Sunday, July 24, 2011

On Christian fundamentalism

We are told that Anders Behring Breivik, the man who bombed Norway’s government buildings and then went on to slaughter 92 of Norway’s youth while they were on a summer camp, is a Freemason. Here he is in his regalia. His Lodge must be appalled by the association. Breivik has been variously described as a ‘Christian fundamentalist’, a ‘neo-Nazi’, and a ‘Right-wing extremist’. His Grace has written before on the disconnect between left-right political philosophy and vernacular terminology, and the pervasive demonisation of the Right: how National Socialism is an expression of the political Right is an interesting discussion, but today His Grace would like to focus on the reported ‘Christian fundamentalist’ who is also a mass murderer.

Religious fundamentalism is not a new phenomenon: indeed, it is as old as religion itself, and is concerned with the believer’s adherence to foundational precepts. There is no one school of thought even within one religion: one Muslim fundamentalist may pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, and adhere to the Five Pillars; another will seek to wage war against the values of liberal democracy, blowing us all to smithereens and martyring himself in the process. The former is ‘devout’ while the latter has become an ‘Islamist’: the one who follows literally the example of Mohammed in bringing the sword to unbelief in order to establish the Caliphate. There are also Sikh fundamentalists and Hindu fundamentalists; indeed, all religions will have those whose belief is concentrated upon the fundamentals of their faith.

Like Christianity itself, Christian fundamentalism is expressed differently within each nation state and community. In South America, adherents of Liberation Theology who seeks social justice for the oppressed are widely considered to be dangerous political subversives and so fundamentalist. In the US, fundamentalism arose as a reaction to religious liberalism and tends towards literalism: that is, every word in the Bible means exactly what it says. For ‘creationists’, this means the world was created in six days. For others, the focus is on issues of morality like abortion and homosexuality: the ‘Religious Right’ are considered fundamentalists simply by virtue of their conservative views on family values. But if such views render Evangelical Protestants fundamentalist, a fortiori must they make Pope Benedict XVI fundamentalist, as many readers of The Tablet may attest. And if he be so, then so are all Roman Catholics who adhere to the traditions and obey literally all the teachings of the Magisterium. In the UK, the socially-conservative, ecumenical parliamentary group Cornerstone is considered somewhat fundamentalist; indeed, Alan Duncan once referred to them as the ‘Tory Taliban’. ‘Fundamentalism’ is a slippery term when applied to Christianity.

But never over recent centuries has ‘Christian fundamentalism’ been used to justify mass murder. We are not talking about bombing Dresden or sinking the Belgrano or any appalling loss of life within a context of war: we are talking about a professing Christian who decides to take the law into his own hands and act unilaterally. Anders Behring Breivik shows a remarkable ignorance of the teachings of Jesus, who exhorted Peter to put away his sword. To be a fundamentalist follower of Jesus would be to dedicate one’s life to celibate pacifism. And not only that, it would be to give away all that one has to the poor and live in a commune where everyone shares everything and all possessions are in common. Socialists often claim their political inspiration from such teachings, ergo the ‘fundamentalist Christian’ would be a ‘Left-wing extremist’ rather than one of the Right. The Christian is concerned with Scripture, tradition, and reason. And there are those who would add experience. But no Christian tradition at all, from the era of the New Testament and the Church Fathers through the Middle Ages, Reformation, Enlightenment, and on to modernity and postmodernity, could possibly, reasonably or scripturally be used to justify the shooting of 92 teenagers enjoying their summer holiday.

The Christian fundamentalist who advocates that such an atrocity may be justified as a reactiontion to multiculturalism is certainly no type of Christian. They may be fundamentalist, but their fundamentals are not founded upon New Testament principles, where we read that we must submit to the ruling authorities, love our neighbours and our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. The foundation, the crucial things in Christianity, were articulated by Hooker for the Church of England:
This is then the foundation, whereupon the frame of the gospel is erected: that very Jesus whom the Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost, whom Simeon embraced in his arms, whom Pilate condemned, whom the Jews crucified, whom the Apostles preached, he is Christ, the only Saviour of the world: ‘other foundation can no man lay’.
To believe this is to be a ‘Christian fundamentalist’, and His Grace is proud to be so. Individual believers may hold some things ‘weakly’, but those who deny them absolutely are in certain error. No Christian church can directly deny this foundation without ceasing to be such. Everything else - absolutely everything - is secondary, tertiary, or utterly peripheral.


Blogger Span Ows said...

I think in Africa (DR Congo?) there are indeed murdering Christian fundamentalists, Lord's army or something?

Anyway, Norway, the following video explains why he was most definitely "a Christian" but how describing him as one is completely wrong:

"Right-wing Christian or Media FAIRY TALE?"

24 July 2011 at 12:21  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

The term "fundamentalism" tends to be used in two senses, which should be disambiguated. There's fundamentalism as literal adherence to the tenets of the belief - for example, the idea that the Bible is literally true is fundamentalist. Arguably, the behaviour recommended by Jesus to the rich young man (and followed by St Francis of Assisi) is a form of Christian fundamentalism; perhaps the purest form of Christian fundamentalism.

But there's also fundamentalism as extremism - that is, acts of political extremism carried out (or extremist political beliefs entertained) in the name of the faith. Hindu "fundamentalism" is a (mis-named) fundamentalism in this sense; so is the action of Christians who shoot abortionists. "Extremism" is always a better word for it.

Islamism is an interesting case, because ONE FORM of fundamentalism looks an awful lot like political extremism in the name of the religion, in fact is practically indistinguishable from it. Violence in the name of Islam is more theologically plausible, given that religion's early history, than violence in the name of Christianity. That may be why it has proved so hard to eradicate.

24 July 2011 at 12:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That youtube video is crap. Crap superceded and found wanting by events.

24 July 2011 at 12:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it a Powellic river?

Or do we have to wait for a British version, best play it

Are our patriotic MPs about to lacerate and shred Powell's Lefty assassins, in front of open doors, with uninhibited rage, now that his words are ripening?

Nope, - but the bunkers getting a bit stuffy.

24 July 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger len said...

To be a Mason , a Nazi,a right wing extremist all these terms and philosophies bar the person from being a follower of Christ.
All these (above) make claim to being 'christian' or having some sort of links with Christianity but their actions betray their words.

Fundamentals of Christianity.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, without flaw in its original form.
Christ was born of a virgin.
The miracles of Christ are historical events.
Christ's Crucifixion is a substitutionary atonement (He willingly accepted the judgment for our sins).
Christ`s bodily resurrection.

Jesus said His followers would be known for the I really need to say any more?

24 July 2011 at 12:55  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Excellent post, Your Grace.

Just the words needed to defend Christianity from the simian mockery of the Left.

Your communicant anticipates that Rowan Cantuar will shortly deliver his own rebuttal of left-wing prejudice within the pages of the New Statesman.

24 July 2011 at 12:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God bless you, Len. Spot on!

24 July 2011 at 13:15  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Let's give the media some slack. I note that the suspect was an organic farmer, the owner of Breivik Geofarm, making him an "environmental fundamntalist," so no doubt apologies and corrections about his being a "Christian fundamentalist" are being penned furiously as we speak. Patience, any day now.

24 July 2011 at 13:38  
Blogger Manfarang said...

No true Scotsman....
Updated to- No true Christian...

24 July 2011 at 13:52  
Blogger Span Ows said...

That youtube video is crap. Crap superceded and found wanting by events. Dan, can you suggest one thing that is wrong in it, I mean factually wrong, not what you believe to be crap.

24 July 2011 at 13:52  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

Blogger len said...

To be a Mason , a Nazi,a right wing extremist all these terms and philosophies bar the person from being a follower of Christ.
All these (above) make claim to being 'christian' or having some sort of links with Christianity but their actions betray their words.

