Bomb explosion and shooting in Norway

jillio said:
No, ignorance is not having sufficient knowledge about a topic you attempt to discuss.
Click to expand...

There you go again trying to dictate rules. Ignorance is making a false statement (thinking it is true) without any evidence to back it up.

I could write a very lenghty article about Hitler's "spiritual" beliefs, but what it really boils down to is this - it does not matter what Hitler's religious beliefs were - he was nuts.

It does not matter if he was Catholic (and he was) and it does not matter if he was an atheist (which he was). If he was not an atheist, why did he make plans with Joseph Goebbels to rid Europe of religion?

I personally think it is important to take prior situations into consideration when trying to understand the motivation behind the Norway attack. Simply labelling the guy as a fundamentalist christian is not enough to convince me the guy is "crazy" (which is exactly what the police are trying to do by giving him such a label).
 
Steinhauer said:
There you go again trying to dictate rules. Ignorance is making a false statement (thinking it is true) without any evidence to back it up.

I could write a very lenghty article about Hitler's "spiritual" beliefs, but what it really boils down to is this - it does not matter what Hitler's religious beliefs were - he was nuts.

It does not matter if he was Catholic (and he was) and it does not matter if he was an atheist (which he was). If he was not an atheist, why did he make plans with Joseph Goebbels to rid Europe of religion?

I personally think it is important to take prior situations into consideration when trying to understand the motivation behind the Norway attack. Simply labelling the guy as a fundamentalist christian is not enough to convince me the guy is "crazy" (which is exactly what the police are trying to do by giving him such a label).
Click to expand...

Consult a dictionary. Ignorance, by definition, is lack of knowledge.

This thread is not about Hitler. Hitler has virtually nothing to do with the attack in Norway.

Now you are projecting. The police have not commented on his mental status. They are not qualified to do so. I'm sure his mental status will be made public after someone who is qualified does a forensic assessment. The police are qualified, however, to release information regarding his religious affiliation. That requires no special skills or education.

There are plenty of fundamental Christians who have committed murder in the name of their religion that would not meet the criteria for insanity.
 
jillio said:
Consult a dictionary. Ignorance, by definition, is lack of knowledge.

This thread is not about Hitler. Hitler has virtually nothing to do with the attack in Norway.
Click to expand...

I *did* think he was long dead.
 
jillio said:
Check your history. Religion is responsible for untold numbers of murders.
Click to expand...

Big time. The majority of Christian and Muslims fundamentalist won't do stuff like this but it has been religious fundamentalists of all stripes who make up the bulk of the murders of this type. You could say they're over represented.
 
jillio said:
Consult a dictionary. Ignorance, by definition, is lack of knowledge.

This thread is not about Hitler. Hitler has virtually nothing to do with the attack in Norway.
Click to expand...

Lack of knowledge would cause someone to make an ignorant statement. Sorry, but you are really arguing with yourself on that one.

Would you agree that it is important to find out what motivated Anders Behring Breivik to lash out in such a violent attack? A seemingly calm person who stood up to bullies? No trouble with the law?

Would you agree that labelling him as a "fundamental christian" is an attempt to paint him out as a whacko? Is it necessary to attack every single fundamental christian by depicting Anders Behring Breivik as the poster boy of all fundamental christians? Or even label him as a conservative?

Those are obvious slanted opinions. (Hitler has been erroneously labelled a fundamental christian when he was, in fact, an atheist).
 
deafskeptic said:
Big time. The majority of Christian and Muslims fundamentalist won't do stuff like this but it has been religious fundamentalists of all stripes who make up the bulk of the murders of this type. You could say they're over represented.
Click to expand...

All the way back to Biblical times. I even offered to let Steinhauer start with relatively recent history...Manifest Destiny.
 
jillio said:
Yes. I doubt seriously that he was a co-conspirator in this attack.
Click to expand...

I dunno if he even was an influecing factor but I don't know for certain as I have not been following this case very closely.
 
deafskeptic said:
I dunno if he even was an influecing factor but I don't know for certain as I have not been following this case very closely.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can influence Stein to start (or not!) a new thread about Hitler and Dahmer and leave this Norway one. One can only wish.
 
Steinhauer said:
Lack of knowledge would cause someone to make an ignorant statement. Sorry, but you are really arguing with yourself on that one.

Would you agree that it is important to find out what motivated Anders Behring Breivik to lash out in such a violent attack? A seemingly calm person who stood up to bullies? No trouble with the law?

Would you agree that labelling him as a "fundamental christian" is an attempt to paint him out as a whacko? Is it necessary to attack every single fundamental christian by depicting Anders Behring Breivik as the poster boy of all fundamental christians? Or even label him as a conservative?

Those are obvious slanted opinions.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't agree with that at all. Religious affiliation and mental status are two entirely separate topics.

Yes, we need to know what motivated him. And since it was mentioned, chances are good that his religious affiliation had something to do with his motivation.

And, it is known that certain mental disorders cause someone to be drawn to dichotomous doctrines such as fundamentalism.
 
He chose to be baptized into the Protestant Church at the age of 15, but over recent years has grown weary of the state of the modern Church. In one blog posted in 2009 he wrote: “Today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic.”
Click to expand...

so much for the theory he was a "fundamentalist"


Norway Bombing, Shootings: Who Is Anders Behring Breivik?, Christian News


My theory stands .... he was nuts.
 
AlleyCat said:
Perhaps you can influence Stein to start (or not!) a new thread about Hitler and Dahmer and leave this Norway one. One can only wish.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. Hey Stein, I think Alleycat has a an excellent idea.. Perhaps it's time to start a thread on Hitler and Dahmer?
 
Wirelessly posted (droid)

That's why I don't trust religion.
 
deafskeptic said:
Sounds like he thought mainstream church was too liberal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is what fundamentalism is all about.

Chances are this thread will be locked anyway, since Steinhauer felt the need to bring up the perpetrator's religious affiliation despite knowing that religious discussions are forbidden.
 
jillio said:
Nope, I don't agree with that at all. Religious affiliation and mental status are two entirely separate topics.

Yes, we need to know what motivated him. And since it was mentioned, chances are good that his religious affiliation had something to do with his motivation.

And, it is known that certain mental disorders cause someone to be drawn to dichotomous doctrines such as fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have a problem with your assertion that fundamentalism is somehow associated with mental disorders (and in this case, a violent one).

There is a "fundamental" difference between a fundamentalist, and an extremist (pardon the pun). A fundamentalist believes scripture to be factual. An extremist will intentionally misinterpret scripture to fit their own violent ideology.

Many people already view the overly religious as "nuts". This is also true with overly religious viewing the secular as "nuts".

The whole "nuts" definition gets obscured when you label anyone as a fundamentalist, as opposed to an extremist.

Anders Behring Breivik would have been nuts if he had been an atheist. What I mean by that, is that he would have been a berserker regardless of his spiritual faith, or lack thereof. I am not sure how to articulate that any clearer.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Which is what fundamentalism is all about.

Chances are this thread will be locked anyway, since Steinhauer felt the need to bring up the perpetrator's religious affiliation despite knowing that religious discussions are forbidden.
Click to expand...

A fundamentalist protestant would never want the church to revert back to Catholocism .... keep in mind, Catholics are the liberals, protestants are the "scary right wingers".

I am more and more inclined to believe that he was labelled a fundamentalist purely for political reasons.
 
Back
Top