied using the power and the leading of the Holy Spirit, the original sin that his human body is still plagued with could have taken over and done such a thing.  I know that original sin can also be debated, but we’re just assuming (for the purpose of a Christian answering this question) that Christian doctrine is being used.

Yeah, I would protest as well and say this as a general response:
An infinite, multi-dimensional universe in which matter changes, reforms, pops in and out of existence coupled with a god who manifests foundational paradoxes, one of which is hating sin while wanting all to be saved – can you connect the dots? I know its easy for everyone here to rehearse the same theological debates that were born out of medieval society, but wake up guys and gals. If you truly want to be the atheistic, free-thinking arbiters of empirical study and throw off the shackles of that “terrible evil” called religion, than why not get out of the elitist comfort zone that tends to soothe the frustrations of being stuck in a body for 80 years and then dying and actually address the apologia that hits a nerve…(Deep breath…) Or, at the very least, how about avoiding championing stereotypes and prejudices, whether they are being expressed by a random and irrelevant pastor or by yourself. Cheers.

If you can reference “an infinite, multi-dimensional universe” and “sin” in the same paragraph, I’d say you’re the one who is having trouble connecting the dots.

In a response to somebody else I had said that the Holy Spirit does have the power to urge in an irresistible manner in some cases even after the irresistible grace has been submitted to by the chosen human.  He does not always exercise that power but I think we can pull from scripture that the power does exist.  A person who truly has the Spirit has a battle going on inside their bodies that Jesus, James, and Paul all refer to about whether to serve the creator or the creation.  Jesus speaks on this when he says, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”.  Sometimes the flesh wins the battle because the Spirit has not exercised His power to irresistibly and absolutely make a person submit to the power that He offers.  But other times it is by the irresistible urge to serve the Creator that the flesh is overcome by the Spirit.  That is why the doctrine is about being humble and allowing the Spirit to do His work in the life of any follower.  So in this part of the doctrine, believers are not just directed to acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit, rather that WILL indefinitely happen if a person has received the Holy Spirit.  And Paul speaks to this when he talks about the fruits of the Spirit and the Spirit acting as a seal of our faith.  The Spirit is the one that is within us (we obtain the Spirit through faith) and does the good works that Paul and James both agree are the marks of a true believer of Jesus Christ.

Jesus was a rabbi, and spoke to a jewish audience. Literary criticism requires that one read words in historical and cultural context, so to say that there are verses in the bible that talk about eternal damnation while dismissing the jewish culture and historical context simply because we are talking about christians is misguided in my opinion. One of the hot topics in religion at the time was the dispute of saducees and pharisees regarding a spiritual afterlife. Which side did Jesus take? I don’t really know conclusively, but I presented my interpretation of the text. 

Concerning the verses, which one states that, when you die, you will burn in hell forever unless you ask jesus into your heart? Don’t forget to differentiate between heaven, hell, the new earth, and the second death. Again, literary criticism: context, culture, audience. From my limited studies, I have found that such concepts relate to the second death and new earth, NOT for an immediate post-death afterlife. Death in the bible is merely separation from god. Eternal death is permanent separation from god, i.e., the second death, NOT dante’s ridiculous hairy satan cave.

So, Adam, you’re, what, 20? 21? I’m just guessing those because, at that age, I made arguments eerily similar to yours and still eventually arrived at atheism.  Good luck!

I agree, its a straw man argument. One person does not reflect the group, the same way that Jared Lee Loughtner does not represent all or most atheists.

No, but pretty close! I have not yet been convinced otherwise because no one wants to play. Its understandable though – this is a comment thread and it gets really annoying how the more elaborate the responses get, the skinnier the text box becomes haha…thanks for the kind attitude though! And feel free to let me know what eventually changed your mind. I haven’t been really challenged regarding these subjects for a while.

although I appreciate that Jews don’t believe in eternal punishment

Actually, it depends upon whom you talk to. Many Orthodox do believe in it.

One person? Oh, give me a fucking break! This reflects what most Christians have believed for most of the past 2,000 years.

Christianity is what Christians believe – and this is part and parcel of it. From the beginning, whenever someone has come along attempting to promote a wider, more inclusive view, they’ve either been marginalized (as with some of the early Church fathers) or eliminated altogether (e.g., the Albigensians).

The fundies are correct; what the Liberal Christians believe isn’t Real Christianity™. It’s preferable, certainly – but Christianity it ain’t. The fundies can lay claim to having the authentic goods. Liberal Christians are inconsistent and frequently hypocritical – you can stomach Hitler burning in hell, but not Anne Frank.

Bill,  Yes, the Disqus comments system is only designed for a few levels of nested comments before they extinguish with shrinking margins.  I’d be happy to discuss the foundations of Christianity somewhere else.  One possibility is at my very humble blog.  I created a new post for this purpose. 

If what you say is true than there are perhaps a half-dozen “true” Christians on the planet.

There are no liberal Christians. That was my freaking point.

There is an old song that goes, “Lord, I want to be a Christian in my heart, in my heart.” (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/w/lwantbac.htm)  Atheist research has corrected these lyrics, it would seem, to ‘Nobody, I am a Christian if I say I am.’

Nope, not talking down.  Just saw your posts, noted the similarity and felt compelled to confirm the parallel.

I’d imagine further that you may be studying at a mid-size, relatively liberal, Christian school, but that might be overstepping.

As far as mind-blowing arguments go, that wasn’t how I got here.  It was by digging.

First, it was the troublesome texts.  Then, it was the systematic dismissal of modern church doctrine by way of historical analysis, cultural understanding, and the process of understanding and translating scriptures myself, until there was no reason for me to regard the Jewish and Christian belief systems as anything more than myth.

After that, to be sure, I dug through the holy texts of several other religions, and didn’t find anything to move me back toward any spiritual considerations.

From what I can see, you’re already a critical thinker, trying to draw some kind of logical universe out of everything you’ve learned, and it’s apparent that you have already rejected many doctrines of mainline Christianity.  I am pretty well assured that you are the kind of tolerant person that is not a thorn in the side of atheists, regardless of your religious classification.

That post went long, sorry.

tl:dr = You don’t need my help.  You’re cool.