Fundamentals of Christianity.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, without flaw in its original form.

They and God might have a lot more in common than you think, if you take into consideration the flood proved by many archeologists to be true, I wonder how many innocents died in that act of God?

Or the many cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by God, were there no innocents in those cities, were even the children and babies evil and deserved to die?

Or the many tribes wiped out by the Israelites acting on the word of God. The first acts of recorded genocide.

Interestingly Atlas Shrugs has 2 screengrabs of Anders facebook page and it would seem to have been altered. Political agenda at work already?

24 July 2011 at 13:56  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I think he just became totally unhinged. That's the effect a Labour government's policies can have on one. They should come with a health warning!

24 July 2011 at 14:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Len, to be a Mason is also to submit to the law of the land. A vow is taken to this effect. In British freemasonry at least, treason, sedition and other disregard for the rule of whatever soverign power rules in one's respective country bar one from continuing as a Mason.

Whether that is incompatible with being a Christian has been the subject of extensive debate in an earlier post of his Grace. Likewise, the actual Nazis in Germany persecuted Freemasons. Some were sent to labour camps but I cannot dig up the figure at the moment.

But to be a murderer is to be incompatible with being both a Christian and a Mason (though not of course with being a Nazi).

It is interesting that he seems to have professed anti-Muslim sentiment of sorts. The Nazis during the war were allies of radical Islam, the grand mufti of Jerusalem having furnished the SS with 3 Muslim divisions in Bosnia. If he was a Nazi, and I've little doubt he considers himself one, he is an ignorant one.

I am a Christian and a Mason. That Norwegian mass murderer is no brother of mine.

24 July 2011 at 14:10  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

how National Socialism is an expression of the political Right is an interesting discussion.

Not really, understanding this miss-understanding is quite easy.

Nazism, and fascism, are a combination of selective parts of both the left and right. Sometimes known as The Third Way, Fabianisn, right-wing socialism, left-wing conservatism, centralism, Neo-liberalism, the establishment at work, or more accurately, what we actually get, and have long since effectively had, whether we like it, or not.

There, I told you it was easy. However properly dealing with the clear implications, is not quite so easy, to say the least.

The fact that the right genuinely believe that Nazism is left-wing, and that the left genuinely believe it to be right-wing, is all the evidence that is required to come to the above conclusion.

Word Verification is 'likewing,' which IS unbelievable, and also gives me an idea.

Nazism is not left-wing, or right-wing it is LIKE-WING.

24 July 2011 at 14:29  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

A 'fundamentalist' in modern parlance is one who believes that there exists a knowable revealed truth to which all men at all times are subject. This is what actually unites the 'Fundamentalist' Christian with the 'Fundamentalist' Muslim and the 'Fundamentalist' Hindu and 'Fundamentalist' [insert religion here.] They make exclusive truth claims about God. The modern world only allows for religion that refuses to make exclusive truth claims.

"Fundamentalists" offends the modern world by making exclusive truth claims about religion. They do not understand that the modern world has already exclusively claimed that right. It has already authoritatively asserted that there are no credible religious truth claims. It brooks no limitation on human autonomy. That is the actual question in view in this conflict. Whose will is the ultimate will in the Universe? Exclusive truth seeks to place boundaries around the autonomy of man. To which the modern world spits back "Fundamentalist! I will do as I please!"

The whole of the conflict in one sentence.


24 July 2011 at 14:29  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I thank your grace for his continued vigilance on how words and terms are used in the media , I got rather alarmed when fundamentalist christian was used every 15 mins .

broadley agree with what your grace says , although on another thread on here someone has expanded further how fundamental christian is used , like and accident waiting to happen .

christianity has become a subject with now uncommon words and phrases , perhaps it is a way of slow prejudice done by the athiest socialists .

24 July 2011 at 14:40  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

What an excellent article Mr Cranmer.

You have gone up enormously in my estimation, not that this will concern you too much.

24 July 2011 at 14:43  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Likewise, the actual Nazis in Germany persecuted Freemasons.

Yes, but this was not because German Nazism was not based on a form of Freemasonry because it is well documented that it most surely was, and still is.

Like all 'good' corporatists they sort to reduce or eliminate competition to themselves. Corporatism derives much of it power by creating monopolies, or conspiring duopolies.

Freemasonry is the only known truly universal institution.

Freemasonry encompasses all science, religion, political dogma, nationality, and spirituality.

As it is everywhere in general, it is also nowhere in particular.

24 July 2011 at 14:44  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

btw, we should stop trying desperately to prove this man was not a Christian. Do I have questions about the legitimacy of his faith? Yes. In his comments on '', he seemed much more concerned about the cultural aspects of Christianity than the spiritual. Even so, I have no idea what he believes. I don't know his relationship to God. None of us do. But this idea that "He can't be a legitimate Christian because he did this thing" is simply wrong. Christians sin. We all do spectacularly evil things in the eyes of God. It does not de-legitimize the faith to say this. It is in fact the central aspect of Christian anthropology - that we are all by nature sinful creatures. The believer still drags the old man with him.

If we say do not sin, we deceive ourselves and the Truth is not in us.


24 July 2011 at 14:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Span: "That youtube video is crap. Crap superceded and found wanting by events. Dan, can you suggest one thing that is wrong in it, I mean factually wrong, not what you believe to be crap."

Several. Assuming the latest published documents are not fakes, the perp has written about his Christianity and on his political views. Indeed, he has effectively produced a martyr video and document. In essence, and rather ironically, he's a Western shahid by the look of it.

Obviously events unfold in time and the media in particular usually takes a leap to try to capture the angle. The Merkin refers to the 'London' Telegraph several times. As you no doubt know, the Telegraph is a bastion of left-wing thinking in the UK and is clearly part of the left-ist media.

There are some quotes in his clip: one from the Oslo deputy police chief, and several from (I think) the Telegraph quoting from the perp's documents. But I doubt very much the Merkin has gone to the primary sources from what he says.

In essence, his interpretation is all wrong because he doesn't have the facts. He guessed, and guessed incorrectly: the perp self-identifies as a Christian and has been confirmed in the church, and he writes as a radical right person with Frankfurt School conspiracy-theory nuttery. The Merkin is simply attacking in all directions as a generic defense, in my opinion.

But don't get me wrong. I think the perp's Christian self-identity is incidental. Like in the UK with people having similar political views, I expect it's nationalism rather than theology there.

24 July 2011 at 14:50  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Dan, actually I think you're right. Things are changing rapidly...but right or wrong we will find out more tomorrow as he appears in court.

24 July 2011 at 15:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's gracious of you to say so. As you say, things are unfolding and I reckon some facts now could turn out not to be. There's a youtube video on twitvid, apparently his, that's quite disturbing in its own way.

The focus on his Christian self-identity is wrong in my opinion but to me that's not a left-ist media conspiracy but an over-compensation, meaning not-Muslim-afterall. I think we're better off seeing him as something along the lines of a radical right-winger or right-wing extremist.

24 July 2011 at 15:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems to me that one cannot be a killer, a thief, a liar and so on and be a Christian fundamentalist at the same time. Therefore the term 'Christian fundamentalist' as applied to these people is both dishonest and michievious.

24 July 2011 at 15:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would it be asking too much for the ArchbBishop of Canterbury to put out a similar statement?

Thank you Cranmar it was worth visting your blog today.

24 July 2011 at 15:44  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Thanks for facts by Span Ows. I wouldn't expect a factual response from DanJ0. I've always found the sceptics to be so full of rage that we actually have the temerity to believe that they cannot articulate a response. Just one reservation - Jesus criticized the OT teaching about an eye for an eye. Do you believe the OT is the inspired word of God without flaw or do you reserve that for the NT?

