|
the judgment. But I say: Whosoever is angry with his brother without cause risks the judgment, and whoever speaks contemptuously to his brother risks the council, and whoever calls another a fool, risks hellfire ... Matthew 5
Of course, nothing is more common, than the fact that people, who call themselves Christians, fail to live by the clear teachings of the religion: this is true, even of people who actually want to live up to the teachings and try to do so. If the standard, for being a Christian, were that one actually followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, there would be no Christians at all: everyone finds that standard impossible. On the other hand, it seems important that one should try to live by the teachings and be aware of one's failure to meet the mark
It could be possible that a Christian might actually kill many people, though I would consider that behavior inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth
But it is an entirely different question whether Breivik is a "Christian" in any ordinary sense of the word. The excerpts, that I have seen from his manifesto, suggest he is a very confused man. He wants to support a "cultural" rather than a "religious" view of Christianity; to him, "Christianity" seems simply a marker for certain European traditions; he reinforces this by referencing the neo-Nazi "Christian identity" gang and again by his crypto-Nazi references to "Odinism." It requires a certain dementia to produce 1500 pages of such schlock as a prelude to gunning down dozens of kids
I have no idea what Breivik was thinking, and I doubt if I could understand it if I tried. I don't expect O'Reilly to shed much more light here than he has shed elsewhere, so I don't know why anyone here would listen to anything he says. And, of course, the "No True Scotsman" line has become somewhat stale and hackneyed
|