24 July 2011 at 15:50  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


Many of the laws laid down in the Old Testament are temporal rather than spiritual: Laws of Moses for the Israelite nation, not those of God. As the "eye for an eye" law concerned a temporal punishment, we can safely assume that this was not God's law. Other types of law that are part of this group include the laws of hygiene (e.g. kosher)

Thus when the new Christian denomination of Judaism rose, they stopped following Moses' (tribal) laws but kept those of God. So whilst adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder etc. may still be considered immoral, the punishment meted out by the Government does not have to be that prescribed in the Old Testament. There is no discrepancy: Jesus clarified the laws on morality and clarified the difference between Moses' law and God's law. It may be worth it to note also, that at the time the Israelites had only limited autonomy, and were subject to Roman laws (which overruled Jewish ones). Thus his presenting of the notion of intelligent non-violent protest. This is what inspired Martin Luther King and Gandhi if my history lessons taught me well.

I'm not a fan of sola scriptura, but I also think it's necessary to attempt to reconcile Old Testament with New before we consider its value as poetry and parable.

24 July 2011 at 16:08  
Anonymous Oswin said...

A lone (?) 'nutter' is all. Just another social-inadequate with a beef about something, or a name to carve in infamy.

Perhaps we'll hear more following his court appearance; but I don't think it will throw-up anything to change my diagnosis, regardless of his professed allegiances.

Had he been an adherent of the 'Manx Cat Appreciation Society' he would still have found cause to murder.

Terrorism we can defeat, one way or another; but we can't do a damned thing about the occasional nutter.

24 July 2011 at 16:12  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Shacklefree, I think I may upset you but IMHO the OT is in many ways on a par with the Koran: too much violent twaddle mixed in with some anecdotal bumph written by power hungry men: in no way or manner the inspired word of God.

The NT testament however, or at least the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (what Jesus was supposed to have said and done etc) is where the real stuff is (after that 'the Word' splits into too many factions and all is lost) and I am happy to "believe" it but not that he was the son of God, I think we are all wrong: like len said earlier in this comment thread, "Jesus said His followers would be known for the I really need to say any more?". Exactly, I believe that God is love and God is good, literally, 'God is the goodstuff', not the guy that made the world.

24 July 2011 at 16:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "Thanks for facts by Span Ows. I wouldn't expect a factual response from DanJ0. I've always found the sceptics to be so full of rage that we actually have the temerity to believe that they cannot articulate a response."

Oops. Here, let me help pick you up off the floor. Those banana skins lying around can be treacherous. ;)

24 July 2011 at 16:22  
Anonymous The Minister of Public Enlightenment said...

The fundamentalist christian tag has probably arisen because this man has appointed himself a Justicar Knight Commander of the Knights Templar. In his 1518 page manifesto entitled 2083 A European Declaration of Independence he selectively uses scripture verses out of context to justify his warped agenda. (pages 1327-1334)

He is a person who despises current Catholic and Protestant church authorities and advocates ecclesiastical regime change to support a Crusading rampage. (Pages 1403 and 1404)

On page 1404 he admits:
Regarding my own 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.

This man may be a fundamentalist but he is no Christian.

24 July 2011 at 16:25  
Anonymous David Harrison said...

After reading some of these comments I can only say that if his victims were anything like the "Christians" posting here then his work was well done and a blessing.

24 July 2011 at 16:51  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thank you, Your Grace.

You've allowed us to find your reference, which I presume is
from I Paul Corinthians 3:
9. For we are laboureres together with God:ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise
masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

A little more may also seem relevant today:
16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

wv: bommi

24 July 2011 at 17:05  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

"....Or the many cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by God, were there no innocents in those cities, were even the children and babies evil and deserved to die?...Or the many tribes wiped out by the Israelites acting on the word of God. The first acts of recorded genocide." Malvoisin, 13:56

Malvoisin zeroed in on a topic that makes many of us religious folk, Jews and Christians alike, cringe and squirm. And, this is how it should be and I would be very concerned if it wasn't the case.

I think that those of us who accept the scriptures as the words of of the Almighty have no option but to declare full acceptance of these commandments as inherently just, but unfathomable acts by a perfect and merciful G-d which, in truth, cannot be fully comprehended by us with our current mores, understanding and perceptions. Basically, we need to suck it up and bear up to the inevitable and understandable critiques and admit that "faith," in the sense of loyalty, is not always the easy path.

Personally, I try to understand and rationalize--not very successfully, I admit--such scriptural passages as dispassionate descriptions of historic events which occurred millennia ago and whose details are lost to history. In times when all warfare between settled cities and nomadic tribes involved what we now call genocide, not to mention rapine and plunder, no religious scriptural record attempted to limit the rational and put limits on the "permitted" victims, apart from the Bible. Personally, I focus on the facts that the scriptures enumerate and name specific cities and tribes and do not encourage us in any way to generalize these commands and events, to "carry them forward," to hunt down real or imagined descendants, or to infer subsequent, much less present day actions from them. Our scriptures contain meanings, layers and instructions for us to benefit from, but they cannot be understood by all peoples and at all times, as there are many passages which are mysterious not only to me, but to the sages, teachers and theologians. All I can hope for is that one day, G-d's mysteries will be either understood or revealed.

24 July 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Owl said...

I find it quite amazing that so many deranged white people become the "right-wing Christian" as if this is some kind of organisation to belong to. According to the MSM of course.

A classic example was Timothy McVeigh who in actual fact had very little in common with Chistianity and regarded himself as "a man of science".

TMofPE quotes page 1404 with the following "I guess i'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic"

This "right-wing Christian" thing seems to be a bogeyman to frighten the masses. The myth is now alive and appears to be the danger that our socialist masters will have to protect us against, usually with more laws (for our own good, of course).

Never waste a good opportunity seems more appropriate to the current situation.

The article from HG is excellently written but I wonder why he felt the need to write it.

My only mild surprise with the article would be his use of Hooker with the infamous "whom the Jews crucified" which is, to the best of my knowledge, historically incorrect and can be interpreted as supporting anti-semetism.

Please note that I am not in anyway that HG would be suggesting that.

24 July 2011 at 17:17  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"labourers"- sorry.

But, in addition, the words of the associated Wesleyan hymn also seem appropriate for our situation:
The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.

She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.

O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!

24 July 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Extremists begat extremism, he is a man lashing out at what he most likely sees to be Fundamentalist political ideology gripping his Country.

Just like David Harrison, there is always someone willing to condone extremist behaviour, for one reason or another.

If he had been dropping an Atomic bomb on a City for the Government, we would not be questioning his beliefs.

24 July 2011 at 17:32  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

[H]e is a man lashing out at what he most likely sees to be Fundamentalist political ideology gripping his Country.

Or perhaps he is a man who shot 100 kids just to get people to pay attention to his manifesto. In the end, he is nothing but a man with delusions of greatness who imagined himself triggering a great change in world history. He didn't change the flow of history. All he did was kill 100 people.

People shouldn't demean the fresh blood of his victims by turning this discussion to his 'cause.' That's what he wants. He wants to trade the notoriety of 100 deaths for a platform to preach his message. Who would have even heard of his 'Declaration' without the cruelty of this act? In an ideal world, he wouldn't get that public platform. His trial would be closed. His writings would be burned. Then he would be hung by the neck until he was dead, and his body unceremoniously dumped into an unknown spot in the Ocean.

Case closed.


24 July 2011 at 17:50  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Bitb @ 1732- Left the playground, as I said I would, but much appreciate your understanding. And yes, there are many other victims of the whirling cage of Fame: Elvis springs first to my mind!

But, back then young audiences were less affected by the corruption than they are now, when this d-s culture takes over more and more potential lives. I'm not alone in facing it every day; but none of us can achieve anything without cooperation from the victims.

And the topic is still relevant on this strand, which relates to a theme of "What are we doing to the children?" - For our Foundation enjoined us to "Suffer the little children to come unto me," (Luke 18:16).

Which brings me to an interesting approach to Stephen King's work, where Tony Magistrale suggests that the horror stories reveal an ongoing failure in this respect. King's child protagonists, Magistrale concludes, "are victimized by the inherited sins of an older world... [They] are constrained to pay for the mistakes of their elders; they do so at the expense of their transition into adulthood." How life does mimic art.

The essay especially refers to the story "Children of the Corn" - wherein children are sacrificed in accord with a Biblical sounding text: "Thus let the iniquitous be cut down so that the ground may be fertile again saith the Lord God of Hosts." This is an example of corrupt adult institutions and practices that result from falling away from God. Here it also relates to a theme of war, which you have mentioned above.**

Magistrale, Tony. "Inherited Haunts: Stephen King's Terrible Children." First appeared in Extrapolation in 1985. (Magistrale, of Indiana University, is a specialist in King.)

24 July 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

Why is the MSM not referring to him as a 'Christianist'?

24 July 2011 at 18:40  
Anonymous David Harrison said...

Rather hard to fathom how my comment is any more offensive than some of the racist, hateful, and wildly untrue comments which you have not pointed out. See Atlas Shrugged. If you all are willing to let that stand without challenge, I stand by my comment. And you are hypocrites as well.

24 July 2011 at 18:46  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

"Case closed"

He has not even been to court yet, he is no doubt an extremist murderer, but war is politics by another means and political ideologies have murdered millions.

Its not like he napalmed a village, or starved his own Countrymen to death.

The biggest atrocities are commited by those in power and that case will never be opened.

Lone deranged gunman.

Case open

24 July 2011 at 18:52  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Bred in the bone

He has not even been to court yet...

He has already confessed.

...he is no doubt an extremist murderer...

In which case, why did you say he hasn't gone to court yet?

... but war is politics by another means ...

He is not a soldier. He is just a killer with a gun.

... and political ideologies have murdered millions.

What has this to do with anything?

Its not like he napalmed a village ...

No, he just shot 100 kids so people would notice his brilliant leadership and rise up ... or something.

... or starved his own Countrymen to death.

No, he just methodically sought out and shot down 100 teenagers for his own self-aggrandizement. He's certainly not Pol Pot.

The biggest atrocities are commited by those in power and that case will never be opened.

Which is relevant how exactly?

Lone deranged gunman.

Deranged is probably not the correct word. I don't think he is mentally ill.

Case open

Not after he was dead and dumped in the ocean, it wouldn't be.


24 July 2011 at 19:15  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

David Harrison

See Atlas Shrugged.

So I looked back over the thread at comments by Atlas Shrugged to discover what you were talking about. I find two comment:

1. One about Freemasonry. It seemed a little too 'black helicopter to me' but racist, and hateful?

2. One about the political taxonomy of National Socialism. OK, I understand that the Left hates to hear this argument, but racist, and hateful?

I don't know what you think you are seeing, but a little elucidation would be helpful. It would at least make your argument something other than pretentious huffing and puffing.


24 July 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

No Offense Span Ows. Nice to have a courteous difference of opinion without illusory banana skins being placed in front of us.

24 July 2011 at 19:45  
Anonymous tony b said...

Carl Jacobs at 14:47 shows a grasp of basic Christian Theology that many here seem to lack. Not surprisingly no one has noticed.

24 July 2011 at 19:57  
Anonymous The Minister of Public Enlightenment said...

Absence of comment does not necessarily mean that no one has noticed Carl's theological proficiency.

24 July 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Madeline Albright said the killing of half a million babies in Iraq was worth it, to get rid of Saddam.

Judge this Man by those standards and he should walk free.

Exactly what theology fits any given scenario of mass murder.

24 July 2011 at 20:52  
Anonymous Tony B said...

BiB, to whom do you address your comment?

MoPE - true.

24 July 2011 at 21:14  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

"My only mild surprise with the article would be his use of Hooker with the infamous 'whom the Jews crucified' which is, to the best of my knowledge, historically incorrect and can be interpreted as supporting anti-semetism....Please note that I am not in anyway that HG would be suggesting that." Owl, 17:17

A good point, Mr Owl and you’ve reluctantly drawn me into a topic I’d rather avoid. Given HG's manifest character, his record of fairness and his staunch and rather exceptional support for Israel in a Church, a country and a continent not particularly famous for such, I too wouldn't think this. I cannot speak for HG, but I imagine he might be facing a similar conundrum to mine: either to accept the veracity and righteousness of his scriptures in their totality, to reject their factual basis and morality, or declare an “agnostic” position, an inability to fully understand the implications. It’s a day for heavy subjects, it seems, so here we go again.

This issue is indeed a great divide between Christians and us, Jews. Knowing of the uncounted deaths and horrors in the last two millennia that this charge of deicide has wrought on my people, not to mention having had it hurled to my face several times in the past, my blood will always run cold at the mere mention of it. I will always reject its historical and theological veracity and interpret it as a politically derived error. That is my privilege. And yet, the bottom line is that scriptures and beliefs don't kill people; people kill people. Just as the Romans and their descendants were never persecuted for the actual execution of the crucifixion, if such occurred, there is no scripturally based source that I’m aware of to persecute past or current Jews.

There can never be a full agreement on the historical facts and theological position between Christians and Jews; if there were such, we wouldn't be ourselves. Fortunately, though, much smarter people than I, on both sides of our divide, appear to be somehow dealing with (or dancing around?) this thorn and are somehow finding ways to repair the breach. However we may interpret the past, present or future, I think that the recent and miraculous Jewish return to the historical stage and the world events which seem to draw Christians and Jews ever closer are more than just a coincidence and will hopefully override past hatreds and heal old wounds.

24 July 2011 at 21:16  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Tony B said...
BiB, to whom do you address your comment?

Why to YGs communicants of course.

Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple wrote in 1935 "Shelve the responsibility for human evil on a Satan if you will; personally I believe he exists and that a large share of that responsibility belongs to him and to subordinate evil spirits"

24 July 2011 at 21:28  
Anonymous non mouse said...

The Far Left (BBC World Service) has just announced that the European Police Service has been directed to investigate "Far Right Extremist" groups in Scandinavian countries.

So this is it. The euSSR has an excuse to roll out armed forces against the citizens of sovereign nations. All in the interests of "normalising" us, of course. How much longer will we be free to question the euSSR on this blog?

We're safe for the moment, of course. Better trolls, even, than that lot.

24 July 2011 at 22:28  
Anonymous tony b said...

Non mouse, you appear to be trotting out the same bollocks as Brevik.

24 July 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I tried posting a comment on Reuters and I have been banned. That's censorship for you.

24 July 2011 at 22:59  
Blogger Owl said...

non mouse,

I noticed this statement today in an article in the Telegraph concerning Law and Order:

"Last week David Cameron suggested that senior officers from abroad could be brought in to “turn round” the police force."

I wonder which foreign policemen does Dave want to run the Force (er, our Police, you know, the British one)?

Does Dave consider that British plods are less able than EU ones or is he just taking his orders (again)?

As he is currently only "suggesting" this, we will be granted a short breathing space to get used to the idea and, I'm sure, enough "fear" will be implanted in the masses to maybe even get away with it.

Why is Dave even suggesting this?

tony b,

I wouldn't be too sure about the bollocks.

24 July 2011 at 23:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Christians must all surely agree on the fundamentals outlined in the post. However, even with the benefit of the New Testament writings, it took the church centuries to resolve many disagreements about these 'fundamentals', showing that the words of scripture are open to varying interpretations.

The variety of beliefs and positions held tend to be about interpretation and meaning and who can properly discern this. This leads to different views about how a christian should live and practise his faith. The spectrum is wide. From obedience to doctrines and canons from what is held to be direct authority from Christ, through to freedom for each individual to live their lives according to their understanding of scripture as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

So one church becomes divided and attracts different people to its different parts for different reasons.

A 'fundamentalist' who became unhinged about Islam may have been influenced by the near hysteria in some quarters over Muslims numbering christians and this is a socialist plot. He may have found a 'community' to reinforce his deranged beliefs rather than challenge them.

Certainly what he did not have was a pastor, a shephard, a counsellor, to guide him and help him understand the message of Christ and translate this into loving behaviours.

24 July 2011 at 23:05  
Blogger Owl said...

Mr. Barzel,

I agree, a difficult subject.

The historians seem to be in agreement that a crucifixion was only used by the Romans for slaves and the charge of sedition. The Jewish form of capital punishment was stoning to death.
The accusation would appear to be very political and, as far as I can ascertain, came into being after the fall of Jerusalem.

It surprised me that HG would use this phrase in his article as it seems very much out of character.

I agree that it was included within a quote which he was using to make a point, but even so, a bit strange.

Perhaps he will enlighten us.

24 July 2011 at 23:21  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

non mouse said...
"The Far Left (BBC World Service) has just announced that the European Police Service has been directed to investigate "Far Right Extremist" groups in Scandinavian countries."

What twaddle. The BBC reported the news it didn't make it.

"So this is it. The euSSR has an excuse to roll out armed forces against the citizens of sovereign nations. All in the interests of "normalising" us, of course. How much longer will we be free to question the euSSR on this blog?"

Hardly the end times, do calm down. The tanks aren't on the streets - we don't have enough.

Don't advocate a terrorist action and you should be okay. Mouth hatred, intolerance or shoot someone and you may find yourself in bother.

Made me laugh, so thank you.

24 July 2011 at 23:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


The religious leaders of the Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate and manipulated Rome into crucifying Him. They used the threat He posed to civil order, a lie, and the shouting of the crowd to secure His death at the hands of the Romans.

The cowardise of Pilate and the manipulation of him by the leaders of Israel brought about Jesus' death.

Who carries prime responsibility?

24 July 2011 at 23:42  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Mr.Owl -- oh. Obviously the EDL, BNP, and Wilders, have attracted attention. Though very likely they are aware that some of us post objections to the euSSR!

Anyhow-I just checked the Spectator's Coffeehouse blog, and some of their regulars are reacting similarly...

It's some time since I first heard of this euro militia: last year I think. I believe they've chosen the froggish name for it - perhaps they think that sounds better, in some way.

btw - I'm not up to date with Crucifixion scholarship. Everything I have indicates it was the Roman execution technique. Otherwise, I've always understood that Pilate deferred to the 'vote' of the Jewish crowd before he condemned Christ. They've said it was the "Crucify him; Crucify him!" (Luke 23:21; John 19:15)that authorised the event. Mind you, given our understandings today they may well have had 'plants'in the crowd. Is there some new argument nowadays?

24 July 2011 at 23:49  
Blogger Owl said...


Pilate was later relieved of his post due to his babaric treatment of the Jews. He was no coward and this story is a crock.

He also does not seem to be a character which could be manipulated by anyone.

As Jesus was not a slave, he could only be crucified when charged with sedition and that meant "against Rome".

Jesus was not crucified by the Jews.

If some of the religeous leaders of the Jews were active in getting Jesus brought to trial before Pilate then they bear the responsibility of that action, not the Jewish race (even most of those living at the time had never even heard of Jesus).

Dodo, I find your statements somewhat distasteful. These sort of unfounded insinuations have caused untold misery and persecution of innocent people (yes, including women and children) down through the centuries.

Don't you ever learn.

25 July 2011 at 00:03  
Blogger Owl said...

non mouse,

According to my readings, a crucifixion was abhorent to a Jew. It was referred to a "nailed to a tree".

The idea of the crowd shouting "crucify him" is totally illogical. If anything, it should have been "stone him".

The second thing which makes no sense at all is the rediculous idea that Pilate would have taken any notice whatsoever of the crowd. If Jesus wasn't tried for sedition then the crucifixion would have been illegal according to Roman law.

The persecution of the Jews is the greatest travesty of justice in human history.

25 July 2011 at 00:14  
Anonymous non mouse said...

TY, Mr.Owl. Interesting; and I'm certainly unhappy with any persecution of Jews.

On the euro rapid reaction forces -just did a quick search. A couple of years ago, they could deploy about 800 men fairly quickly, in response to civil disturbances. Several sources indicate that, in addition to the gendarmerie(EGF) for what looks like PIIGS, there's also a Swedish/Scandinavian version called EUFOR. The UN can call up these forces, too.

Perhaps the lovely Dave doesn't feel that armoured cars will be enough, once he's finished decimating our national armed forces.

25 July 2011 at 00:32  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Perhaps His Grace may wade in on this little issue of...ehem...deicide, Mr Owl, but let's not hold our breath. But he is on his private property here and it’s his prerogative either way.

One of my eyebrows dig go up, actually, but I would have thought it stranger, and somewhat worrisome had HG edited a core passage of his creed or, worse, had he served us a tepid portion of pabulum. Having been to a few soporific inter-religious dialogue to-dos, where squirmy issues, the kind that sizzle in the air, were never brought up in fear of ruining the dinner, I always felt somewhat cheated by the experience. I would like to think that we have reached a point in history where the squirmy stuff can be discussed calmly and safely between equals.

The historical approach would be of little help here, without indisputable and credible historical documentation or time travel, and we know how often that happens. You make impressive historical arguments, Mr Owl, and I have my own as well, but for myself, I don’t need to stray into secular historiography, as I may rely on the opinions of our sages and teachers who contradict the Christian narratives on this matter. Thus, when two parties disagree on the essential facts, debate is fruitless. So, for example, Dodo can maintain that Jews manipulated hapless Romans, and I can claim that the latter Christians threw the Jews under the bus out of fear of Roman persecution, and we can rattle on back and forth until the end of time with nothing to show in the end but bad bile. This is why it’s best not to hold religious debates between different religions.

25 July 2011 at 00:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Avi amd Owl

I'm only repeating the narratives in the New Testament. To do otherwise would be a lie. It may be disagreeable today, politically incorrect, but that is what the Gospels report.

The subsequent persecution of the Jews has no basis in scripture and hatred of the Jewish people was a disgraceful and shameful episode in the history of Christianity.

Christians believe the man Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, long promised to Israel. We also believe He was rejected by Israel, tried by their leaders and handed over to the Romans to be crucified.

The Gospels cannot be rewritten and we shouldn't deny what they say. However, it doesn't follow that the Jewish people should be hated.

25 July 2011 at 01:03  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Mr Owl,

If I may interject in the debate between you and Dodo, I note that he did not say or imply that all Jews at all times are to be held responsible for the crucifiction. History and dangers aside, not to mention my rising hackles, it is an important distinction which would have saved countless lives during dark times.

25 July 2011 at 01:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Owl said ...
"Dodo, I find your statements somewhat distasteful. These sort of unfounded insinuations have caused untold misery and persecution of innocent people (yes, including women and children) down through the centuries."

Hardly "insinuations" as I've said above. Not "unfounded" either if you're a Christian. And as for having "caused" persecution, well you cannot blame the authors of the Bible!

25 July 2011 at 01:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Christian I cannot understand how it is possible to hate the Jews based on Scripture. Jesus, Mary and Joseph were Jews, so were the Apostles, Mary Magdalene, Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon, Lazarus and his sisters, Joseph of Arimethea, St Paul, St Stephen, the five thousand who ate of the loaves and fishes, and the crowds who welcomed Him to Jerusalem. One bunch of Jews decided for their own reasons to get rid of a troublesome Jew. This is not unheard of in history. For example are we to hate the Greeks for killing Socrates? Or the French for the murder of Jacques de Molay?


25 July 2011 at 01:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further St John's Gospel, reckoned to be the main inspiration for antisemitism, starts Jesus' public ministry with the declation "..for Salvation is from the Jews" and ends with Pontius Pilate proclaiming Jesus the "King of the Jews".


25 July 2011 at 01:58  
Anonymous MrJ said...

While on the subject of the rescue of words from abuse there is a distinction which is more than fundamental, it is crucial ---

If a martyr is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief or cause, usually religious-- from (Greek: μάρτυς, "witness")

then the excerpt below from Abp. C. July 18 is correct, and that usage appears to be incompatible with the excerpt from July 24.

July 18: "If there can be no reasonable accommodation of religious faith in public life, then we have indeed lost a liberty for which our ancestors were imprisoned, tortured and martyred."

July 24:"...another will seek to wage war against the values of liberal democracy, blowing us all to smithereens and martyring himself in the process."

Is it not the case that the Temple authorities (led by Caiaphas) decided that Jesus be put to death by crucifixion and procured the authority of Pilate to do so; and that those Temple authorities were regarded as the "fundamentalists" of the Jewish regime of that time, and Saul at first was one of them and a zealous persecutor, until his experience on the Damascus road which moved him to take the name Paul, and to write of principalities powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places (mentioned in July 23, 5.36pm).

This appears to be a matter of historical fact. It is not a falsehood against the non-Christian Jews of that time or of any time since.

The struggels among the Jews at the time of the Maccabees and the intervention of Rome are well enough known, and the Jewish historian Josephus is another source.

25 July 2011 at 02:01  
Anonymous Anon 2 said...

Anything French falls into my rice pudding category, whoever Molay may have been. Unlike the Jews, the French are our traditional enemy: they perpetually conspire against us, they lie about us, and they have contributed more pain and suffering than benefit to our culture.

25 July 2011 at 02:02  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Ok,folks, as interesting as this is getting...and believe me, you're all top-notch thinkers here and had you been at those boring inter-religious gatherings I mentioned, things would have been quite lively, but my eyes are about to fall off, dinner's done (I can cook and write) and wife and kiddies are back expecting attention. For the sake of shalom bayit/peace in the home, even theology must at times take a rest. Good night and play nice!

25 July 2011 at 02:23  
Anonymous Solo said...

I'm late to this thread, so please excuse me if someone has already addressed Avi Barzel's concerns about the accusation that Jews were responsible for Jesus's execution.

The first accusation was made by Jesus's disciple, Peter. On the day of Pentecost he spoke to a crowd in Jerusalem, calling them Israelites, and reminded them that it was at their insistence that Pilate crucified Jesus. Peter was a Jew, speaking to Jews.

Peter's speech, in Acts 2:22, 23, has been used to accuse Jews of being Christ killers, fueling anti-Semitism for centuries. Peter was speaking to his contemporaries, fellow Jews, and was not condemning all Jews everywhere and for all time.

Without the crucifixion, death and resurrection, there would have been no Christianity. Ancient Jews and Pilate acted in accordance with God's will. Pilate killed Jesus. Some Jews were in favor of that. Any Romans and complicit Jews who weren't in Jerusalem at that time are not responsible for the death of Jesus.

25 July 2011 at 03:36  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The Judiciary found Christ guilty, as I have explained before the archaic word (Yewes) means Jews.

Hence since archaic words where present terminology at the time of writting the bible, the Jews, Judiciary are the (Yewes) responsible for finding Christ guilty.

Yewes: Indo Europen root legal term.

Thus the Court Jews are to blame.


25 July 2011 at 06:09  
Anonymous tony b said...

A puzzling discussion. If Christs death was a necessary part of God's plan for mans salvation, this entire discussion seems to miss the point entirely, doesn't it?

25 July 2011 at 06:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"A puzzling discussion. If Christs death was a necessary part of God's plan for mans salvation, this entire discussion seems to miss the point entirely, doesn't it?"

It's an odd thing and the god's relationship to time always comes up when I ask. I always wonder what the big deal is supposed to be: on the one hand it was simply suicide, and knowing with absolute certainty that's it an ordeal to get through before going home, and on the other it was hardly much of a sacrifice given the already known outcome. Even the pain and suffering captured in the Passion is hardly unique in mankind, and other species have to suffer that sort of stuff by design. This whole topic always pops in my head when I listen to One Of The Three by James.

25 July 2011 at 06:49  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

Fundamentalist extremist lunacy, especially if "religious" will bring forth more of the same on the "other side".

Which is one reason I'm an atheist .....
Brevik was/is as sane or as mad as the 7/7 bombers, and for the same reasons.

25 July 2011 at 07:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There is one political solution to preventing their disenfranchisement; and I believe you Hannan and Carswell should present the case:

Give the people the power to recall their MPs making MPs accountable to the people who elected them; setting up a virtuous cycle whereby MPs voice the concerns of people who elected them.

Boris Johnson’s analysis of all this is truly appalling: he is disenfranchising and silencing in the same way the political elite has done for decades.

This cannot continue.

25 July 2011 at 08:49  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Maybe we should forget the labels. Here was a man who sees his (and many other western societies) rapidly changing. One of the most visible manifestations of that change is immigration and in particular Islamic immigration because Islam is fundamentally opposed to western values it is therefore more visible and more threatening. Many here would probably subscribe to this view including a liberal atheist like myself. You don’t have to be a right-wing fundamentalist to feel that this change has happened without your consent and that it has never been debated in any national parliament nor received rational analysis in the media.

His response to this situation was driven by personal psychological factors that will no doubt come out during his trial. That someone can kill in cold blood is always shocking and with the killing of so many his motivation will be examined for years to come.

People who share the same values produce a cohesive society and whilst the colour of your skin may set you apart initially once integrated into the host society the immigrant’s difference will begin to diminish. This has been the case with a large proportion of West Indian immigrants in the UK. Of course during hard times with high unemployment and general insecurity the immigrant will become more visible again and may be blamed for taking our jobs or scrounging off the State.

The only solution to this problem is for a national debate to take place and for the view that immigration is destabilising and should be halted be aired without the cry of “racist” being allowed to shout it down. It is not racist to want a cohesive society or even to hark back to a time when a monocultural society was the norm. Multiculturalism is an experiment that has failed because it did not make the desire to integrate and the adoption our values (and language) a prerequisite for all immigrants.

25 July 2011 at 09:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.” And all the people answered and said, “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24–25)

Those responsible for the death of Jesus Christ comprised:(1) Judas Iscariot,(2) the Jewish leaders,(3) the Romans, and (4) the Jewish mob of Jerusalem.

Though the mobs role in Matthew 27 seems passive and subordinated under the control and influence of the chief priests and elders, their guilt in the death of Christ cannot be overlooked. They had the opportunity afforded them by Pilate to have Jesus released, but they chose instead a criminal named Barabbas.

From the context of Matthew 26–27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.

25 July 2011 at 09:31  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Personally (and I recommend this to all) my practice is never to use the "f" word at all, it's far too slippery, inexact, ideologically dubious, and used to demonise all sorts of people BY all sorts of people.

25 July 2011 at 10:24  
Anonymous tony b said...

Anonymous. What happens to God's plan of salvation through the sacrifice of his son, if Christ is released?

25 July 2011 at 11:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now there's the theological mystery of predetermination or is it foreknowledge?

God knowing the outcome does not release individuals or nations from their free will and the culpability that follows.

Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate and the Jewish crowd all bear responsibility despite God "willing", i.e. knowing the outcome.

The other theological issue is the extent to which a nation is accountable for the actions of its leaders.

We all share Adam's sin and its consequences. Do the Jewish nation carry responsibility for the death of Christ?

I ask this is not to justify the inhumane and unchristian treatment of Jews down the centuries. This was clearly not acceptable.

25 July 2011 at 11:49  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate and the Jewish crowd all bear responsibility despite God "willing", i.e. knowing the outcome.

God did not simply know the outcome. God does not passively acquire knowledge. As it is written:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. Acts 4:27-28

That is not the language of passivity. There was no chance that Pilate would have released the Lord Jesus. For this hour He had come that the Father's name be glorified. How then could it depend upon the transient desires of men?

People make a fundamental mistake about free will. They believe a decision is only free if there exists a finite possibility of at least two outcomes. And yet we know that the Lord Jesus - fully man He, and exactly the same as his brothers that He may be a fit High Priest - could not have sinned. He freely chose to obey the Father, and yet there was no possibility that He would have chosen otherwise.

God does not sit in heaven with His fingers crossed hoping that things will work out like He wants. He has planned the end from the beginning, and He watches carefully to see that His word is fulfilled.


25 July 2011 at 12:26  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Who was responsible for Jesus' death? We all are! He himself makes this abundantly clear in the gospels.
He comes to set mankind free from receiving the just sentence that we deserve by His self sacrifice on the cross as a substitute for us.
Whichever way you cut it, that is the gospel. Accept it or reject it. We can turn from our sins or accept our day in God's court, that is freewill.
One signature on a covenant is invalidated. I'm dismayed that many peoples pride will lead to their condemnation.
Many have given their lives to proclaim Gods offer of redemption & many more undoubtedly will but let us not pass the buck any more about who caused the son of God to die.... We all did!.

25 July 2011 at 12:29  
Anonymous Tony B said...


God has more than simple foreknowledge of what is going to happen. It is his active plan. Free will is not an issue here.

25 July 2011 at 13:05  
Blogger Nico said...

His closing Twitter quote was from philosopher John Stuart Mill

Perhaps he is also a secular humanist fundamentalist

The whole thing is another example of sloppy journalism

25 July 2011 at 13:33  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len @ 12:55: I'm sorry, I missed your post earlier.

Those are YOUR ''fundamentals of Christianity'' - but not mine. I won't be specific to where I disagree, but I think you do Christ a disservice by confining him within narrow, and debatable, parameters.

Not so much the 'fundamentals of Christianity' but the tenets of 'fundamentalist' Christians... something altogether different.

Christ alone will decide who is, and who is not, a 'Christian'.

25 July 2011 at 14:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

carl jacobs and Tony B

Ummm ... are you Calvanists by any chance? Your views mean we have no free will. And if someone isn't acting freely how can they be condemned?

Free will surely plays a part in the unfolding of God's plan? If it didn't the sin of Adam and his his descendants wouldn't have required Jesus' death.

This is a difficult area. God knows His plan and humans act freely - go figure!

25 July 2011 at 16:15  
Anonymous tony b said...

I don't know what the theological answer is, perhaps I will read around the subject tonight. However it seems hard to reconcile God's necessary plan for man's salvation with free will, for that would mean that God's plan was contingent.

25 July 2011 at 16:35  
Anonymous chris r said...

Of course, the Apostle Paul was a religious fundamentalist when he was busy murdering the followers of Christ.

But then he repented. And God forgave him. And his fundamentalism more accurately reflected the Truth found in Jesus.

I suspect if Anders repents, God will forgive him too. And wouldn't that offend some!

But if there is no repentance, he is no follower of Christ and hence, not a Christian.

25 July 2011 at 17:15  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


Yes, I am a Calvinist, and, No, Calvinism does not negate the concept of Free Will. It negates the concept of man's libertarian freedom. Only God possesses that kind of freedom. The freedom of the creature is bounded and constrained by the decrees of God.

Remember that the nature of the choice is determined by the willingness with which it is chosen, and not by the potential outcomes. Also remember that you cannot escape from your own trap by postulating God's passive acquisition of knowledge. If for example God passively knows that you will order French dressing with your salad tomorrow, then are you in fact free to choose some other salad dressing? The kind of freedom you are inferring would require that God not be able to know our choices before we actually made them. That way lies Open Theism and a contingent limited god.


25 July 2011 at 17:53  
Anonymous IanCad said...

To borrow a phrase from HG this has to be the most "Dense Theological Vebiage" that I ever read on this blog.
Do we or don't we have free will?
I will posit that we do, and that, absolute.
The doctrine of Calvinism largely negates Our Lord's Saving Grace and diminishes His sacrifice for us.

25 July 2011 at 19:11  
Blogger len said...

The road following Christ is a narrow one with many pitfalls, distractions, and obstacles, as described by John Bunyan.

I believe we need to clear a way through the dense 'undergrowth' of religion to find the true path.

25 July 2011 at 20:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

carl jacobs

Was Mary's acceptance of God's plan that she give birth to Jesus a 'free' act?

Was Christ's suffering in Gethsemane and His choice to do His Father's Will a 'free' act?

Judas' act of betrayal, a 'free' act?

25 July 2011 at 23:54  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


Do we or don't we have free will?
I will posit that we do, and that, absolute.

And yet the Scripture clearly indicates that we do not. The free will of man is contingent upon the Decretive Will of God. It is not possible for man to frustrate this Decretive Will. This is why I quoted:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. Acts 4:27-28

When Pilate condemned Christ, he was doing exactly what had been predestined to occur by the hand and purpose of God. Those are not passive verbs. God was not sitting passively in heaven hoping that Pilate would somehow facilitate this whole plan of redemption thing. Pilate did what had been decreed for him to do from the beginning. It could not have been otherwise. Pilate did not say "I don't want to do this but God is making me." We know this because the Lord Jesus himself told Pilate that the one who delivered him had the greater sin. Pilate chose freely to condemn a man he knew to be innocent, and in so doing fulfilled the will of God. That is the very definition of contingent will.


26 July 2011 at 00:08  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Dear Cranmer,

This Breivik does not deserve association with Christian fundamentalism at all.

Tenets of his manifest, like forced birth control don't fit the bill at all, nor does his association with the the Freemasons or his obvious disregard of lawful government structures.

You are right, this is just another way of blackmouthing upright citizens who don't support a neoliberal social engineering agenda.

Markedly,without asking the question why this guy became so warped (his schemes seem utterly ridiculous)and desperate.

Isn't it because traditional Anglosaxons, Norwegians etc are increasingly made felt unwelcome in their own country and Islam's foreign culture is already twice as big in Norway as all non-state church christians put together? Isn't it because those who adhere to traditional family values and appreciate their Anglo-Saxan background, are treated as second rate citizens in the UK with no chance of BBC employ or even opportunity to offer orphans socially stable homes?

John Knox.

26 July 2011 at 01:47  
Blogger len said...

Apparently all Norwegians are listed as Christian by the Government unless they decide to 'opt out'.
So one could be a Atheist but still be a 'Christian' by Government accounts unless they were notified .

27 July 2011 at 07:56  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ien - ah, I wondered how long it would take someone to reach the conclusion that he was an Atheist. Pathetic.

27 July 2011 at 08:44  
Blogger len said...

Tony B,
Could be....
Well he certainly wasn`t Christian, not a Muslim, or a Hindu, how many options are there left?

27 July 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger len said...

Tony B and others,
You are quite happy to describe Breivik as a 'christian'but if we Christians label him as a Atheist you get all 'hot under the collar'.
Well we Christians totally disown him so he must be one of yours.

The 'left'has a policy of denigrating Christians and the linking of Breivik with Christianity is all part of their ongoing policy.

28 July 2011 at 07:50  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Mr len seems to be on the better side of this debate, but how can anyone who does not know him decide whether Breivik "is" Christian or Atheist?

28 July 2011 at 10:19  
Anonymous tony b said...

Len. Maybe I'm a little confused in my old age but didn't he describe HIMSELF as a Christian? In that case who are you to say he is an atheist? If he believes in God, then he isn't an atheist by definition, and it's rather juvenile to suggest he is.

28 July 2011 at 12:28  
Anonymous tony b said...

MrJ - you mean Len is on the better side because of his conclusion, no matter how tortuously arrived at, or for some other reason?

28 July 2011 at 12:41  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "Apparently all Norwegians are listed as Christian by the Government unless they decide to 'opt out'."

He wrote that he was confirmed, aged 15, in the church of his own free will as I recall. Might be worth you reading his Mein Kam^h^h^h manifesto for the details.

28 July 2011 at 13:05  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Mr tony b (12:41) Fair question.

My secondary point was this of Mr len: atheists who "are quite happy to describe Breivik as a 'christian' " would if "Christians label him as a Atheist ...get all 'hot under the collar' ".

which led to my remark: "how can anyone who does not know him decide whether Breivik 'is' Christian or Atheist?"

28 July 2011 at 13:47  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Yes, and my question was, why is Len on the "better side" of the argument? At least the assertion that he is Christian has Breivik's own backing..the assertion that he is atheist has none. So - why is Len, who apparently has decided that since Breivik's deeds were evil, he must be an atheist, on the better side?

28 July 2011 at 14:05  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Mr Tony B (14:05)_

Simply, it would, in my view, be rash to take anything that a person has seen for himself on B.'s website (let alone seen reported or commented on) as reliable evidence unless corroborated.

This is so, whether B. turns out to be Christian (of any kind), atheist (ditto), agnostic(ditto)or of any other label or unclassifiable.

So far, there is little doubt (for those who were not present to witness with their own eyes) that he was the murdering gunman at Utoya, and almost equally certainly the bomber in Oslo.

Among the curious features of what has been happening is that the judicial hearing was not open to the public in what is said to be the normal way, but the judge and B.'s defending advocate have
gone out of their ways to comment publicly. Nothing has been reported to show that this was in the interest of justice, for example to avert a lynch mob.

28 July 2011 at 15:04  
Anonymous Tony B said...

With respect, you have still not justified your assertion that Len is on "the better side of the argument".. the assertion that B is Christian appears to have B's backing..there is no warrant in the assertion that he is atheist whatsoever.

28 July 2011 at 15:29  
Anonymous MrJ said...

" warrant in the assertion that [B.] is atheist..."

That point taken Mr Tony B(15:29), and no contest as far as I am concerned.

It simply was not the purport or intent of my comment to claim or defend otherwise.

Perhaps you have something of interest to say about my remarks in15:04?

28 July 2011 at 17:18  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Any particular part of your comment?

28 July 2011 at 17:25  
Anonymous MrJ said...

At your option Mr Tony B (17:25), but I may not be available to respond. Perhaps we should call this one a day, and may be engage in a future discussion.

28 July 2011 at 18:03  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Certainly, and thank you for your courtesy.

28 July 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger len said...

I suppose in the event of people describing themselves as 'Christian' the best method of assessing whether they actually are a Christian or not is to go to the words of Jesus Christ himself.

Jesus said, " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)

I will not pursue this further because if you cannot see how ridiculous a murderer calling himself a 'Christian ', a follower of Christ, is then I cannot help you further.

28 July 2011 at 22:13  
Anonymous tony b said...

So no Christian has ever murdered anyone eh Len?

28 July 2011 at 22:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

He's a cultural Christian, I expect. That's the difference between the self-identifying 71.9% of the UK population and an unknown fraction of the 5% who regularly attend church (which one could boost up a bit for cell church type people, and reduce for the lonely people attending to company or the hymms). Of course, Christians are 71.9% of the UK population again when Christians want to justify religious intrusion or having special privileges.

29 July 2011 at 06:49  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Yes DanJ0, I've made that point a few times myself.

Not for the first time I'm led to suspect that Len doesn't understand his own religion - (either that or I don't). His position seems to be that if you commit a heinous enough act, you cannot be considered a Christian. But where is the theological warrant for that, I ask? Among the basics of Christianity (as I understand it) are a. That all are sinners and b. Sins are forgiven. I can find little justification for Lens position that sinners should be "disowned" by the church. Where do you get that from, Len?

Although the Catholic church has a concept of mortal sins, even those who have committed them are not totally expelled from the church, there's always a way back. There are no limits to the mercy of God.

I'm not sure if the Anglican Church has a similar concept of "mortal sins" - can anyone help with that?

Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong?

29 July 2011 at 09:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although you make some interesting, if not obvious, points, I think you need to do some research in to what Christian fundamentalists actually preach and teach. Now I agree that these people are not at all 'Christian' in the sense that true believers understand it - but many have been and will continue to be deceived. That's the Spirit of the Age - widespread deception in the spiritual realm. But, the point is this, there are many 'fundamentalist', so-called Christian churches out there, all over the world, that preach false doctrines. And they go largely unchallenged by the mainstream Christian world. There are Christian 'hate' preachers all over the globe, and is their false teaching ever explicitly held up to the light by mainstream churches? I have sat in 'Christian' churches and listened to sermons about the poor being cursed by God and that if people were poor, it was a direct result of sin. Was this man told to shut up by a right-thinking Christian in the congregation? No.
I also know of groups of people claiming to be 'Christian' in the UK who brainwash people into believing that women are Jezebels unless under complete subjection to a man and that speaking in tongues is the only proof of salvation. Furthermore, one particular leader is facing multiple sex abuse allegations concerning members of his 'congregation'. This is a cult, in no sense mainstream, but which goes undetected and ignored by the majority of Christian and society in general who do not like to admit these things are at work in our society. Churches and people like yourself remain ignorant of their wicked works. And, until churches wake up and smell the coffee, I'm afraid that more people such as Breivik will surface and commit horrendous acts of violence because of the effects of indoctrination with false 'Christian' beliefs. The church is to blame for this.

29 July 2011 at 16:03  
Blogger len said...


You have grasped the point I was trying to make and explained it better than I did!.Thanks.

29 July 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger len said...

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught his disciples that there would be false teachers among them; he used an example from the natural world to show them how to identify these counterfeit believers.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (Matthew 7: 16-17)
Jesus was telling them that it is not so much what a man claims to be, or what he says that matters, it is what he actually does. Doing the will of God is like bearing good fruit and living in sin is to bear evil fruit.

29 July 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Great Commandment given by the Lord Jesus is to "Love the Lord your God with all of your mind,with all of your heart,will all of your soul and all of your strength" and to "love your neighbour as yourself".
The Great Commission is to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
This is what Christians are commanded to do by the Lord and should be their desire to obey.
It goes without saying that killing people does not fit in anywhere into this.
Instead of being imperial for the Kingdom of God those who idolize their nation,their race,culture or heritage are imperial for an Earthly Kingdom.
It's irrespective whether he thinks he is a Christian or not.
Just because you label yourself as one,are involved in church activities,or even believe doctrine matters does not make you one.

29 July 2011 at 21:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older